584
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 145 points 6 days ago

I have to admit that at first I was concerned that switching candidates so close to the election would hurt the party. Im glad I was wrong.

[-] MJKee9@lemmy.world 23 points 5 days ago

This is the first time the Democratic strategy hasn't disappointed me in years. Nealy everyone is pushing in the same direction, and the messaging has been nearly flawless.

[-] distantsounds@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

Everyone is pushing in the same direction because everything is continuing to slide to the right. People want policy from the left, not this neolib right-of-center crap

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago

Completely agreed. Since the 90’s, the primary lesson democrats have learned is to never cross Wall Street. This is evident in their policy to not implement serious reforms during their terms and then wringing their hands when republicans pull the rug even harder a few years later.

It may give them money they need now, but they’ll find themselves beholden to the same masters as Republicans if they don’t shift back to real liberal ideals soon.

I am very relieved that it looks like Donald won’t win, but I’m also not excited about a Kamala Harris presidency either.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 34 points 6 days ago

The old rope-a-dope strategy. Put out an old feeble conservative democrat to lull the opponent into a false sense of security. Let the conservative opposition nominate a dog-eating couch-fucker as VP. Then yank the geriatric coot off stage and replace him with someone 30 years younger and normal looking who can string a full sentence together without drooling.

Rock bottom expectations are fully exceeded. Right-wing oppo strategists are sent scrambling for a new messaging game. The median American voter fully forgets these two people were part of the same administration and excitedly claps at the jangling keys.

Not since Reagan cut a deal with the Ayatollah of Iran has any presidential candidate so effortlessly hoodwinked their rivals. Truly a master class in winning elections. We hope.

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

Wait when did couchboy become a dog eater, are we just reversing their comments as projection?

Always because yes

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

I was wrong. I'm happy to say that.

[-] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago

I thought the idea might have been planted to subvert the democrats and push voters from the polls.

Hopefully the energy behind the Harris campaign lead to her presidency and a more blue government.

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 4 days ago

I think the opposition was trying for that strategy, but didn’t think the Dems would actually do it.

I’m happy it’s working out for Democrats so far, and hope it continues.

[-] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 days ago

Same. When it was announced I was literally like, "fuuuuuck". But I've since change my tune and legit have a modicum of hope again.

[-] FearfulSalad@ttrpg.network 11 points 6 days ago

I'd like to think there is a strategist in her camp who urged Biden to stay in for as long as he did, and only swap out after the first debate, closer to the 3 month runway mark. And that strategist is just waiting until after the election to gloat publicly about the scheme.

Now that's a conspiracy theory I can get behind.

[-] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago

I've had a similar thought about it. The timing of him dropping out was near perfect in hindsight, right after the Republicans locked Trump and Vance in and taking all of the wind out of their sails right when they were eyeing the finish line. If someone planned that far in advance they'll definitely deserve to gloat!

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

This is me exactly. It makes me so happy that the Dems are doing a good job.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 82 points 6 days ago

Oh she did that for me practically on day one of announcing her candidacy.
She is obviously intelligent and has very good political ideas.

But something hit me recently, with George Bush it was said he was the kind of person people would like to have a beer with. Which was allegedly a big reason he won.
But I certainly see that with Kamala Harris much more. Kamala Harris seems like such a genuinely nice person, who can also have a bit of fun.
So Kamala if you find yourself in the neighborhood, feel free to pop in, my treat. 😀 🍺

[-] CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world 73 points 6 days ago

I know that’s a really silly metric to judge them by, but I think Walz is that x1000.

[-] bitchkat@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago

Walz is the first vp candidate that I think actually brings significant number of voters to the table. Perhaps I'm biased because he's been an amazing governor.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

Yes that's what my wife (and many others) say, I just haven't seen any interviews with him yet, I've just seen pictures of him on stage with Harris, and a video of him buying donuts.
Everything I read about him is good though, so I believe you. I'll take the chance and say he can come along too. 😋

[-] odelik@lemmy.today 22 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Watching Tim Walz get the news in the middle of a live post debate interview that Taylor Swift was endorsing Kamala & him was amazing.

His reaction is so genuine and joyfull. You can tell he's on the verge of happy tears.

Since I know Tim Walz doesn't drink, I'll just invite him over for a friend's & family cookout instead and feed him too much carne asada.

Link to mentioned video of him getting the news: https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/taylor-swift-endorses-kamala-harris-see-tim-walz-react-live-219048005739

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

I heard he was a great pick, and I've read about several of his policies, and he seems solid on the policies IMO.
But now I've seen 3 videos with him, and I can see why he is so popular.

I don’t if the story is true but I heard in the finale day before she made her decision she interviewed both Josh Shapiro and Tim, and when she did Josh want to know what the divisions of responsibilities were going to be and what he would be able to take charge of. And Tim walked in and opened with “So what do you want me to do?” and I think that says everything I need to know about him.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

He also specifically told Kamala not to pick him if it wouldn't help her win. He was willing to forgo being VP if it was better for the country.

[-] bitchkat@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

He got the Democrats in MN to come together and pass so much progressive laws with a 1 seat majority is amazing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I just haven't seen any interviews with him yet

Let me help change that, with one of his 'hot takes'

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] CrayonMaster@midwest.social 4 points 4 days ago

I mean it is, but also Walz is easily the most positively I've ever felt about a politician

[-] CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Absolutely agree

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 16 points 6 days ago

otoh I like John Cleese's line. He said he wanted a candidate so brilliant that he, Cleese, would be afraid to sit at the same table, lest he be proven a complete dunce.

[-] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

Unfortunately Cleese was pro-Brexit and is now attacking "woke-ism".

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 12 points 6 days ago

So what?

I like Ed Koch's take on different opinions. He said that if you liked him 51% of the time you should vote for hi. If you agreed with him 100% of the time you should see a psychiatrist.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago

She crushed the debate. She learned from the mistakes that Hillary made IMO and handled him like the child he is. The fact that she managed to hook him with the rallies was fantastic.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 55 points 6 days ago

Can you imagine how incredibly different things would be right now had Biden stayed in the race?

[-] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago

I like to think that Biden not being sick would help him, and he'd mop the floor with Trump if they had a 2nd debate. I think Trump would just say I already debated him, I'm not doing it again because he "won" that one.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

We would be listening to a brand new raft of excuses for his second debate performance. Instead of watching Republicans make up conspiracies about bluetooth earrings.

[-] BmeBenji@lemm.ee 20 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

“Harris’ popularity is astounding and could very well beat out Biden’s support in 2020… Now, to the polls. Both candidates are NECK AND NECK it’s gonna be a DEAD HEAT until November Trump could very possibly WIN OVER ALL THE SWING STATES.”

[-] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 18 points 5 days ago

That's unfortunately not really a contradiction though, given the electoral college


I think Harris will obliterate Trump in the popular, but that's sadly not what matters.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

If The Superbowl had a roughly 1/5 chance of the winner being declared the loser because of a technicality, we would burn this shit to the ground. Yet, here we are with roughly 1/5 of all presidential elections being overturned by the EC.

[-] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 3 points 4 days ago

Right. But I think it's a mischaracterization to represent the EC as a "technicality," as it's very central to the way voting in the USA works. Don't get me wrong, I think it's stupid and should be abolished, but it's very much ingrained in the voting system.

I think I'd counter your example


keeping the sports theme


by saying it's like the World Series: it doesn't matter if there are three absolute blowouts, all the matters is who wins four games. So you could easily win the World Series, but have fewer total runs across seven games (game = EC votes, runs = popular).

(Again, I think the EC should absolutely be abolished.)

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago

Tournament brackets don't actually decide the most capable team, with NFL the teams that make it to the Superbowl being largely based on chance. A lot of the language around strategy is just being overly verbose about the literal mechanics of the game. Coaches mostly just try to keep their team "playing the game" (literally and figuratively) to give them the best chances of making it.

It's basically a big lottery machine powered by athletes, funded by ultra-rich team owners, and decided through arbitrary rules and procedures, and everyone wants to know who the winner will be because it's entertaining to watch.

But nobody burns anything to the ground, we just accept the rules, even though they aren't really fair.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Didn't know any of that. Thanks. I don't watch sportsball. I wonder if Baseball or Hockey would work better as a metaphor.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 30 points 6 days ago

She's certainly exceeded my expectations, and Trump has not met mine, either.

I thought the GOP would have made more out of the lack of primary voting, and been prepared for Harris. The way they were pushing Biden out of the race, I thought for sure they had a strategy to capitalize on the chaos of switching candidates this late in the seasons.

But Harris herded the kittens in the DNC, and came out swinging. Trump, meanwhile, was clearly unprepared for any of it. I'm very happy to have been completely wrong about it.

[-] ech@lemm.ee 20 points 6 days ago

Literal "dog caught the car" moment.

[-] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 17 points 6 days ago

I remember that tons of people were super apprehensive to change the candidate with such little time left. I'm glad Biden's campaign didn't listen to that, because Kamala is way better in every way.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

I was one of those. And never knew much about Harris before so I was doubly apprehensive. But she really is a solid choice and what the world needs right now, namely someone who can beat Trump. And maybe, just maybe she might be a tiny slither more progressive than Uncle Joe too, but now I'm probably dreaming. I'll settle for not getting the fascist again, though.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

What an amazing choice that was. Just imagine an alternate universe where Biden was still running. 😳

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

No need to imagine. It was barely a bit more than a month ago.

And to be clear, those who are trying to beat people into submission in the issue of genocide were the same who tried to beat people into submission on the issue of Biden s ability to win. They where wrong them. They're wrong now.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 6 days ago

The people who were shitting blood over how anyone who wants Biden to step down is a Russian agent will unfortunately learn absolutely nothing from these events.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
584 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18870 readers
2695 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS