politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm sorry, what issues are those? Abortion? Livable wages? Climate change? Corporate greed? Social safety nets? Or is the assumption still "R= good economy"
I came here to post exactly this. This line caused me to stop taking the entire article seriously.
The only thing working in Donald Trump's favor was that he was able to convince independent voters that Biden is too old to run again, and even that was only having limited success until that disastrous debate performance where Biden seemingly confirmed everything Trump was saying about his mental capacity. That's it. That's the only thing that had been going in his favor, and even then it was only significantly in his favor for a couple of weeks until Biden finally dropped out.
Once Biden dropped out, taking the issues about his age with him, Trump was exposed. Voters who were now able to see beyond Biden's age saw that Trump has nothing to offer them. Virtually everybody predicted what we're seeing, even if they didn't think it would happen this quickly.
The pollster is kind of right - on paper the economy should be an issue in Trumps favour. We've just come out of a period of high inflation and people are feeling the cost of living. Immigration is also supposedly an issue that should be favouring Trump.
That's not to say that Trump has the answers - he does not - but in a conventional election cycle he would be in the stronger position as the "outsider" attacking the incumbents.
Yet instead the entire news cycle is dominated by Harris and Walz at the moment. Republicans are desperate for Trump to get back "on message" but instead he's flailing around as his ego can't take the Dems attack lines, biden dropping out and Harris apparent popularity.
So although the pollster is obviously biased as a Republican, I think he's right in the sense this not playing out like a conventional election.
Also, I have to say as an outside observer from the UK, the excitement around Harris reminds me of Obama's first election. Obama came from no where in the primaries and huge momentum built behind him as the hope candidate. Harris has emerged much later in the election cycle, and oddly she feels like the exciting unknown candidate even though she is Vice President. Yet it does feel like the momentum is with her and she drawing in people who have been otherwise alienated by the republican / democrat arguments over the last 4 years.
I have no idea if it'll carry on to election day. But I must say on a personal note, the more I see of Harris, the more I warm to her. I suspect a lot of voters will feel the same. Her humour, and warmth are in stark contrast to Trumps meanness and petty nastiness. I'm beginning to think Trump is not capable of beating Harris.
Every day I'm waiting to wake up and read about the fever finally breaking and the collective illusion shattering about this. But she also genuinely acts differently (better!) now than compared to only a few years ago, almost like she's been spending the time as VP away from the spotlight secretly taking public speaking classes or something.
I really hope this momentum carries.
I think it's her now being in this role, it has changed her, and she has risen to the occasion. I don't think we could have seen this from her ever before because she wasn't in this situation. But now she's here and she's ready