Really you don't need to read more than one chart:
If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you're voting for Trump:
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
215 points (87.2% liked)
politics
19170 readers
5400 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The entire reason they have a vote base at all is not dissimilar to Trump: civic illiteracy. Unfortunately she appeals greatly to these newcomers to politics or those who care not about watching the other side literally take a sledgehammer to the country but rather point to the other side for not fixing the damage quickly enough. There was a brief moment in time when I was a new voter and at a very shallow level liked the Green Party platform and Stein...
... But it didn't take long for me to realize that was utterly self-defeatist. And if Stein actually cared about the issues she pretends to care about, then she would simply run for Congress as AOC or Sanders have done and influence change in the Democratic party. Changing the party from the inside is far easier than going against the mathematically-impossible 3rd-party vote that ultimately results in a proven Spoiler Vote. So you're right... Some naive folks do support Stein; and those naive folks absolutely have more in common with the Democratic coalition than the Republican ones. So why would they ever want to support Republicans via Spoiler vote?
Anyways, we should all be advocating for Campaign Finance & Election Reform so we can truly vote for who we most ideally want without risk to supporting the person or party furthest from our views.
You're not going to get that with an incumbent party. How do you abolish FPTP inside an organization that won't give DC it's statehood?
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-democrats-demand-statehood-for-dc-defend-district-s-right-to-home-rule
An Incumbent party already supports DC statehood and it would benefit their party greatly no less. It is completely possible to transform a party (e.g., how Democrats used to be what Republicans are now) and also push another party out (e.g., the Whigs) from within. We do that one Representative at a time, such as how Bernie Sanders and AOC have transformed the Democrat party.
I've written extensively elsewhere on the topic of abolishing & replacing FPTP and more, and ultimately, I believe it's going to require a groundswell bipartisan effort state-by-state on a scale as big as the civil rights movement to pressure for a new Constitutional Amendment, along with an accompanying state-level Constitutional amendment in each state. To me it's the only way to truly fix all the core problems while also making it immune to the corrupt Supreme Court.
They failed to pass a statehood bill in 2009 and again in 2017. That would suggest the party does not, in fact, support the change.
In both cases the outcome was overwhelmingly a result of Republican obstructionism with the vast majority who voted to support DC Statehood being Democrat. There is no reason Democrats wouldn't want another state that would be the bluest in the country to statehood lol. Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority for like, two months, and if you recall that kind of had other things going on at the time in 2009—including but not limited to health care reform and recession recovery.
In 2017... You know who was President and who controlled the Senate, right...?
Democrats claiming they need 60 votes to do anything are as big a pack of liars as Republicans claiming Unitary Executive is a thing.
These are institutions that are hostile to a majority black state.
They did and they do. Especially for partisan policies.
Show me the Republican Senators in 2017 willing to support DC statehood that would get it across the finish line.
Major Citation need for an extraordinary claim. Where is your proof Democrats of today whose presidential nominee is black is trying to stop this? Lmao?
How is DC statehood bad for Dems? Lol.