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
Harris is Hillary Clinton, circa 2008. The boring, default candidate the Democrats will put forward if nobody else steps up.
Hopefully, we find an Obama candidate at the convention, because Harris will bore the nation into a Trump victory.
Senator Mark Kelly
Or Whitmer but I’m concerned about nominating a woman at this point. Country sure seems to want a white man. Kelly is the one I’d pick to win, though Whitmer would be my second choice.
I can’t discount Lichtman’s keys to victory because of that absurd rate of being correct. Right now, if the dems lose the incumbency key, the system predicts a loss. They’d need to pick up a widely charismatic candidate instead, and I think Kelly is about the only guy who could manage broad appeal. Demographically he’s near perfect
Can we please stop with the concern about nominating a woman to cater to sexists who are already largely under the Trump banner? This incessant comment gives me MLK Birmingham letter vibes where the biggest obstructionists are those claiming to protect blacks but still too scared to stand up for what they believe in.
I don't know how old you are but people said the same shit about getting a black man in the office, too.
I think a woman or even double woman ticket would be perfect considering the context of Roe reversal, and the fact that Democrats do not win without the women's vote. And considering there are millions more women than men, it's a bad gamble.
Despite being kind of unlikable, Hillary still won 3 million more votes than Trump. Right now Michelle Obama put-polls everyone and is 10 points ahead of Trump. So enough with this please.
Nah, it’s a valid concern. Securing more votes than Trump didn’t secure her victory because they didn’t come from the states that matter, and lowkey sexism is a genuine concern there.
I will say that Michelle Obama would be a good candidate too, since she’d check off “broadly charismatic” and is probably more than enough to overcome the loss of incumbency. I don’t think the number of people who wouldn’t vote for a woman is huge, so a popular woman candidate is obviously better than an unpopular man. Hence why I mentioned Whitmer to begin with. I think she’s popular enough to overcome sexism, but I also believe it’s a factor. Contrast that with Harris who is not popular and will still suffer that small percentage who simply won’t vote for a woman.
Yup, and they aren’t more focused on whether the candidate is a woman over the rest of the nonsense in the country. Male voters are more likely to be boneheaded and feel they want need to vote for a woman. Male voters don’t have their rights at stake and thus have less incentive to vote. The amount of women voters who won’t vote despite the significant threats to their rights but will vote because a woman is the candidate is not high. I’d be truly shocked if anyone disagreed with that. Comparatively, the amount of relatively disinterested-in-politics men that might be dissuaded by a woman candidate feels a lot higher.
And that’s the thing right— it feels that way to me. I can’t prove it. You could feasibly convince me that isn’t true, but I’d need evidence. I would genuinely, truly, painfully love to believe it, but I simply don’t have that much faith in the swing state voters. The moral choice is excessively clear and yet here we are. I posit that Michelle Obama is a popular person in general, and I don’t think it’s because she’s a woman.
Until that evidence arrives, it’s less about the quality of the candidate and more about democracy surviving. I would love President Whitmer. I would love President Michelle Obama. But 2016 came down to a relatively tiny amount of swing state voters, so every single vote counts. Sadly, I’d rather account for the casual sexists than let the vilest ones win.
(Please do provide evidence that sexism does not influence swing state voters though. I was serious when I said I’m open to the idea, and would prefer if it was true)
Edit: an extra thought:
If we could replace largely with every, I obviously wouldn’t be worried about this. I’m not looking for the hardcore racists. Just the casual ones who don’t outright hate women and could be convinced to fight for democracy. I loathe to say it, but when things are this bad, it’s worth considering them.
I appreciate the well-reasoned response, thanks. We are both clearly on the same team and fighting the same fight. Such discussion are important and what separates us from the maga cult. In that respect, apologies for coming in hot on that last comment.
Ultimately I think you're right in the sense that we both need evidence that neither of us have, and I'm not entirely sure whose burden that honestly falls upon.
I'll have to weigh the notion that women will turn out for whoever is on the ballot given the stakes. Unfortunately I think we'd be surprised how many women fall in line with their husband, especially in conservative christian patriarchal households. I kind of wonder how many of those women might buck the norm simply because it would be a historical novelty to vote for a woman, even if they themselves are milquetoast conservative. Again, I have no idea. I wish I was a pollster.
This is pure anecdote so take with a massive grain of salt, but my uncle who lives in a battleground state and has the voting record of Obama->Trump->Biden->Undecided/leaning-not-voting has said to my dad that he likes Harris better than Biden. We were both honestly shocked by that. I don't know if that would pan out in the long-run but it's interesting. Ultimately more than anything I believe a younger candidate will be more impactful to turning out undecided low-info voters than anything based on the focus groups and polls I've seen thus far.
I think in the way the GOP doubled-down on appealing to the middle-aged white man with the JD Vance pick, the Democrats could make this about women's rights front-and-center. I say be bold; I say go for a 2-female ticket. Make it about women's rights. Make it about grab em by the pussy. Make Roe's reversal front-and-center. Project firm imagery of Lady Justice and Lady Liberty righting the wrongs in this nation. That's just me, though.
No worries at all, there is a distinct frustration in having to worry about the sexists. I myself rather loathe to consider them. In a more rational society, we wouldn’t need to win or lose by a razor thin margin in a handful of states. I feel that sense of “why are we giving them anything?” too.
I fear we may have already had that in 2016. Per CAWP, a slightly smaller percent of women turned out in 2016, and a significantly greater amount turned out in 2020. I’m not sure how accurate that source is, but if it’s correct, women voters responded more to the threat of more Trump than the novelty of Clinton.
Agreed. Youth and charisma, I think, would win handily. From the 2020 primary and her polling, I don’t think Harris is enough. How badly I wish Whitmer was VP now.
Without women’s rights, the campaign fails altogether, regardless of whoever is on the ticket. It must be focused on. I think steadfast focus on three points— women’s rights, Project 2025, and economic improvement— covers every rational American who can still be convinced. The other things are important too, but keeping those in the minds of voters should do the trick I feel.
Thanks for the rational and respectful commentary. I look forward to a future where we don’t need to think about racists, sexists, or other bigots.
If anyone can peel a few red state voters off of Trump, it would be Mark and/or Scott Kelly.