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.
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
view the rest of the comments
Imagine what a cakewalk it would be if the Democrats could scrape up a viable candidate under 65
democrats don't want to win all the time, then they'd have to do stuff and keep improving
He polled terribly in his 2016 run. His popularity improved during Trump's presidency, especially during the impeachment hearings, but the Republicans will hammer him on his relationship with the alleged Chinese spy Christine Fang
I'm just saying it wouldn't be a cakewalk with Swalwell. Honestly I don't think it's possible for any candidate to have a sweeping victory like Reagan vs Mondale anymore. The voters loyal to Trump at this point are just frothing at the mouth for a dictator. That alone should give any Democratic nominee a cakewalk victory, but we all saw how close the 2020 election was. The Republicans will use Christine Zang to whip up the MAGA base and that will be enough to make it close, at least without a double-digit surge in voter turnout. But again, if defeating the literal fascists isn't enough to bring out the non-voters, then I can't believe there exists a candidate who can motivate the independent and progressive non-voters to come out and vote with the liberals and centrists.
No, I don't. But that doesn't matter to the republican voters. And that's where I think the original assertion that the democractic party would have a cakewalk in 2024 with a candidate who is under 65 falls apart (let's be honest, by definition a non-viable candidate can't win, and Trump changed the definition of viable in 2016).
You and I know that. But when Swalwell was seeing his approval ratings going up during Trump's first impeachment hearing, this story is exactly what the republicans drudged up against him. And loyal republican voters will bring it up again if he runs for president again. And they'll have no problem saying they have to vote against Swalwell because of it.
I like Swalwell. I would vote for him in the general if he's the nominee based on what I know right now. But I'm saying I don't think there is any candidate who could unify the progressive, liberal, centrist, independent, and non-voters enough to make the election a cakewalk. It should have been a cakewalk in 2016, but it wasn't. It should have been a cakewalk in 2020 but Trump actually received more votes than in 2016. He actually won the second most votes in the history of the country in 2020! And he's out here spouting literal fascism, while actively being prosecuted for like 100 felonies, including trying to subvert our democracy (ie fascism) and he's trouncing the other republican primary candidates! He's polling over 50% in the primary, and the second place candidate has less than a third of that!
The democrats could run literally Jesus, and I still think it would be a close election due him being a Jewish immigrant who hangs out with poor people and prostitutes (bunch of welfare moochers who just want free stuff and promote crime, think of the children), preaches we should sell our belongings to fund clothing, feeding, and sheltering the poor (communism!), and the whole love your neighbor thing (ie he'd probably tell Israel to chill out and be nice to the Palestinians, so that would totally ruin the Evangelicals' plans for armageddon and the rapture).
Right. Hence why I don't think there will ever be a cakewalk of an election.
Or this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Ossoff
Definitely well qualified.
The only downside is that he's pretty unknown, having only been a senator since 2021.
Nope, against 2nd Amendment.
He just has the audacity that the 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude gun control laws.
Just straight up ignore it iirc
Fuck the 2nd Amendment.
No u