You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-2 points

It looks kind of pathetic. These dudes have real policy positions and behavior to attack and instead of anything substantive we get couches and weird.

If you’re trying to reach voters already with you, then it’ll be effective for that maybe, but it only tells other voters you think they’re imbeciles. Which is prolly accurate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

The talk about them being weird wasn’t devorced from policy. It was first brought up when talking about how republican leaders are weird for wanting book bans and abortion related policies

The media latched on to the word “weird” because it was unusual, but if you look at when Walz using it, it’s still largely being used in discussions of their horrible plans and actions

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

They latched onto it because they were told to by the DNC lol

There’s no way you believe that’s organic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

but it only tells other voters you think they’re imbeciles. Which is prolly accurate.

They’re trying to reach republican voters, of course they’re going to assume their target audience is a bunch of imbeciles who don’t care about policy. Because we have decades of evidence that they are a bunch of imbeciles who don’t care about policy.

You gotta meet your audience where they are, and we already know where the republican electorate is.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 387K

    Comments