51 points

I love how the post I saw immediately before this was about Biden’s new Trump insult, ‘Broke Don’. So insult your rivals by calling them poor, definitely a good way to relate to struggling voters.

permalink
report
reply
27 points

Yeah well Biden doesn’t really need to appeal to liberals and progressives when it comes to Trump. However making his idiotic base doubt him by calling me poor little bitch will definitely weaken Trump’s position.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

For 8 years now his base has been firmly convinced that the mainstream establishment is an enemy of Trump and ‘the people’. From what I’ve seen any words against Trump coming from establishment liberals is more likely to entrench Trumps support than weaken it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

It’s pointing out that he is weak. Literally one of the main reasons people liked him was that he “couldn’t be bought” and he was going to “self fund his campaign”

Remember, before this they were just saying how scary Trump was. I think mocking him is far more effective

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

However making his idiotic base doubt him by calling me poor little bitch will definitely weaken Trump’s position.

Thanks for taking one for the team, poor little bitch.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

“Broke Don” is a masterpiece.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

I keep seeing the press wheeling out example of “the rich” like somebody on £100k who can barely afford their mortgage, like it’s my fucking fault they can’t live within their means.

Do what the rest of us do, tighten our belts and deal with it. Don’t come to me with a sob story about your mortgage on a 4 bedroom detached Surrey house when there’s people who can barely afford rent to live in what was once somebody’s kitchen.

permalink
report
reply
64 points

Middle class is not the same as the rich. Trying to get various groups of not rich people against each other has been a time tested tactic to keep everyone from acting against the rich. First it was race but now it’s trying to put the rural vs urban, the less fortunate vs the slightly less fortunate, union vs non union, etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

£100k per year is not middle class, it’s the top 3% of the country.

I grew up middle class, my family are lawyers, high level civil servants, software engineers. I don’t know anyone who earns £100k.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points
*

Totally agree. Somebody who makes 100k aren’t the problem at all, its the people who make salaries with at least a couple of more zeros added to the end. The people that OP should be mad at aren’t ever struggling to pay a bill.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
112 points

They won’t. The party exists to serve the rich.

permalink
report
reply
43 points

Yeah, they know, and it scares them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
83 points

There’s a reason they sidelined Sanders when he would have easily won in 2016

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points

This has been on my mind every time the DNC tries to position themselves as a party for the people. As far as I’m concerned, they showed their hand, and apparently they thought no one would notice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

As I see it, he won the nomination. More people voted for him, and the super delegates fucked it all up. The party even admitted this back in 1982 that their intention is to prevent “outlier candidates” from securing a nomination. The Democratic Party is very undemocratic until we can toss superdelegates altogether. I say that, but it doesn’t appear to have worked for the Republican Party either, they just shrug and toss out all the votes regardless of who won in their caucuses. Look at Ron Paul in Iowa 2008, obviously won by a large enough percentage to eliminate the margin for error…but fuck it. Iowa’s Republican chair handed it over anyway and when the news was published he just “resigned” and the damage was already done.

That sentiment that it scares them though, has happened before to BOTH parties. 1890 had both parties on the run as we were embroiled in shooting battles against law enforcement due to working conditions and pay.

permalink
report
parent
reply
75 points

nah, they’re gonna make fun of Trump for being broke with childish nicknames instead. sink down to his level while making him sound more relatable to all the broke people they want to vote for them. sometimes i think they’re trying to lose.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

Their campaign is literally “It’ll be worse under the other guy.”

Losing now is the best way for them to win in four years. It is how it has been for decades. When’s the last time one party held the presidency for two consecutive candidates? It’s a neverending metronome, except the needle moves more to the right each time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

When’s the last time one party held the presidency for two consecutive candidates?

Obama? Then immediately before that W? Then immediately before that Clinton?

In the last 50 years only Bush Sr and Trump have served single terms.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Two consecutive candidates. As in two different people, who run under the same party. Not two terms.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Dude we’re unprecedented territory and that is basically a gambler’s fallacy. There’s absolutely no reason to believe that the patterns of the past will continue. For example, Biden already disrupted the power of the Incumbent president and ousted Donald short of 2 terms, which itself is a rarity not seen since Carter.

“Worse than the other guy” is basically all that people can take at this point, and I think the best argument going into the election. It works because it’s one of the only arguments against valid criticisms of Biden. “Yes, he is old; but he is better than the other guy for x, y, and z.” Nothing wrong with this strategy.

I do agree that Democrats need to punch back harder, though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

I do agree that Democrats need to punch back harder, though

Specifically, they desperately need to punch Netanyahu in the face and cut off arms shipments, because polling shows that people in the US are pissed as hell that we are enabling genocide and Netanyahu repeatedly publicly humiliates Biden in a way that could not be a more obvious sign that Netanyahu is banking on Trump winning.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Assuming that we’ll have fair elections in 4 years if Trump wins may prove to be one of the worst mistakes this country’s voters have ever made.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

When was the last time there was a fair election? Both parties conventions cram the most unpopular candidates down your throats, and always slowly sliding to the right.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Sounds like Biden should stop sending weapons to Israel and vow to veto any attempts to block a rail strike in his next term.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

2 term presidents: Obama 2009-2017, G.W. Bush 2001-2009, Clinton 1993-2009. so every president for 3 decades except Bush and Trump.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

They said two candidates, not two terms.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

It’s not that they are just doing childish nicknames, they are making all sorts of statements every day about concrete goals, values, and things they want to fix or make better, it’s just that the only things you notice are things like the childish nicknames because… that’s the sort of thing that grabs people’s attention which is the reason they are trying out that tactic as well!

You yourself probably don’t slog through the boring articles, interviews, press statements, and so on, where they just present plans and ideas rather than headline grabbers. If you did, you wouldn’t paint such a simplistic picture, or wonder if it must be some conspiracy involving thousands of people to purposely lose.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

they are making all sorts of statements every day about concrete goals, values, and things they want to fix or make better

We all saw how that worked out with BBB. No plan survives contact with the enemy friendly fire.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Don’t forget Biden negotiating down on his own campaign promise to fight for $50k forgiveness. And blocking the rail strike. And raising the defense budget. And forcing federal workers back to the office. And going around congress to deliver weapons to Israel.

But yeah they’re totally trying to make things better everybody.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Generally speaking, they do want to lose. If they actually ran on their universally popular policies, they’d win majorities large enough to where they wouldn’t have excuses to not enact their legislative mandate, which is at odds with what their corporate donors want.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

This is exactly it. The only thing they truly run on is vote for us or it’ll be even worse. They say nice things, but they have no intention of enacting most of them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Anyone from poor decaying rural America has had enough conversations with republicans with oddly class related philosophies to feel this comment hard

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

This is a composition effect. Democratic candidates who run for safer, more left-wing constituencies feel free to propose more radical left-wing policies, especially if their main threats are other democrats during primaries. They then go on to win because they’re not running in competitive elections. You can use the same reasoning to conclude that Republicans who attack abortion and socialism do better in elections.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

I don’t buy it. Red states hate billionaires even more than blue states. Centrist Democrats have nothing to offer to Republican voters to change their minds. Progressives speak directly to the economic issues that plague red states.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Red states hate billionaires even more than blue states

(citation needed)

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They often just call them elitists, bankers, or “Jews”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I mean, red states elected a billionaire because he was a billionaire.

But Centrist Democrats think that if they just kick progressives harder, they’ll gain the favor of the three remaining moderate Republicans.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

They elected a billionaire because he attacked other billionaires. He voices their rage at the “elitists” in Washington, and he pretends to be one of them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I think they hate the “generic billionaire”, but are they any actual billionaires they hate?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Bill Gates and George Soros are a pretty obvious examples.

The only notable counter-examples are rich celebrities that give them permission to be shitty, like Trump and Elon.

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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 464K

    Comments