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
How big were the win margins in 2020 again?
How is that in any way relevant to my correction about "the main source of discontent"?
The Democrats can't afford to lose even half of that 10%.
I didn't say they could. I was correcting someone who indicated Gaza is "the main source of discontent" among voters, when in fact polling shows it is not. I didn't say literally anything about the election or who's likely to win, or what that discontent might mean in the future.
You asked how the electoral margins were relevant to the topic. I just answered your question.
Quibble about which issue is more important all you want, the DNC is already underwater on voter enthusiasm regardless.
I'm not "quibbling". I'm pointing to polling evidence that directly contradicts a claim the other user made. I didn't say a damn thing about the DNC, or voter enthusiasm, or electoral prospects, or any of that information. I literally just showed polls of priority issues for relative importance. That's the end of my point, so please don't respond to an argument I didn't make.
Your disagreement was not one of kind, but of scale. You're choosing to focus on polls of issue priority as if that matters when we both agree that the party can't afford to lose any support regardless of the issue.
I didn't say anything about whether the party can or cannot afford to lose support.
Precisely.
You said this:
[Links]
Yes I did. Your powers of observation are uncanny.
So again, what does the 2020 margin of victory have to do with the purported "main source of discontent" among voters, which isn't borne out by polling data?
I didn't say it was the main source of discontent. I just think that being able to win the election is the most important thing. It doesn't have to be the "main" source to cause the problem we're all talking about.
I didn't say you did. I corrected someone else, and you responded to me. So again, how is your response relevant to me correcting someone else's factual inaccuracy?
I obviously mistook this as a conversation about the upcoming election and Biden's chances, but I can see now that you are purely interested in correcting someone about this one thing, and not about whether or not that has an important impact on Biden's chances.
Yes wow you're right it isn't the "main" source of the discontent. Congratulations.
Yes, I corrected someone's factual inaccuracy. If you want to respond to things that other people are currently talking about, be my guest.
I was talking about the thing the person you responded to was talking about.
Anyway, this was oddly hostile so I'm out.
Then respond to them, not me.
I was responding to what you said about what they said. This is generally how conversations go
You didn't respond to what I said though. You responded, yes, but it had nothing to do with what I said or the point I was making or responding to.
Never mind dude, there is a link, but I've already tried to explain it. You were correct in your comment, which I think is all you're bothered about.
That's quite literally all I was trying to say, so yes.