594
'Very troubling': Leader of 'Abandon Harris' movement now anxious about Trump appointees
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
594 points (95.6% liked)
politics
19283 readers
1474 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You don't need to convince me...
Like I said:
I don't have the power to decide the general candidate, the DNC calls it before my state has a chance to vote.
You don't need to convince me Kamala would have been better than trump, I agree and trump will directly effect my life more than most Americans.
The important part is Kamala, her campaign, and the DNC couldn't convince enough people of that.
The reason, is because Kamala had unpopular policies and little to no charisma. Yelling at people that they have to vote for the lesser evil isn't a reliable way to win elections, and even when they do, it doesn't help voters as much as they need.
So the answer to both questions is the same:
And
We run progressives.
You can stomp your feet and say you don't want to. But if you want to do what's most likely to prevent a Republican president, do everything you can to help a progressive win the primary.
Even if it's not what you personally think is best, that's what wins elections.
So if stopping Republicans is all that matter, start voting progressive
I think that's giving non-voters too much credit. Time and again they were saying they didn't know what her policies were, not that they were bad policies, despite the fact that she was pretty clear in communicating them.
The charisma thing was different, she HAD charisma, but it was this fake, robotic, insincere charisma (see the cocoanut tree nonsense), and when she was called out on it, she reacted poorly.
Walz had 1,000,000x the genuine, sincere, charisma, but people don't vote for VP.