this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
277 points (86.5% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2321 users here now

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The last time this happened, voters didn’t credit Bill Clinton. That may be a bad omen, or a good one.

If the stock market chose presidents, Joe Biden would be a shoo-in for reelection in 2024. The market rallied this month amid growing optimism about the economy, with the S&P 500 zooming 1.9 percent Tuesday on news that the consumer price index rose only 3.2 percent in October (compared to 3.7 percent in September). Stocks rallied again Wednesday on news that the producer price index fell 0.5 percent. Commentators are no longer debating whether the economy will experience a “soft landing” (i.e., a reduction in inflation without recession). The only question now is when it will arrive. The S&P 500 seems to have decided it’s already here.

But the stock market doesn’t choose presidents. Voters do, and polls continue to show they think the economy is in terrible shape. A Financial Times–Michigan Ross Nationwide Survey conducted November 2–7 is absolutely brutal on this point.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The Democrats' propaganda game is miserable in 2023. The big difference is that Clinton promoted himself effectively. Remember when George Stephenopolous called George HW Bush on Larry King's show back in 1992, just to humiliate him? Remember Clinton's bulldog communications officer, James Carville? Back in the 1990s, Democrats knew how to puff up their accomplishments and tear down their opponents. Now, they're too timid to try. Time to drop this pathetic facade of objectivity and civility and fight, HARD. Their lives as a political party depend on it. OUR lives depend on it.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I never thought I'd see the day when carville is propped up as the paradigm of what a Democrat should be.

Bernie Sanders is what a Democrat should be and he's been fighting basically alone since the 60s.

You're right about their messaging tho. This is a direct reflection of rejecting the progressive wing which is mostly young people.

If the Dems would get their shit together and brace the next generation thos would be no contest.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's not that Carville is a hero. It's just that he did what our current Dems won't. I wish our team would be half as aggressive as the GOP. We would have a more solid standing with less effort. "Humans > corporations." Done.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think most of the establishment actually believes that, is the problem.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They don't. But you answer the problem in your statement when you say "the establishment."

It should be abolished somehow.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I am hopeful that with things like unionization movements gaining steam, and the ease of communication of social media, that some capable young people will be spurred into running for office this decade. It really needs to be a grassroots movement IMO.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Their donors with deep pockets don't like that message, best we can do is Humans >= Corporations.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not popular to say, but when people like Pelosi who make millions on insider trading stay in office for decades, it's not because of their policy. It's how much money they generate for the party.

I want a party for the people which protects our rights to healthcare, education, housing, wages, and food. The rest is up to us.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Also because committee memberships are determined by how long you’ve been in office. Hence Feinstein.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I wish our team would be half as aggressive as the GOP.

They are. They just direct that aggression at the left of their own party instead of to the right.

“Humans > corporations.” Done.

Not in Carville's party.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

The Democrats have been bringing spoons to a gunfight since the 70s.

[–] winterayars 5 points 1 year ago

The current Democratic party doesn't want to fight. It's pathetic, and it is difficult to vote for "pathetic" even when the alternative is... well... you know.

[–] Superorgizznism 3 points 1 year ago

You mean there is a flaw to the strategy of repeating, "listen, Jack, the economy has never been better, and you're an idiot if you don't see that"?