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.
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
view the rest of the comments
Vance is an absolute dud of a candidate but I'm sure the Democrats will manage to come up with someone even more ludicrously unsuited.
They will invent one. In a lab.
DNC torn between HRC, Newsom, and Schumer
What about Sinema? She's super qualified.
Not Liz Cheney?
Oh, of course! Those primaries will be lit!
By unsuited, do you mean for the job or to get the vote of fickle progressives?
Making their constituents feel represented is a huge part of their job
"Dem candidates are never bad, progressives are just fickle!" - you
"The party cannot fail, it can only be failed."
- every moderate fuckwad stuck in 1992
They're not worse than JD Vance, which was the contention. If the commenter is not coming at it from the disgruntled progressive stance, as so many here are, then that part of my response was off the mark.
The commenter is being very coy about what was meant.
You don't even know who it's gonna be and you're already stating they'll be better than Vance as if it's a truism. I can absolutely see the DNC fucking up so badly that Vance looks like a better alternative. INB4 we end up with two Peter Thiel acolytes running against each other; "abundance" vs. "Christian" nationalism, a true clash of ideas.
This thread has gotten quite derailed. The original commenter made the supposition that the nominee will be even more ludicrously unsuited than Vance. I take issue with that assumption. Like you said, we don't even know who the nominee is.
I'm saying that historically the Dem candidates have not been ludicrously unsuited compared to their opponents. If that's the case, where's this thought that the next one will be coming from?
I think we're on different wavelengths because I'm coming at this from the position that there's a distinction to be made between who is the better candidate and who is better for the country. Trump, despite being a fascist moron who has and continues to destroy the lives of millions while enriching himself and his donors, was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. Any of those three would have been better for the country (marginally) but were absolutely god-awful candidates. The only reason Biden even won by a hair is because of how awful Trump's first term was, that people were willing to hold their nose and vote for Biden despite hating his guts.
What job exactly would that be? To do the bidding of the oligarchs or to actually represent the electorate?
I'm asking what you mean, so feel free to add details. Let's just use Kamala Harris as an example.
Who would be better suited to do the bidding of the oligarchs? Trump or Harris.
Who would be better suited to actually represent the electorate? Trump or Harris.
Who would be better suited to get the vote of fickle progressives? Trump or Harris.
Your answers will help me determine what your comment meant. Let me know if you were thinking of someone other than Harris who that was and if your answers would be any different.
Wait, what? Trump is running for the Democrats now?
I was reading into your original comment that you thought in the past Democrats have put forth candidates that are "even more ludicrously unsuited" than their Republican opponents. I assumed, regrettably, that you were basing your remark on historical evidence.
You can clear this up pretty quickly by just explaining what you meant. Here's your comment:
Why do you think that? Did you find Harris more unsuited than Trump? If so, for what? If not, what do you mean?
She lost. If the topic is "unsuited as a candidate", we have our answer.
That could be an answer. Unsuited to win. But that's a little hard to judge ahead of time.
Ludicrously unsuited, though? Perhaps Harris was by this measure. Biden 2020 was not. Clinton 2016 was only moderately unsuited, since she won popular vote. Same with Gore 2000. Kerry 2004 was ludicrously unsuited to be the nominee, I guess.
Harris / Hegseth 2028
Buttigieg / Bessent