288
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
288 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19087 readers
3227 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No, I'm saying elections are about convincing likely voters. And with Biden's continued edge with independents, I might be right. Others who have done deep dives into the data agree with me, too. Clinton had a 30-point edge in the 18-29 demographic and exactly the same support in the 30-49 demographic, which means she did better among younger voters than Biden, and she still lost.
Oh piss off. Yours is infantile and naive, and you're not even a voter. People stop taking you seriously when you make this shit personal, and your sentence would have conveyed the same meaning without the invective.
Nope, but pandering to likely voters might be. 68% of Jewish voters said they'll vote Biden over Trump, and only 11% were undecided. Hell, even Bernie won't call for a cease fire. And there's a stupid amount of money that gets thrown at any Democrat who steps out of line to criticize Israel. Might depressed youth/base turnout lose him the election? Sure. Might also alienating a very powerful (and wealthy) ally who could further depress turnout among a hitherto reliable voting bloc? You fucking betcha.
Like what? Surveying likely voters? I pointed to actual poll numbers. The numbers are there if you care to look, and they're likely the same numbers Biden's team is reviewing to chart the best path forward in an election year.
The fact that you seem so unwaveringly sure of yourself without a shred of evidence makes me significantly less inclined to engage, by the way. I might not respond further, so if you don't want to waste your time formulating another quippish, vapid response, don't.
I think it's better you don't respond. It's not particularly productive to read your bad takes.
You put way too much effort in providing links instead of actually thinking.
Lol, devolving to ad hominems.
Good night.
Removed, rule 3:
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!