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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
From a campaign perspective you want a clear, concise message.
There are a gazillion things that need taking care of, but the reality is if you spend time talking about all of them, the message won’t get out and elections will be lost.
This is very true. Slogans work. “We’re not going back” was stellar, but the dunbasses running Kamala dropped it.
A phrase as simple that resonates not just with Lemmy, but the middle of the bell curve people, is needed.
Republicans are really good at it. Dems, never. Too many wet cats swiping at each other and arguing about what’s most important.
A main message sure, but the idea that an electoral campaign can or should only have one message doesn't match up with reality and is—I'm sorry—frankly bullshit. Pick a Senator or Representative at random and see what their platform was when they got elected. Candidates right now are running on parallel messages of affordability and protecting democracy, and Abdul El Sayed—one of the most successful progressives currently campaigning—also has healthcare as a core part of his platform and I'm pretty sure I remember him talking about foreign wars. Before you respond next you should take a moment to consider why you just said something that's so obviously untrue.
Edit: Besides, somebody should at least be talking about all the wildfires.
You should take a moment to understand American voters. And also to not be an ass.
I’m sorry that you don’t under stand that US politics is decided on a small handful of issues. Recognizing that isn’t “stupid” it’s simply paying the fuck attention.
If you really want to know where a candidate stands on climate change, I’m sure you can find that, or just ask their campaign and get an answer. But they’re only going to hammering on a few issues because that’s how the America voter just is.
Re-read what you just wrote about El-Sayed.
That’s two things.
His messaging in detail about what those two things means and what he’s gonna do about it include things like Medicare for all, and ending costly foreign wars and removing corruption. Personally, it’s actually only one thing. Because right now Trump’s and the rest of the admin’s rampant corruption is the primary cause of affordability.
You’re acting like they have to message on every topic. And no single campaign (especially national campaigns, but state wide campaigns are bad enough,) can cover every single topic you might be interested in; and right now these things are what Americans are into so that’s what they’re driving home.
Well I'm trying but it's really hard when everyone keeps offering the same myth without a lick of evidence (and with a fair bit of condescension) and with no concern for whether history or the data backs it up and I'm supposed to just accept it. And if you just thought "what condescension," this condescension:
But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Before I write a wall of text explaining why I think you're wrong, I'm going to have to ask for evidence that you're right. But so I don't leave you hanging, Abdul El Sayed, possibly the most successful progressive this election, is outspoken about his climate policy, the right is going totally insane about it and he's winning anyway. In the absence of better evidence, this is fatal for your argument as it currently stands.
There seems to be no point in trying to have a conversation, so I'm just going to say: Anyone who wants to come to an informed opinion on this should read the original article by The Guardian cited in the OP. Also reported for incivility because like yeah.
Sure, in interviews they can parse shit out, and that is a good thing, but what is the sell phrase? Whitmer won in Michigan based on “Fix the Damn Roads!” Having driven on them, I can tell you, it’s a byline that could reach every person in that state.
People are busy. They’re not reading what you read. No one is reading what you read, or what I read, that’s how fractured information dissemination is right now. We all consume different news, if any at all.
When the working class majority walk to their voting center, dragging their asses there after having worked 11 shifts in the 7 days prior, what’s the single line that’s going to make them want to spend the energy and not just collapse on their bed?
If you spew multiple things at them they’ll probably just go to bed.
I'm not going to write a bespoke reply for every single person saying the same thing so I'm going to just copy and paste this around:
First, I'm going to have to ask for evidence for that. We have a quarter century of reality we can measure these claims against and see how they hold up. Second, there's no point in arguing against a position whose proponent won't substantiate, so until that happens I'll rely on a good old appeal to authority: Abdul El Sayed, possibly the most successful progressive this election, is outspoken about his climate policy, the right is going totally insane about it and he's winning anyway. In the absence of better evidence, this is fatal for your argument.