773
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 53 points 2 years ago

I loved this guy since the juxtaposition photos between him and the child labor folks. I wonder if Harris campaign is getting to make decisions because this whole situation blindsided DNC officials/strategists who have historically made stupid calls. They haven't had 4 years to overthink a campaign.

As cynical as I am, I think laughing Harris just felt a good feeling about smiling Walz that she just didn't get from Shapiro, and no strategist hack was able to convince them otherwise.

[-] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago

DNC sucks at strategy. I think making quick decisive moves, especially with the public's diminished attention span is proving very effective. Campaigns should probably focus on being like 3 months before the elections in this era.

[-] Scallionsandeggs@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Should Harris win (and especially if she wins big), I could see it changing the nature of campaigning here. Three months goes against all the conventional wisdom.

The media won't be happy about it, but it's past time we bring the press back to public service and away from profiteering anyway.

[-] SeriousMite@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

I think conventional wisdom on political strategy is long overdue for an update.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

I suppose this is a good time for me to send that nice donation I've been putting off and hope it helps to let the DNC see what happens when they don't disenfranchise progressives.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 13 points 2 years ago

Harris's primary campaign seemed to be defined by Harris herself taking progressive-ish positions and then later walking them back after someone in her orbit convinced her she had to be more status quo. Maybe that campaign flaming out has taught her to stop listening to those people.

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

New York Times called it a "vibes pick". Sounds about right

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago

A campaign stands or falls based on vibes.

Don't get me wrong. This guy seems like a solid choice based on his record, too, but you really can't overstate how important vibes are.

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Absolutely, I'm in favor, don't get me wrong

[-] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Sounds like NYT is salty.

this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
773 points (98.6% liked)

politics

31202 readers
1652 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 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.
  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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

• 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS