Vice President Kamala Harris gave the public its first real look into her nascent presidential campaign with a stop at her organization’s headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware on Monday night.
Harris’ first applause line came when she discussed her background as California attorney general and as a courtroom prosecutor.
“In those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds,” she said, earning cackles while she beamed, clearly enjoying the joke. “Predators who abused women. Fraudsters who ripped off consumers. Cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say, I know Donald Trump’s type.”
What about the working poor? That’s a much larger group that is much more need of policy changes.
When it comes to economic reform (rather than compression, according to that show with the hand job calculations), from the bottom up is many times more effective than the middle out shit the Dems keep trying.
Getting low income people to the polls is a big part of this. If a particular group does not vote, then politicians have no incentive to care about them.
https://nlihc.org/resource/new-census-data-reveal-voter-turnout-disparities-2022-midterm-elections
If a particular group does not vote, then politicians have no incentive to care about them.
Other way around: if a politician doesn’t care about you and people like you, you have little incentive to care about them beyond avoiding a greater evil.
It’s the job of a politician to earn votes, not the job of voters to enable complacency and corruption.
While it’s of course best when everyone votes and I’ve never missed a chance myself, I can kinda understand why a lot of people don’t feel up for waiting in line for hours just to cast a vote for “not the complete monster”
While I understand the complaints, I completely disagree with your argument. We are not ruled top-down, but bottom-up. They can vote third party if they choose, but if they do not vote at all, then no, a politician should not be expected to try to convince them otherwise. The politician has no guarantee that they actually can become engaged, and it is fully reasonable to expect them to try to secure the votes of people that actually are engaged. It’s just how the incentive structure is logically set up, an already safe bet is more likely to win than a risky one.
What about the working poor? That’s a much larger group that is much more need of policy changes.
Um, OK. I’m on board. Are we supposed to argue now?
Not OP, but good on you two.
Id argue middle class are now also the working poor
Id argue middle class are now also the working poor
I had the same thought but (in complete sincerity) then I thought that might be my privilege telling me that. We (my family personally) have it rough on what is legitimately a decent salary and are very much paycheck to paycheck, but there sure are a lot of folks worse off than we are, either in creature comforts, living situation, income, or all three.
On the other hand, I think measures that help the true working poor seem unlikely not to also help the struggling middle class, who seem to be slowly getting absorbed into the working poor in any case. So I think a rising tide will float all boats anyhow.
