this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
628 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2230 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 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.
  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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 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

• 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
628
Baby boomers are fleeing Donald Trump and switching allegiance to Harris (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
119 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Voters over 70 are backing Harris over Trump, 51 to 48 percent, Emerson College poll finds

A new poll shows some baby boomers and members of the Silent Generation are switching allegiances from former President Donald Trump to Vice President Kamala Harris. 

The Emerson College poll released Thursday  shows voters over 70 backing Harris over Trump 51 to 48 percent. That’s a small but positive shift for Harris, as last month, 50 percent of the group supported Trump while 48 percent backed President Joe Biden, who dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris last month.

The group includes some baby boomers, who were born between 1946 and 1964, and the Silent Generation, born between 1925 and 1945.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

we need a party for the younger people at this point that would fight for living wages and universal healthcare for all

Bruh, younger people couldn't even show up to vote for a Democrat primary candidate who was fighting for those things. If they can't do that, they're sure as hell not going to be able to make a party lmao. And I say that as someone who was one of the younger people in 2020 and voted for Sanders in the primary. Young people needed to get their shit together, and based on 2022, it looks like they finally are getting there.

Oh, and lowering prescription drug prices helps a lot of people who aren't geriatric, you fucking ableist. It would've helped me save a thousand or so over the last few years, at least. And that's not accounting for my surprise medical emergency early this year. If you aren't going to get off your high horse, then get out.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I think maybe your writeup here would look a lot better without the animosity. I'm not sayin being uncivil is always wrong, but I'm not seeing you reflecting it, you're making it. here, let's take a look at my edit:

Younger people couldn’t even show up to vote for a Democrat primary candidate who was fighting for those things. If they can’t do that, they’re sure as hell not going to be able to make a party. And I say that as someone who was one of the younger people in 2020 and voted for Sanders in the primary. Young people needed to get their shit together, and based on 2022, it looks like they finally are getting there.

And, lowering prescription drug prices helps a lot of people who aren’t geriatric. It would’ve helped me save a thousand or so over the last few years, at least. And that’s not accounting for my surprise medical emergency early this year.

Nothing of value was lost. No point was missed. It is now more persuasive. I assume that's why you made it right?

Again, I'm not claiming i don't like dunkin on assholes as much as the next guy. I critically agree with your point that reduced drug costs op was shitting on help everyone, and that ops complaint sounds like whining on its face. Im saying maybe you got hotter than you needed to here.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Y'know, I don't disagree. I let myself get a bit too heated.