103

Democrats seize on Iowa results to campaign on threats posed by Trump (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Top Democrats did not react to Donald Trump’s crushing win in the Iowa caucuses on Monday with the dismay that might have been expected. Instead, the victory of the twice-impeached, 91-times criminally charged former president was heralded as an early beginning to the battle for the White House itself.

Called early, Trump’s victory came by 30 points over the hard-right Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, who edged the former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley for second. Only one of 99 Iowa counties did not go for Trump: Johnson county, which includes the University of Iowa, was won by Haley, the relative moderate left in the race – by a single vote.

Responding to Trump’s win, and using an acronym for Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America great again”, Biden told followers: “Here’s the thing: this election was always going to be you and me versus extreme Maga Republicans. It was true yesterday and it’ll be true tomorrow.”

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

at this point, does anyone have a reliable idea of how many undecided voters there really are who could have an influence on the outcome of the election? or is it, at this point, for the Dems, simply about motivating non-voters to get off their asses and vote?

i just have a hard time imagining that there are very many people left who haven't already decided who they're voting for.

[-] Someonelemmy@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 9 months ago

Hillary couldn't win using the "Trump is dangerous" platform, but she's absolutely been proven right. The question now is, do enough people care about something as existential as the end of democracy, or are they too focused on inflation and gas prices.

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

Hillary sucked ass and was given that opportunity over folks the public wanted more. Democrats absolutely shouldn't have "super" delegates.

That being said hopefully most reasonable folks know how dangerous the narcissistic orange fuck wit really is, he won Iowa but only got 51% of votes so I'm hoping he's a product of gross mass media and loses as badly as his criminal defense is in any case against him.

I'm definitely voting against bootleg Hitler regardless of who's running against him. Fuck the Orange vengeance thirst turd.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

that was 8 years ago, and Bided did win using that strategy once already. and that's before he went completely off his nut and tried to overthrow the country using a mob of his insane, neo-nazi followers.

[-] Toribor@corndog.social 3 points 9 months ago

do enough people care about something as existential as the end of democracy, or are they too focused on inflation and gas prices

Democrats need to explain to people that these are the same thing. All this talk about Democracy just seems like Democrats worship a complex political system that barely helps people anyway. If the alternative is authoritarianism then people need to understand that prices don't stay low when the system is corrupted and that democracy is a vehicle for change not a static thing Dems want to preserve just because.

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They aren’t very focused on inflation and gas prices if that is their excuse. Both are way down over the late 6+ months.

[-] UsedChicken@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

I did see this: https://thehill.com/elections/4408071-almost-half-of-haley-supporters-say-they-would-vote-for-biden-over-trump-iowa-poll/amp/ saying that a sizable portion of Haley’s voter base would go for Biden over Trump in a general so I imagine part of the strategy is driving the point home for as many of the “moderate” republicans as possible.

[-] kometes@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

~15% of Republicans came out to vote in Iowa.
Half voted Trump: 7%.
Republicans make up 34.5% of total voters in Iowa.
7% of 34.5% is 2.415% of Iowans who actually voted for Trump.

This is a crushing defeat for Trump and the entire Republican party.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

In any sane political system this whole thing would not be more than a minor news item in the local press.

[-] Szymon@lemmy.ca 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Brilliant

Biden is redefining his base and it's a new political party landscape. It's not Democrat (50%) vs Republican (50%), it's now sanity (85%) vs insanity (15%).

[-] ARk@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Why do people still vote for Trump?

[-] Elderos@lemmings.world 7 points 9 months ago

Cult mentality

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Doing so will allow them to campaign more on the threat Trump poses to American democracy than the virtues of Biden himself, a historically unpopular president facing doubts about his age (81 now, 86 at the end of a second term), his handling of the economy and his support for Israel in its war with Hamas.

Seventeen concern election subversion, 40 were brought over the retention of classified information, and 34 arise from hush-money payments to an adult film star who claimed an affair.

Trump also faces civil suits over his business affairs and a defamation claim arising from a rape allegation a judge called “substantially true”, and attempts to keep him off the ballot in Colorado and Maine, under the 14th amendment to the US constitution and for inciting the deadly January 6 attack on Congress.

Before voting began in Iowa, Biden’s vice-president, Kamala Harris, marked the Martin Luther King Day holiday by attacking Trump over his threat to democracy.

She followed up by emphasising Trump’s central role in the overturning last year of Roe v Wade, the supreme court decision that once guaranteed the federal right to abortion.

From the Senate, Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, lambasted DeSantis and Haley for running campaigns in which they long fought shy of attacking Trump.

The original article contains 880 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024

103 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19138 readers

4179 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

• 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