this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
1273 points (98.8% liked)

politics

23571 readers
3073 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

So the Dems are running the campaign for JD Vance now? Wow, easiest election ever

[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 45 points 13 hours ago (31 children)

Disagree. The Democrats dont know who they are anymore. Pelosi and the old Democrats have got to go.

AOC should just make a new party.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 hours ago

You're not really disagreeing. AOC is perceived as the face of the democratic party and it's true. She's at least offering consistent resistance while the feckless leadership of the party does nothing but line their pockets and ensure 100 percent unconditional support of Israel to the determient of all else.

I don't even disagree with your conclusions necessary, if it's impossible to dislodge Pelosi and Schumer. But building a party from scratch is really fucking hard. Hijacking one might be easier.

[–] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 12 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

They're going to stay there making bank off of insider trading until they're so ancient someone accidentally walks through and disperses the dust cloud known as Pelosi, and they finally decide they have enough money to reach supply-side Jesus.

[–] fishy@lemmy.today 10 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Just insider trading? Those super pacs are the fucking Democrats and Republicans at this point. Greed itself is our new overlord, business ethics are dead and rotting.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (6 children)

I have said this elsewhere, but i will not again vote for the Democratic Party until they actually put up progressive candidates. Not pinky swear to pass progressive policy. That means the candidates has to have a provable history of struggling against the Democratic Party to pass progressive policy. There are only two i know of and that’s Bernie Sanders (who is too old for the presidency), and AOC. Else it’s third party until the democrats learn better.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

We could do so much worse!

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

We will do so much worse. AOC lost a committee seat race to a guy with terminal cancer who is dead four months after taking the position.

The people might love her, but the party hates her. AOC has no future in the modern Democratic party.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 12 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Well... Yeah, that's why we're taking it over. What do you think all the tours and rallies are for? The fight is on, actual progressives and opportunity chasers are positioning themselves for it... It's happening

It's tea party time

[–] mrcleanup@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Not that public visibility isn't important, but if we don't replace the people in the room choosing who the party gives all their money to, nothing is going to change.

[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 7 hours ago

Money for campaigns is important, but it's a force multiplier. If there is no force of voters to multiply, it is worthless.

Also those people in the back rooms are going to have a lot less money to throw around now, big donors don't want to give their money to campaigns that have no chance of winning, what good good is buying influence with a politician if that politician has no influence to sell? I don't think all that money will flow over to progressives suddenly, but the gap in budget is going to be much smaller now.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 6 points 10 hours ago

Of course - they certainly have to be replaced.

That's what the struggle over the dnc vice chair position is about - someone won who wants to use funds to primary representatives "asleep at the wheel", so they're pulling out procedural reasons to redo it

There's a plan... It's not a sure thing, but it's building a lot of momentum

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemm.ee 11 points 13 hours ago

There is no more Democratic Party.

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 44 points 19 hours ago (5 children)

Are they... Still considering Harris for 2028??? What? Please god. Make it stop. Please.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 11 hours ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 11 points 15 hours ago

She's just the most recent candidate. The most recent candidates, and most recent Presidents and Vice Presidents are almost always in these sorts of lists, especially in the weeks and months following an election, before the next campaign starts.

Joe Biden was a favorite in these sorts of polls in 2015/16, despite saying he wouldn't run, because he was just VP.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bufalo1973@lemm.ee 12 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

So "AOC not even close" with 26% but Kamala Harris + Pete Buttigieg + Hakeem Jeffries + Cory Booker + Gavin Newsom = 22%. And that 26% has almost guaranteed the 8% of Crockett and the 12% of Sanders. So 26 + 12 + 8 = 46% but "not even close".

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

I don't know half the people you mentioned

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

They get a lot of AIPAC money for ads in their district. Outside of it they have no name.

[–] MangioneDontMiss@lemm.ee 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

well at least you own up to your ignorance, more than we can say for most.

[–] nanoswarm9k@lemmus.org 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, the qurstion was rhetorical -- the function was a relevancy check. The Hill may think all of those names are important but only half are making it out of the political wonkosphere.

(wonk is an mid 20th century word for nerd)

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Was it fairly clear I was just being funny? I hoped so, I try not to tell jokes that actually need to be /s tagged.

[–] nanoswarm9k@lemmus.org 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Nah. /s tag is a good call. Never saw one that looked out of place in use.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Comedians have been using the written word for eons. Some jokes don't land when written, and the real solution wasn't invented this decade.

My personal policy is that if the joke needs a laugh track, a rimshot, or any big sign that says "Joke" being waved, the joke doesn't work.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›