this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
816 points (95.4% liked)

politics

24613 readers
3356 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 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FarmTaco@lemmy.world -2 points 6 days ago

I think running another woman to get absolutely trounced by the populace is a poor choice. I don't believe the people are ready for it yet, that's how we ended up with this. Kamala was a good candidate, but with the wrong chromosomes for a very specific swing vote.

[–] Jolly_Platypus@lemmy.world 116 points 1 week ago (27 children)

I love AOC, but she will lose.

The American people have shown that they would rather have a convicted felon, rapist, fascist pedophile than a highly qualified woman.

It's stupid, but it's reality.

A woman candidate is a non starter.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago

You are correct.

Anyone downvoting you is just ignoring reality.

There's a reason Trump has run 3 times and only lost once and it was to a man. A significant portion of this country in the right geographical areas will never vote for a woman to be president. And that includes a ton of women. And half of the country wants to burn AOC at the stake for being too liberal.

She can't win the Electoral College.

You want to get Bernied again? Vote for AOC.

[–] teolan@lemmy.world 138 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Unlike Kamala and Clinton she actually believes in something, and not just the Dems' very rich corporate donors.

look at Zohran Mamdani in New York. He's a Muslim, foreign born, socialist. Plenty of things that by the same logic would make him loose. But he won the primary and odds are he'll Winn the mayor position.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Unlike Kamala and Clinton she actually believes in something, and not just the Dems’ very rich corporate donors.

And that is why she will fail.

Welcome to reality. Welcome to America.

We chose a felon rapist traitor over highly qualified women...twice. And those women were more qualified than AOC and more moderate. The further left AOC goes, the more voters she loses.

She won't win.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 63 points 1 week ago (1 children)

NYC does not extrapolate out to the US, or things would look very different these days.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (17 children)

The issue is we've never actually tried to run a populist left candidate. So everyone saying, "it'll never work!" have no real bases for that statement. (the closest we've ever been was Sanders, and the DNC ensured that he was not going to be on the ballot.)

A TRUE LEFT POPULIST WILL WIN! in my opinion

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 week ago

We actually did, his name was Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Sure if we hold him up to today's standards not a progressive by any means, but he campaigned on working class issues and helped steer the country out of the depression. He created virtually all our modern safety nets or their predecessors.

He was so popular a president that Congress amended the constitution to ensure no other president could have more than 2 terms. He was so popular congress was afraid it threatened the power of their branch of government.

Running on and actually accomplishing worker centric policy works.

And to fend of the inevitable yes he was not that progressive by today's measures and had a mountain of flaws. But his accomplishments were revolutionary for the country in his time.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Botzo@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago (3 children)

In all likelihood, yes, she will lose.

But she should still run for the same reasons Bernie ran. Change the discourse and prevent unfettered ratcheting of the Overton window; force Democrats to respond to her challenge.

If she doesn't run, we all lose. Winning isn't quite everything.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

To be fair, Clinton and Harris and the platform were not particularly exciting, and they played by the old rules.

Misogyny may have been a contributing factor, but not being bold, exciting, or authentic sure as hell didn’t help.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

Harris and Clinton both had major structural issues that went beyond their gender. I'm not ignoring the reality that women face a greater uphill battle--they need to be downright perfect in order to even get fair consideration--but I don't think that the fact that they are women was the only factor. I'm not even positive that it would be a deciding factor against someone who isn't Trump. His particular brand of politics really only works for him, somehow.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 88 points 1 week ago (4 children)

you guys need ranked choice. I'd bet on most red voters not ranking multiple and just putting their evil fucker pick as #1. then you need more than one non evil candidate.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 46 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We tried. I watched rank choice requests fail time and time again, because people vote against it thanks to smear campaigns.

My buddy is in a city with rank choice, and after the most recent election, there was a push to get rid of it again. You can tell by who.

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 week ago

yeah my bad you need guillotines first

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Instead what we have are Republicans trying to outlaw ranked choice voting... They've already had right wing media brainwashing the people into believing it's a really bad thing...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 76 points 1 week ago (5 children)

She should absolutely run. I don't know if she should win the nomination, but running brings a voice to the wing of the party she represents.

Primaries are about coalition building. And to have your ideas represented by the eventual candidate you need a champion to promote them in the process.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't know if she should win the nomination,

Her winning the nomination would be Schumer and Pelosi's worst nightmare. They would 100 percent rather lose to Trump than let that happen.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 59 points 1 week ago (6 children)

As a non-American, electing AOC as president would be the way to speed run the repair of America's reputation internationally.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Salamence@lemmy.zip 53 points 1 week ago (6 children)

The democrat leadership did everything in their power to stop bernie in 2020 they will do the same against AOC

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 week ago

I'd rather AOC knock Schumer out of the Senate in 2028. (Or a special election if he for whatever reason is unable to complete his term.) Congress needs as much replacement as the White House.

But it is really frustrating framing how the article is already conceding Trump will be the dominant candidate for a third term in 2028. That's a long way off.

[–] intheformbelow@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago (11 children)

God, americans are so naive. There won't be fair elections anymore. You had your chance and you blew it! It's over for your democracy.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I think AOC would make for a much better Presidential Candidate in 2036 or 2042, after a term or two in Chuck's Senate seat. (Or maybe even as VP)

But, she is still a good candidate right now, and the next election will be crucial for the country. If 2028 AOC is the best option for Democrats, we should run with it. I would definitely sooner vote for her than the Next One Up for Democrats.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

All the fucking second-order sexists here saying we can't elect a woman because two of the worst female candidates ever lost.

These are the same people who said Obama couldn't win because he was black. Not that they were racist, no they love black people, but they just want to make absolutely extra sure we don't actually try to elect one. Because they imagine their neighbor/uncle/coworker would look at everything going on and think "none of that is important, no black presidents". They're not racist, they just advocate for racism. And with this most facile of analyses they'll believe themselves to be politically savvy realists rather than reactionary children.

This is the cowardice that dooms liberalism. At every opportunity they want to worry about what their opponents will like and time after time will try to blame strategy or immutable characteristics for the failures of their do-nothing policies. Politics is about change. When people's lives suck you don't try to tell them we'll keep doing the same things. And whether the person talking change is a charismatic black man or a clown show, or even... A FEEEMALE, they'll vote for them.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] lasers4eyes@piefed.zip 32 points 1 week ago (6 children)

screeching that she’s “NOT qualified for office,” that she’s “stupid” and the “dumbest,” while defending his own intelligence by noting he “ACED” a cognitive test doctors use to determine if an elderly person’s dementia has gotten so bad they need to be put in full-time care

God, this guy loves bragging about "acing" his cognitive tests.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (42 children)

NGL I'll take any blue tie but we've already shown twice that Americans might actually prefer fascism over a woman in charge.

load more comments (42 replies)
[–] jhoff90@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If the BIG Bill of Garbage passes, there are no more free elections.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ofcourse@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

I agree that she should run, but as an independent candidate because the DNC will never give her a honest shot in the primaries.

Americans however are unlikely to elect her especially due to electoral college as there are plenty racist and misogynistic voters in the swing states.

But if she’s able to raise money in the process to give her a real shot, US will finally have a viable third party candidate. If it looks like she’ll only split the Dem vote without winning, the raised money can be used to support progressive candidates in local elections.

Either way, I think US needs a progressive liberals party and soon because there’s a lot of House and Senate seat elections coming up and as we have seen from the GOP playbook, local elections are as relevant and influential as the national ones.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] anachrohack@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I feel like we try to shoehorn our political heroes into running for president. Why not senator? Why not speaker of the house, even? Speaker of the house is arguable more powerful than President in the democratic party - she has the power to shape the priorities and strategies of the entire party. Nancy Pelosi is probably more influential over the state of the Democratic party than Joe Biden or Barrack Obama were

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