this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2025
294 points (99.3% liked)

politics

25690 readers
4235 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
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 hour ago (4 children)

Its too bad nobody will be allowed to vote freely by 2028 and she will lose. Too little too late.

[–] Soulg@ani.social 4 points 45 minutes ago* (last edited 4 minutes ago)

I mean 2028 is the first presidential election she's eligible to run for

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 3 points 49 minutes ago

If i can make them have to work even just a little bit harder to game the votes then it's worth it to me.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Oh we'll be allowed to vote, but it will all be counted as a vote for the R candidates. Also AOC will probably be locked up and on death row when they claim she's the head of antifa.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 29 minutes ago

If I had a dollar for every year I've heard "Politics is over. We're a one party country now", I'd have collected at least 6 dollars over the last 12 cycles.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 2 points 49 minutes ago

As if there will be an election in 2028

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 71 points 4 hours ago (7 children)

I like AOC a lot. She started as any other member of The Squad but has actually learned how politics work and is doing a, mostly, spectacular job of balancing ideology, the will of her constituents, and generation of political capital. In so many ways, she is what Sanders would have been if he got his head out of his ass twenty some odd years ago.

If she runs for POTUS in 2028, she is a god damned idiot. I am still skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman for POTUS. But she is also still quite young but has almost an entire Hilary Clinton worth of chud-hate and attacks. Whereas Senate makes perfect sense for her.

That said? I could see a world where AOC could... once again be the anti-Bernie. Run for POTUS in the primary. Energize basically the entire youth of the nation. Then lose and immediately endorse the winner while leveraging her influence to get important action items on the ticket. But... I want AOC as a leader and not just as the bait and switch.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 38 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

I am still skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman for POTUS.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable takeaway from the last two times a woman was a major party nominee.

Hillary Clinton was not especially charismatic, which is arguably what wins general elections in most cases. She was also unpopular with progressive Democrats, and widely seen as having secured the nomination unfairly when Sanders might have been both more popular with the party and a stronger general election candidate.

Kamala Harris was severely handicapped by the combination of being nominated without a primary process, starting her campaign very late, and positioning herself as a continuation of Biden at a time when Biden's popularity was very low.

If AOC were to win the nomination, she would be in a much stronger position for the general election than either Clinton or Harris.

[–] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 minutes ago* (last edited 12 minutes ago)

Still a big risk to take. We need progressives to win at least the next two elections to have any shot at winding back the damage from two Trump administrations and a largely impotent Biden administration.

But I agree that if she wins the primary, that's the part that really matters and what Harris was missing.

[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 44 minutes ago

Yeah, thank you. The problem with Hillary and Kamala is nobody liked them. Now sure you can argue " maybe people didn't like them because they're women and they have a bias against women". I never heard anybody online saying " wow! I would sure love to have Kamala as president but I just don't think other people will vote for her". I see lots of people saying that about AOC. At some point you have to look around and be like oh wait...lots of people are saying they'd vote for her.

[–] Elextra@literature.cafe 1 points 26 minutes ago

Honestly, I think unfortunately gender/sex does play a factor, in addition to race. If this administration has taught us anything, is that there is that much hate within our country.

Also think of cultures where historically their culture doesnt value women. Even if there are people who immigrated here, some still may never vote for a woman. Some will decline because they are racist. While we are all Americans, we are deeply deeply divided ATM :(

This is without even factoring the candidates political platform in yet.

[–] TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 1 points 56 minutes ago

Yeah, I think there is a substantial portion of Americans who won't ever vote for a woman, but I think it was still just a small part of the larger issues in both their campaigns

[–] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 1 points 15 minutes ago

skeptical if this country will EVER elect a woman

narrator: And they never did...

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 9 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Funny that you say she’d be an idiot for running in 2028, then present a great case for why she might run in 2028…

You’re right, though, that Senate would be the right move. But that has its own disadvantages. If Schumer doesn’t retire, it would be very tough to beat him.

Being a losing presidential candidate could raise your profile. I’m not sure the same applies to a senate candidate.

Also, I would say the hate for AOC is much different than the hate for Hillary. There were plenty of liberals that hated Hillary (🙋‍♂️). I don’t think this applies as much to AOC. The hate is coming exclusively from the right.

[–] chilicheeselies@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

She could easily beat schumer. I never met another nyer who likes that guy. Largely he wins now because nobody (or nobodies) primary him, and the alternative is a republican which just is not an option right now.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 1 points 42 minutes ago* (last edited 42 minutes ago) (1 children)

It’s a risk, though. She may decide the risk isn’t worth it.

Also, she this may all be an attempt by AOC to make Schumer rethink running in 2028. I don’t honestly know if he is planning on running anyway.

[–] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago* (last edited 13 minutes ago)

The far right of the country will never vote for a woman unless its a psychopathic maga woman. Then they just might...

be the anti-Bernie. Run for POTUS in the primary. Energize basically the entire youth of the nation. Then lose and immediately endorse the winner while leveraging her influence to get important action items on the ticket

How the fuck would doing EXACTLY what Bernie did make her "the anti-bernie"?

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 29 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Worth noting as I almost missed it myself from not RTFA, but: AOC is "gearing up for a big campaign for a bigger office in 2028 -- they're just not sure which."

I align with your view that I really thought AOC would be better to primary against Schumer. Not only is it arguably more attainable, it addresses our problem with stagnant Congressional AIPAC-representing leadership.

That said, I part ways in the belief that a female president is not capable of being elected for a couple of reasons which I'll try to lay out point-by-point:

  • There is no actual evidence that a gender-bias led to Kamala's loss that I have seen.
  • The Venn Diagram join of sexist misogynistic bigots and Never-Dem deep-red maga is a circle; in other words, we were never going to get these people no matter if we put Trump fused with Reagan in and mirrored their platform word-for-word.
  • Willingness to vote for a female President has been historically tracked:

Public willingness to vote for a woman

In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.

In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970's and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.

Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 15 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I think part of the problem for the Hillary and Harris campaigns were that they were running for the status quo at a time when that wasn't working. Both Obama and Biden ran on change and, while it wasn't the amount of change people wanted, it was at least a recognition that things need to shift.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 1 points 35 minutes ago

This is the same take I have. Both Hillary and Kamala are slimy neolibs, exactly the kind of people that nobody trusts. Gavin Newsom is the same and would be a catastrophic nomination. AOC would have a real shot, especially if she sticks to her grass-roots techniques and reaches people face-to-face. No debates, no mass media, just homegrown down-to-earth human energy.

But what am I talking about, there won’t be any more elections. The fascists have taken over and dismantled everything from the federal to local levels. The cancer, having been fed instead of removed, is now terminal.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 19 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I think there were many contributing factors to Kamala's loss, but I I think this is pretty low if non-existent among them, and it risks gatekeeping qualified, charismatic candidates like AOC out of fear of past milquetoast candidates that were unpopular from the outset and deeply lacking in charisma.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

I'm wondering if Gallup has tried asking if people would vote for a woman if she made it clear she intended to help the citizens of the country and not the oligarchs who own everything.

[–] TomMasz@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

Replacing Schumer would be a big step forward,

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (3 children)

AOC would make an amazing VP pick. Could bring a lot of energy to a campaign and get youth/working class support. Then transition that into a presidential campaign later on.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

the vice presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm piss

- John Nance garner, former vice president to FDR (before truman)

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

And who would you pick for president? Even VP AOC couldn’t make me pick Newsom

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Hey good news! *gestures to All This*

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Ehhhhhh

People have a very weird idea of what the veep actually is. In theory, it is the person waiting in the wings, learning from the POTUS, picking up the slack, and preparing to take command if needed. In practice? It is someone The Party saddled the POTUS with and is an active threat to their legitimacy and legacy. For the past few decades, the frigging First Lady seems to have more accomplishments than most VPOTUSes.

And considering that Biden became increasingly infirm over his term and there are good odds trump straight up dies in office (woo!), a lot of eyes will be on the VP. Which has good odds of triggering the palin effect of "oh dear god... what if the old white guy dies and we are left with THAT?!?!?"

With a POTUS who genuinely likes AOC and believes in her politics? Yeah, it would be spectacular. In the world and DNC we live in... expect the same "What the hell did she even do?" smear campaign Kamala has been getting since late 2023 (I wonder why).

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 25 points 4 hours ago

Right now I'm more interested in 2026. We need to be out there volunteering and promoting the DNC to hold seats and remove the GOP.

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

She's gearing up to be top sheepdog with Bernie handing over the reins to her.

[–] TheMinions@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 4 hours ago

According to Axios’s Alex Thompson, Ocasio-Cortez and her political operation are laying the groundwork for a campaign to either succeed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) or win the White House.

Two very different things. I know I’d vote for her if her name ever was on a ballot.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

The next three years will be interesting, to say the least.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

im pretty sick of interesting.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 1 points 45 minutes ago

How I long for a boring election year in America

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 12 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Years? The next three months are gonna be batshit insane

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

we live in interesting times

[–] foggianism@lemmy.world -3 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

She can't become the President unless she's willing to bow down and kiss the wall.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 minutes ago

what if we knock the wall down

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Why didn’t you just put (((President)))