478
‘We lose the midterms’: Republicans worry Iran might have already cost them Congress
(www.politico.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
478 points (99.6% liked)
politics
29340 readers
2538 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I didn't vote for either one and they are both equally bad. Yes, let me say that again so you don't have to try a "gotcha" moment and try to repeat my words back to me. Yes, they are both equally bad. Yes, I think Harris would have done just as badly. Yes, I think both sides suck and in fact, I think they are practically the same.
The Democratic party lost to Trump, twice. Twice. That's on you all, not me. Maybe the party should come up with a better candidate this time around.
It's up the Dem party to inspire people to vote for them. the whole "but, but, but it's not Trump!" strategy didn't work. Either time. So are they gonna do better this time? Or are they just gonna write some harshly-worded press releases again?
If the Dem party nominates AOC, I'll vote for them. If not, I'm voting third party. No amount of "gotcha" or "what if" scenarios that you are thinking of throwing at me will change my mind. You can throw all the hitler-nazi-fascist-emperor-pedo-king-wwIII-civilwar shit at me all you want. I don't like either party and they both suck.
AOC or third party. Yep, I'm black and white that way. No, you aren't going to change my mind. And that's ok.
See, this right here is what I take issue with. You're grouping me in with the group that "lost to trump", but you're not acknowledging that you contributed to that loss by not voting strategically. You're putting blame on people who voted for Harris despite her not being our ideal candidate, but not accepting any yourself. Your shit stinks, too, just like everyone else's.
To put it another way, your candidate, or "you all", to use your terms, also lost to Trump, and in fact performed even worse.
Well, I think this is a delusional take, but you're welcome to your opinion.
Why would I vote "strategically"? I voted for who I wanted to win, as everyone should. And yep, my candidate lost to Trump too. I have never thought, nor said, any different. But I don't go around blaming everyone else for my candidates loss, yet I see a lot of Democrats do that.
Ya know why your candidate lost? Not enough people voted for her. Know why my candidate lost? Not enough people voted for her.
Let me put it another way, using your logic: Should I blame you for my candidates loss, since you voted for Harris instead of my candidate? Should I say that Trump only won because of people like you not voting for my candidate?
Because that's exactly what you are trying to do to me.
Because our (deeply flawed) voting system necessitates it to get good outcomes.
What you should be doing is pushing hard for your 3rd party of preference to run (and win) elections on the local and state level, not the presidency. You'd see far more actual, tangible change if you started getting those folks elected in smaller elections than just losing the presidential election with 2% of the votes every 4 years. Look at Zohran Mamdami - he's doing a great job in NYC and actually doing a lot of positive things. If he'd run for president, do you think he'd have won? Not a chance in hell.
However, once candidates like that start doing good things at the local level, then they become more palatable candidates to elect to the House / Senate. And once we start getting Senators / House Reps from those parties, they become more palatable candidates on the national level.
There were exactly 2 candidates who had a chance of winning that election. You know that. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous. See the above for how to change that.
They do. My party has won local elections and state elections and hold office.
Dems and Repubs teamed up in 1987 to create the Commission on Presidential Debates. They set strict rules that have excluded virtually every third-party candidate from the national stage ever since.
It’s one of the rare things they publicly agree on: maintaining the two-party lock on the biggest platform in politics.
IMHO, if you vote for Dems, you support that. Harris voters and the non-voters, not voting for my candidate are why Trump won. You know that. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
Great! So the next step, then, would be to push those candidates into senate / house seats, while protecting the presidency from the candidates who are interested in a fascist takeover of the country and its voting process, because that isn't going to help your candidates get elected anywhere.
We already do that. And we have 9 candidates running (or actively trying to run) for governor in the 2026 elections.
And I do my part to protect the presidency from bad people, by voting who I want to win. And during the last election it was 3rd party. Proud of my vote then, proud of my vote now.
And I'll gladly vote 3rd party in future elections too. Harris voters and the non-voters not voting for my candidate are why Trump won.