this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
482 points (99.6% liked)

politics

29359 readers
2473 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
 

The two-week temporary ceasefire has done little to quell GOP fears about the war in Iran costing the party seats in November.

Republicans are relieved over Trump’s steps toward reconciliation in Iran — but they worry the measures are too little, too late to save them from a brutal midterm election cycle.

Behind the public celebration by many Republicans of the temporary two-week ceasefire announcement, longtime party operatives continue to warn of a bleak political reality as the cost-of-living concerns around the war including spiking gas prices that are likely to continue for weeks if not longer even if the fragile ceasefire holds.

A person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly, put it bluntly.

“This war in Iran almost cements the fact that we lose the midterms in November — the Senate and House,” the person said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (9 children)

I mean yeah of course. But look at how many people in the country actually are 3rd party. Like I said if the country wasn't very clearly and decisively divided into 2 parties it would be different. But the fact is people in the US now are typically either pretty far left or pretty far right. The amount of people in the middle (like truly in the middle) is absolutely miniscule - less than 3% last I checked. If 100% of the 3rd party people voted 3rd party, it wouldn't amount to much sadly. I would absolutely love for that to change but we are wedged so far into these two parties that it will be a loooong time before that happens.

Your opposition party would be absolutely thrilled if you voted 3rd party. There is no conspiracy to stop you from doing so. I'd argue the bigger conspiracy is against changing how we vote and how a winner gets chosen as that would make it much easier for a 3rd party candidate to make headway. As it stands, the more people they can get to throw their votes away instead of voting for someone that actually has a chance of winning (unless it's their party of course) the happier they'll be.

I would be so happy to be wrong here but over the years this has only gotten worse and worse, exacerbating the problem and pushing us farther into this hellhole of diametrically opposed political theatre. But at least we are HOT HOT HOT as a country now right?! 🔥🚒 🔥

[–] PapaSkwat@lemmy.wtf 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (6 children)

Like I said if the country wasn’t very clearly and decisively divided into 2 parties it would be different.

Because people like you keep repeating it and people get scared and don't wanna take the chance.

Your opposition party would be absolutely thrilled if you voted 3rd party.

Even if every single person who voted for 3rd party in 2024 voted for Harris, she still would have lost. That's how big her margin of loss was. Look it up.

It wasn't 3rd party voters that destroyed her chances, it was non-voters.

As it stands, the more people they can get to throw their votes away instead of voting for someone that actually has a chance of winning (unless it’s their party of course) the happier they’ll be.

Again, because people like you keep saying that and scaring people. Let me piggback on your conspiracy theory: Both major parties actively work to keep third-party candidates from having a real shot.

And one of the clearest examples is how they 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.

Add every time you vote for them, you support them doing that. I refuse.

[–] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Because people like you...

Ah damn. I thought there was a decent chance at a constructive political discourse. But I see I we're just skipping straight to finger pointing (which is quite entertaining as all signs point to us being at least ostensibly politically aligned). But you are right. I concede. This is all because of me and evil people like me. You're 100% right. Surely it has nothing to do with the system that has all of us boxed into nicely manicured corners.

Just remember the 1st and only rule of political finger pointing in the US. Keep it eye level or lower. Don't look up.

[–] PapaSkwat@lemmy.wtf 0 points 4 days ago

Surely it has nothing to do with the system that has all of us boxed into nicely manicured corners.

That's totally the reason for most of the problems. I just refuse to stay in those corners.

And like I said, even if every single person who voted for 3rd party in 2024 voted for Harris, she still would have lost. That’s how big her margin of loss was.

It wasn’t 3rd party voters that destroyed her chances, it was non-voters.

Be mad at them, not me.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)