this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
432 points (96.8% liked)

politics

29883 readers
1977 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

archive article https://archive.is/hXQTC

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

She’s the only federal level Democrat with any sort of broad public support.

No one else is note worthy or generally liked.

She is literally the only option. Anyone else is risking mass voter apathy and a voter turn out flop in an election that should be a slam dunk.

If you’re going to vote in the dem primaries, don’t fucking vote based on who “is most electable”, vote for who you want to win. Choosing the candidate that “is the most electable” keeps losing elections, because that crown keeps getting chosen by corporate owned media who just anoint that tittle to the most corporate friendly candidate, and voters don’t like corporate friendly candidates.

The most electable candidate is one who excites people, no one else even considered for running excites anyone except for corporate lobbyists.

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They'll ice her out and close ranks against her the way they did for biden against Bernie.

And they'll lose again.

[–] valtia@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This sentiment is not actually mutually exclusive. If AOC will get iced out and the corporate candidate is guaranteed to win anyway, then there's no harm in voting for her during the primaries

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 6 points 20 hours ago

And voting for her in the primary, and not the corporate candidate in the general, is the best way to signal exactly what this shit is costing them.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago

Totally agree.

That said, vote in the general no matter what. If you find voting for a milquetoast Dem unpalatable, which is totally reasonable, consider vote swapping with someone in a safe blue state.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I like her, but I also think Mark Kelly would be a strong candidate. Former military. Retired Astronaut. Wife survived an attempted political assassination. He stood up to the Trump administration who tried to charge him with crimes punishable by execution and waved it off.

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

Barley anyone knows his name or anything about him. If the candidate doesn't throw down the gauntlet with the GOP and trump, show they can fight this shit, they will lose. Trying to convince ppl in a few months that that's Kelly isn't going to work. AOC is in the trenches fighting visibly, every day, and has Bernie's backing, bigger name recognition, aligned with mamdani whose showing what's possible with the next generation of dems, and is probably the best candidate with momentum to build around. I don't know if even that's enough though tbh.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

It seems to me that Kelly is a centrist who stands for nothing in particular. Why have you decided to support him? Sure being a navy pilot and a member of Nasa is cool, but we dont need cool, we need a dem who will take a stand on the issues for once. Issue support is what we need to win, not some cult of personality.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But have you considered how electable a zionist white thumb is in Trump's America? /s

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

AOC voted to continue arming Pissrael, so...

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

You're right, she is such a zionist I am sure AIPAC will help fund her race for president. 🙄

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Strawman arguments are a weak response to being presented with facts you don't like being reminded of.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

He's not my favorite. But he'd be a strong candidate.

[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

He would be a strong candidate… if he had a larger public profile with the average voter.

I like him, but the average voter doesn’t know about him. He doesn’t even rank in battle ground polling.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Obama went from a nobody to an unbeatable candidate virtually overnight.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If OP didn't follow up his name with his CV I wouldn't have remembered who it was...

[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago

I know who he is because I’m a space nerd and follow congressional politics closely, and I like him, but I also know that most voters don’t pay attention to congressional politics, nor remember the kind of news stories he’s showed up in.