this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
878 points (97.3% liked)

politics

29743 readers
2438 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 64 points 15 hours ago (9 children)

Many believe Harris lost in 2024 because voters viewed her as too progressive

What are they talking about

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 17 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

They're drinking the kool aid.

Harris lost because she never should have been nominated. Before she was nominated she was polling at 2% among Democrats. Nobody wanted her. And her campaign offered zero new ideas or new energy or new solutions, basically promising to be Biden 2.0 (just without the trust carried over from Obama's presidency). Obviously that didn't work, and (just like Hillary), 'I'm not Trump' wasn't enough to get her elected.

Her being progressive had NOTHING to do with it.

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

There's also the unfortunate consideration that she's a woman. A black woman. That's like playing on hardcore+ permadeath mode when it comes to elections...

I wish it wasn't that way but it's the reality in the US if you want a meaningful shot of winning... There is an unfortunate amount of voters who just won't vote for a woman or a POC...

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago

i reject this stance. the same thing is said about a black president. and women make up 50 % of the vote base.

especially since this is a talking point of operatives who seek a gender based wedge.

and also moot when there were a lot of issues whith both women candidates who were the democrats primary candidates in the last few presidential elections. these issues supersede all other reasons. the internal reports point to the backing of a genocide and aligning with establishment democrats, the ultra wealthy, and her “tough on crime” stance that is by design targeting minorities.

AND AND she lost by a narrow margin, male nominees have lost by FAR MORE then she did

do not accept such arguments

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 12 hours ago

It is BS. She lost because she is dumb politically. Obama won becsuse peoole viewed him as a progressive.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It sticks out like a sore thumb. Define "many"

Does that mean "my editor and his owner?"

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 4 points 13 hours ago

It's the same "many many very important people " that trump throws in to his word salads to give the impression of authority

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago

American people outside of very specific online bubbles aren't, on average, moral or smart people. The amount of "Well, I hate Trump and I voted Biden, but I wouldn't vote for a radical socialist communist who is, you know and you know" that I've heard both from inside the US and, which is very surprising, outside of the US, is both deeply concerning, and made me lose all the hope in the north American continent.
Voting patterns repeatedly show that those people are more prevalent and/or active than normal humans.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] PedroMaldonado@lemmy.world 29 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

How odd....a candidate that seems to give a shit about us is leading.

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 5 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Don't worry, some dirt will be invented, and unfounded rumours will be spread, well in time for her to lose.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 13 hours ago

Mamdani proved that harsh and cunning compaign against someone can help

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

She goes independent, splits the vote, President Donald Tr*mp Junior.

That's assuming we're not under martial law.

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 42 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

We generally need like 50 more AOC’s please.

[–] agingelderly@lemmy.world 12 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

AOCs as far as the eye can see!

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

A chicken in every pot, and a AOC in every political seat!

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

And free ponies for all!

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 91 points 22 hours ago (12 children)

If she throws her hat into the ring I fully expect the DNC to sabotage her at every opportunity.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 21 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

They will destroy her, she's worse than Bernie because she's not in her 80s, so they will sabotage her in every way possible. It's almost as if their entire scam depends on it keeping people like her out of office. They will at least be sure to keep her out of any leadership role.

I'd love to be wrong, as an Independent I will vote for her over any other person serving in office now. At least she's held an actual job.

The Democratic party is a private institution and won't be swayed by anything as silly as votes.

[–] Footer1998@crazypeople.online 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It isn't because she isn't in her 80s, it's because she poses the mildest possible threat to entrenched ruling class interests who own and control the entire media landscape, from CBS to CNN to Twitter to TikTok.

The wealthy ruling class would rather move towards fascism than socialism because fascism benefits the ruling class and socialism is a step towards dismantling the ruling class.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 20 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

genuinely she's the only worthwhile candidate I can imagine. I really hope she does it.

[–] agingelderly@lemmy.world 11 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Well her or Bernie. But.. you know, age and all.

[–] lando55@lemmy.zip 12 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

Yeah no one would vote for an old guy

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] bss03@infosec.pub 6 points 14 hours ago

I'd still vote for Bernie, but I don't think he wants to run again. I'd also vote for Sen. Warren.

I generally don't (think I) vote based on demographics. I am more interested in platform (primarily) and past performance (secondarily).

load more comments
view more: next ›