this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
958 points (97.2% liked)

politics

29802 readers
2149 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 88 points 5 days ago (12 children)

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

What are they talking about

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 22 points 5 days ago (16 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.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] ssladam@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Skimmed other replies... What I didn't see...

This quote is actually TRUE. What it doesn't capture is that it was an intentional smear campaign. People on the left knew she was a center-right Democrat in a similar vein to Biden. But on the right, no matter who runs on the left, they will ALWAYS paint the Dem opponent as too progressive, and people on the right believe it.

That's the point.... Rather than cowing to that pressure and running people less and less progressive, run an ACTUAL progressive.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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

Does that mean "my editor and his owner?"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 103 points 5 days ago (18 children)

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

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 26 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thlibos@thelemmy.club 24 points 5 days ago

They'll play nice and keep it on the down low and then pull some Obaman, secret, backroom Super-Tuesday fuckery to steal the momentum and likely nomination from ~~Sanders~~AOC and give it to a center-right, corporatist shill like Buttgiggle or Shamala.

[–] berno@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago

Jefferies will never recover from the AIPAC Shakur nickname. Absolutely wrecked him.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] areakode@riskeratspizza.com 226 points 6 days ago (11 children)

The DNC is not gonna be happy about this... 😆

[–] tryitout@infosec.pub 53 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They weren't happy about Bernie and look at the fucking mess they caused.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 174 points 6 days ago (74 children)

Many believe Harris lost in 2024 because voters viewed her as too progressive, and that Ocasio-Cortez could face the same problem.

Who’s this “many”? Kamala lost because of her Joe Biden neolib policies, her hard heel-turn to the right, and her “nothing will change, we are the most lethal military” stance on the Middle East.

Instead of reassuring the masses who she thought were a shoe-in, she tried to appease the “I’ll never vote for a black woman” crowd, which alienated the former and would never have worked on the latter.

It was either the greatest miscalculation ever, lead by Third Way focus groups, or someone tugged the leash. Either way, with the GOP rat fucking that was almost certainly happening to some degree.

Pretty shitty of Newsweek to pretend that progressive policies are unpopular with a majority of Americans.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 48 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Personally, I think it is because there was no Democratic Party primary. Biden stole the time that any potential candidate could have used to prove their mettle to voters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 30 points 6 days ago (3 children)

DNC has already shown they aren’t taking that as the lesson learnt. They won’t even release the 2024 autopsy cause they don’t like what it says

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] daannii@lemmy.world 26 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure it was the opposite. I still voted for her cause Trump was worse. But I felt then like I do now. She's a Republican. Her policies are conservative and Republican.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 16 points 5 days ago

Many = the author. Every time.

[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 14 points 5 days ago

its almost like all legacy media is inherently fascist

load more comments (69 replies)
[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 49 points 5 days ago (1 children)

We generally need like 50 more AOC’s please.

[–] agingelderly@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago (2 children)

AOCs as far as the eye can see!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago (10 children)

Part of me hates to see her try. As long as she is straddling the line between serious presidential candidate and popular US House member my head cannon reasons there is still some sanity in some small part of our political institutions.

Watching her actually seriously try to get the top job and watching the DNC ruin her for it would be so depressing.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] PedroMaldonado@lemmy.world 38 points 5 days ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 95 points 5 days ago (20 children)

The democratic party funded by AIPAC will rather see Trump for a third time than having AOC as president.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 25 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Gotta get the red Dems out.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Hegar@fedia.io 103 points 6 days ago (6 children)

THERE IS ANOTHER ELECTION BEFORE THAT.

It's two years away. It's not even the next election! And this is all presuming that there even is another election, which is far from given.

There is absolutely nothing you can say about a hypothetic 2028 election in 2026.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago

There is absolutely nothing you can say about a hypothetic 2028 election in 2026.

Speculation on the 2028 presidential race began five minutes after the 2024 polls closed.

The Forever Campaign is much like the Forever War, in so far as it is a suffocating political miasma that strangles any other conversation.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 72 points 6 days ago (10 children)

I’d laugh so hard if the backlash against trump was an AOC presidency!

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 29 points 5 days ago (12 children)

I have zero hope she'll win the primary, but I'd bet money she'd win the general if she got to it. The next problem after that though is if she ends up being president in 2028, she'll probably not get jack shit done because of the newly massively gerrymandered congress, intrinsically anti-democratic senate, and actively hostile SCOTUS.

We'd see her win and the american left would get the largest blackpill ever as she gets fucked over and gets barely anything done, is blamed, and then we get Cyber-Trump in 2032.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago (2 children)

she’ll probably not get jack shit done because of the newly massively gerrymandered congress, intrinsically anti-democratic senate, and actively hostile SCOTUS.

Using the Trump precedence, she can ignore Congress and SCOTUS.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 21 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] agingelderly@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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

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

Yeah no one would vote for an old guy

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Democrats are starting their primary already? Must want to try and get people to vote in the midterms.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›