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

politics

29876 readers
2117 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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours 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.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 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.

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours 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 6 points 12 hours 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 5 points 5 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.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 11 points 22 hours ago (6 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 6 points 12 hours 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 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours 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 18 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

AOC voted to continue arming Pissrael, so...

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] VoidMentat@lemmy.zip 28 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I would vote for AOC in a heartbeat. I am tired of old men ruining the country, and tired of Israel making us their errand boy.

As far as "experience", when did that really matter? Obama didn't have much foreign policy experience either and he was 1000x better than this current troglodyte pedophile.

To me the whole foreign policy angle is a non-sequitur. Unless an candidate has been a senator/congressman for several terms, it doesn't really apply. And how many presidents were that? Some of the best presidents had zilch in foreign policy experience and weren't an elected official for much before they became president.

Obama (one half-finished term as senator). Clinton (Arkansas AG and gov...hardly a place that had any need of foreign policy). Bush Jr (gov of Texas). Reagan (gov of Cali).

Not to imply all were great, but they definitely had, at least from our current perspective, a rational viewpoint where they thought from their POV that they were doing the right thing for the country, instead of this chaotic, narcissistic, demagogue, corrupt stupidity.

At this point a gerbil with schizophrenia would be a better option than Trump.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As far as "experience", when did that really matter?

It stopped mattering to me when I considered myself smarter than the president. And I'm an idiot.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 6 points 20 hours ago

And I'm an idiot.

Yes, but you're also self aware of it, which further differentiates you from the Oranguturd Chumpanzee.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I WAS going to Vote for AOC because she Represents America instead of Israel until all I saw Day Old Accounts telling me Newsom was Better! NEXT time AOC NEXT Time!

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Right he has AIPAC $ support, so clearly he is the shoe-in. He just has to out-AIPAC Shapiro and Pritzker and he's the obvious choice from our Israeli overlords.

/s. ?

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is young and lacks experience, especially in foreign policy. But that may be exactly the kind of person we need as president: someone relatively untainted by both the DNC and the GOP, and someone who has not spent decades being shaped by corporate lobbying and the protection of profit margins.

We need leadership that is still capable of idealism, somebody willing to push for the kind of social programs this country increasingly needs if we want to reverse the direction things are heading right now.

AOC absolutely could be elected. A 2028 presidential run is not some impossible fantasy. The deciding factor is simple: younger voters would actually need to show up and vote in meaningful numbers.

[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

lacks experience, especially in foreign policy

I honestly don't think there's a single real person that cares about this in the slightest. The only people I see unironically bringing up this argument are old people who preffer fascists over anyone younger than them.

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

O... kay...

So there are other countries on this planet aside from America. In fact, there’s an entire department of the U.S. government, headed by the person fourth in line for the presidency, whose sole purpose is handling foreign policy and relations with other nations.

Foreign policy is arguably the single most important qualification a president can have.

I’m 40 years old, and I’ve been saying this since I was a teenager because I’m not short-sighted enough to think the world ends at America’s borders.

And moreover, I literally said in my original comment that we may need somebody inexperienced like AOC at this point. Did you somehow miss that part?

[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I'm not American and my comment wasn't meant to be negative towards you. This is an argument quite often brought up in my home country, usually by the group of people I mentioned. This is also because, similarly to the USA, pretty much all of the 'experienced' politicians are just horrible.

So all I was saying is that, in my opinion, when you take all of this into account, this qualification becomes worthless. Because you can either have a qualified fascist or an unqualified maybe-somewhat-good guy or gal.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

She'll pick the right people for her cabinet, and she'll listen to their advice.

[–] pbjelly@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago

Young? I’d take young over dementia riddled. Besides, this country desperately needs fresh leadership and engagement from people who are younger.

If Emanuel Macron became French President at 39, I’m sure there’s no issue with AOC being 38 by 2028.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›