No is the simple answer. But voting and elections are not going to fix the problems the usa has created for itself. Its not just drumpf.
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
218 points (98.2% liked)
politics
30222 readers
2076 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Dems don’t want to sell that reality. They want to whip up their base to vote harder so that they can squander another supermajority on something dumb, like giving Israel more arms to genocide. Then Israel re-initiates the Iran war so that the can Dems can be in charge of losing.
No.
George W. Bush stood alongside Obama at the opening of the latter's Presidential library instead of swinging from the gallows back in '08, which is what needed to happen if we were to save America.
Instead, we're fucked. The Dems ain't listening.
Then we need to force them to listen to us, by any means necessary
load more comments
(1 replies)
The Democratic Party is a honey trap to capture and neutralize progressive policies and politicians, and to make sure the “Overton Window” of American politics never moves left. The leadership runs cover for Republicans because they have the same donors and the same agenda. How many times do they need to invent some mechanism to allow them to steal defeat out of the jaws of victory for it to form a clear composite picture of collaboration?
While I do think we know there's some truth to all that, it's clear voting matters otherwise the Republican party wouldn't be trying to rig it every fucking chance they get, and the DNC wouldn't have been going so apeshit over Bernie in 2016. He threatened the establishment and they had to attack their own constituents and call them Bernie bros to get things back "on track".
It's not so black and white. There's Democrat politicians who range from zero to one as controlled opposition, and as supporters of the establishment and the status quo. People are more complex than that. They have their own goals and some of them did not join politics just to make a buck, and some of them are just plain cowards or are too far separated from their constituents to realize what they want because they're just surrounded by rich powerful fucks who don't buy groceries.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Maybe, but you’ll notice how the Republicans were able to take over their party and turn it into exactly what they wanted; a loony tunes racist circus. Don’t see why Democrats can’t do the same.
Because it’s a “good cop bad cop” routine
Get enough platners and AOCs through primaries and the squad becomes a battalion. The Overton window will move if the people vote for it often enough.
Just like how gay marriage tipped over 50% popularity and suddenly is became constitutional.
From your lips to the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s ears
Oh I can answer that for you. The answer is no.
Does that "base" bribe the politicians? No? So why should they care?
I mean. They do pay them in the form of taxes. And also in the form of small donor donations to campaigns.
In some campaigns the large donations from rich donors are more significant than the total from small dominoes, but that’s not always the case.
While that is the case, this is just a kind of "basic income", and just expected to be there. Contracts, nice trips, some extra cash, dinner invitations, etc, that are the nice and memorable cherries on top. And there is way more cherries here than ice cream and cream together.
I think most angry democrats are actually looking for the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America).
Here is their platform:
To be clear, for those reading, the DSA is structured as a party and could act as an independent party if necessary, but they mainly run candidates in democratic primaries as they recognize that doing so is a more practical way to win elections in the short term.
Has it ever?
Then we will force them to pay attention
we need to force them to listen to us, by any means necessary
Yeah, but will we this time?
We have to, we have to force them to pay attention or else
Depends on how much that particular person in the base is giving them.
load more comments
(17 replies)
The people how vote in primaries chooses the direction of the party.
Look at the republicans they saw what the base wanted now they’re all loyal to MAGA.
Except everyone doesnt have the opportunity to vote in primaries because this backwards ass country makes voting in general overly complicated/inconvenient on purpose.
The Republican base is angry, too. Everybody's angry.
Our parties are not concerned, they are making a FORTUNE. Openly, they don't even bother to hide it any longer.
Betteridge's law of headlines strikes again
angry doesnt quite cover it.
I'm surprised the magazine couldn't find the answer. But of course it is a shill for lib views anyhow.
Yeah, it’s really unfortunate the Atlantic is not as good these days
It would be an astounding change in policy if they were.
The base isn't the same as the mogul constituents that the Democratic leadership cares about.
I just hope they're angry enough with the GOP to realize its time to give the DNC supermajority for the first time since 1979.
But the DNC wouldn't have a supermajority the democratic party would and obama had a supermajority.
Nope, for 72 days in session under Obama the DNC had 58. Which is why an Independent Joe Leiberman fucked us all over by denying us public option healthcare.
True, but he only had that supermajority for four months
Actually, the DNC didn't. They only had 58. Which is why the ACA version we got was watered down from the original Public Option identical to Germany healthcare.
The Democrats had 60 votes for a cumulative total of about four months (broken into two periods between July 2009 and February 2010). However, even within that window, the supermajority was practically compromised. Senator Ted Kennedy was battling a terminal illness and was frequently absent, and Senator Robert Byrd was often hospitalized, meaning Democrats rarely had all 60 votes present.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Nope.
view more: next ›