this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
1306 points (98.7% liked)

politics

23571 readers
3133 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
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AreaKode@lemmy.world 301 points 1 day ago (12 children)

Weird. The party that claims to be "for the people" keeps putting centrists in charge. We're ready for someone who is actually for the people!

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 199 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Quickest way to mobilize the Democratic party is to threaten to put a progressive in charge

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 151 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They learned their lesson with Obama. The funny thing is he’s not even a fucking leftist, the party is just so full of dinosaurs they think a modern centrist is a leftist.

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemm.ee 51 points 1 day ago (2 children)

With Obama they just learned how to take a somewhat progressive candidates and bend them into a moderate. It's the same thing that happened with Kamala, although of course it's hard to say if either were ever really progressive or if they just used that for votes and didn't mind discarding it once they got pressured by the party and consultants.

[–] Redditsux@lemmy.world 52 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Kamala was never progressive.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Neither was Obama. Not long after he put a bow on the nomination, he voted for an expansive security bill. A lot of people were surprised, but not me.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee 72 points 1 day ago (12 children)

They’re definitely for the billionaire people.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 57 points 1 day ago (2 children)

DNC: I am here for the working people-- from billionaires, all the way to millionaires.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] nthavoc@lemmy.today 55 points 1 day ago (12 children)

Water is wet. Wasn't this obvious when the DNC kingmakers, I mean, leadership decided to boot her out of a key committee position with a person that that could have passed for a republican and retired after getting the position? A poll was needed to see this?

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] zebidiah@lemmy.ca 70 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's funny, because the dnc does not share any of her ideology, and it's not even close

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because the DNC leadership doesn't represent anyone except for the donors who own them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mustakrakish@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Yeah she needs to spilt and be the face of an actual workers party, not the mask for the failed democrats.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world 151 points 1 day ago

she's got my vote

[–] gradual@lemmings.world 22 points 1 day ago

She's one of the few democrats that I would vote for president.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 123 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

She's not the face of the Democratic Party

She's the face of a completely new and different party that has nothing to do with old Democrats.

To me, I've been viewing the US as being governed under a one party state for a while ... the Republicans and the Democrats form two halves of the same organization.

The US doesn't need a third party

They need to form a new second opposition party because the old one morphed into the monstrous thing we have today.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 81 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

The US needs a third, a fourth, a fifth and several more parties as viable alternatives.

They to drop any weird FPTP systems, this will allow new parties to come into play.

This would also end the ridiculous gerrymandering shit

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 62 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Make it clear to the Democratic Party establishment that progressive candidates will be on the ballot in every congressional district in Nov 2026, and they will be a spoiler candidate if they have to be. Either way, we are done with their shit. There will never be a better time.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 41 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

they will be a spoiler candidate if they have to be

I'd rather phrase it as "and they better not run a neolib spoiler candidate". It's not the progressives with popular support who are spoilers, but the neoliberals who are only propped up by corpo lobbies.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] carlossurf@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Xanza@lemm.ee 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The best part about it, is that the old-as-fuck Democrats hate it, which makes me love it all the more.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 26 points 1 day ago

She's already 35. Run her.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Coming in a distant second was close ally Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The pair recently went to various states with their Fighting Oligarchy tour. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) placed third in the survey with 8%.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris came in fourth with 6%. Following her was Pete Buttigieg with 5%, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) with 5%, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) with 4%, and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.

LOL, Chuck Schumer didn't even place. That gives me a little hope.

load more comments (6 replies)

DNC: "Ewwww a progressive? We wouldn't be as rich with a progressive in charge!"

[–] ScrambledEggs@lazysoci.al 25 points 1 day ago (8 children)

She should distance herself from that sinking ship. It's like continuing CPR on a victim who is already dead. Yeah you're trying but ultimately it's no use. Both main parties have been so tarnished that even being associated with the name is a smudge on the record.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] hefejefe@lemm.ee 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Her rally with Bernie was pretty electrifying. I can see how her polices might be polarizing to some, but damn she can get the working class support. Just gott keep the momentum up and get people to actually vote.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago

"Democrat voters want leftist leadership"

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›