this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2026
102 points (92.5% liked)

politics

30613 readers
1848 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

She should run but I'd rather see her be a governor before president.

IMHO whats important in 2028 is we have a big field in the primaries so we can see where the base is then.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

IMHO whats important in 2028 is we have a big field in the primaries so we can see where the base is then.

I agree in principle, but the Democrats had a historically big field in 2020 and ended up with Biden. Sanders could arguably have won if Warren had pulled out earlier (reducing the number of candidates).

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world -3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Sanders would have lost the election though. I love Bernie and he might have been able to save our country but there would have been too many lukewarm left voters and the right would have turned out probably even stronger than they did.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

My point isn’t whether or not the best candidate won, it’s that the outcome depended on how many candidates each faction split their votes between. A big field wasn’t a reflection of “where the base was” if more candidates supporting a position made it less likely to win.

[–] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The point is to elect a democrat the base can support, if that's a progressive that's great, if not that's also fine. The D candidate in '28 is going to need all the votes they can get.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The point is to elect a democrat the voting public as a whole can support, and that's not a status-quo liberal when half the reason Trump got in the first time was that people were so desperate for change they were willing to roll the dice on a conman.

Progressives or socialists are the right choice precisely because they appeal to people otherwise dissilusioned with the Democrats.

[–] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

One of the things that cost Kamala the election was her reach out to the right. I think that in 2028 we need to only worry about keeping united behind the candidate. The Bulwark types are going to vote for any democrat for at least a couple more cycles. The non-bulwark types aren't reachable for a couple of cycles

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I agree with the goal... but while I think a competitive primary leads to better outcomes, too many candidates leads to arbitrary outcomes that depend more on which factions have the lowest candidate-to-voter ratio instead of which have the most actual voters (at least the way it’s currently structured). Plus it increases the chances of a brokered convention, which leads to voters feeling disenfranchised no matter who wins.

[–] yonderbarn@lazysoci.al 3 points 1 day ago

It better be a progressive because if it's another neoliberal MAGA lives on.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think senator would be the next logical step. Then governor would give her executive chops, if she doesn’t go the cabinet route.

[–] superglue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

She should try hosting a reality show, really round out her qualifications.

[–] yonderbarn@lazysoci.al 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Governor would be a step down from senator especially when people have already been talking about her for president. I doubt she has any interest of being in Albany over DC. The very fact that as governor she would be the executive would be politically risky for her with all the capital she's accumulated.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Agree. And NY is a good fit for her. And if real progressive policies are ever to get enacted on a national level, proof of working at the state level of a large state is a good launching point. And also the importance of progressive primary challenges to the corporate Democrats. I liked the policies of Warren and Sanders over Newsom, but their inability to get elected... This would be much different conversation if national ranked choice elections were a thing.

[–] fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 5 points 1 day ago

Oh don't worry, we'll start getting drip fed talk about the unelectibility of whoever starts pulling ahead and the purity tests will start.