this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2026
216 points (97.8% liked)

politics

30960 readers
2446 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Pfft. Quite wrong, kamala was the worst choice. Either Newsom (whom I hate and will now lose in 2028,) or pritzker could've won with a few popular positions and a little fight.

Kamala didn't win a single state campaigning in 2020, is hated on the left and right, is a lifelong piece of shit, never breached 30% approval the entire term to Biden's fine debating skills were displayed to the nation, and didn't offer a single sincere reform.

How can you guys trust the establishment on electability, after Hilary, Biden, and Kamala. This is why I am out of politics. You guys are sheep.

[–] mracton@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Neither of them would have won either, especially at that moment in time. If we were to have an election today or even last year, Newsom totally could have won, but that summer the GOP candidate was already ascendant in an environment that organically (gullible and cynical voters/media ) and artificially (money & EC) made it so he would win.

You don’t know me, so don’t do this “sheep” thing with me. There was only one week that summer I thought a Democrat could win that election. I hoped I was wrong, but I wasn’t. 2016 definitely taught most of us that electability was not a science. We’re all in politics, just some of us are unwilling participants.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 3 points 2 days ago

I don't disagree with anything you said so I wouldn't call you a sheep.

It's all up in the air really in 2028, we have to see which piece of shit rises to the top of the GOP primary. Vance won't get it, Rubio won't get it. Kennedy could take it if it wasn't for his speech impediment but he's got a better shot than the formers.

It will be a total piece of shit, worse than the president, which is not hard if you consider that half as mean and twice as smart is worse than this blowhard because he's too dumb and greedy and capriciously vindictive and everything else to achieve his callous goals.

They should say they are "practicing" polling like they do medicine because it is not an exact sicence as you say. But one thing to consider, some of these polling to voting differentials these last ten years could be due to the right cheating. Everywhere they can. But to be sure, the polling itself is off as well.