this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2026
955 points (99.5% liked)

politics

31771 readers
4639 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
 

The progressive group Indivisible called for Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday to replace Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) as Democratic leader after the party secured control of both chambers of Congress in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

“Yesterday, voters made it very clear that they want a new generation of Democratic fighters,” the group wrote in a social media post. “We need a leader in the Senate who is capable of leading that fight. It’s time for Senate Democrats to choose new leadership.”

The group cited the Democratic leader’s faltering approval ratings in its Wednesday statement. An NBC News poll conducted at the end of October found only 13 percent of registered voters viewed Schumer’s leadership positively.

“The American people did not elect Democrats by historic margins just to bend the knee and go back to business as usual,” Indivisible said in its statement. “Senate Democrats need to listen to the voters and turn the page on status quo politics.”

The paid opposition running the Democrats will not falter in their supporting of their Republican donors' causes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hemmes@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Honestly, it’s still up to us. It’s us, as constituents, that won the midterms.

We need to demonstrate the new vision. Our congressmen are there to represent what we want, they’re not there to come up with stuff we may want to see happen.

That means you have to write them and tell them exactly what you want to see. It’s not just about winning a vote, make sure they hear what you have to say.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Though I understand the underlying sentiment, and I recognize that politics isn't a once every two years thing, I disagree that it should somehow be on us on.

I would love an engaged electorate, but realistically people campaigned on a specific platform. We pay them to read the bills and ideally vote in accordance with what they said their values are. It's completely unrealistic to push that back on the constituents. Often even congresspeople don't have time to read an entire bill before they vote on it. Do I understand all the intricacies of every omnibus bill? No. I give them my hard earned money so they have the time and staff to. If I have to be on the phone all the time reminding them that they promised no more wars just so they remember to stop Trump from bombing Iran then they have failed to do their job.

Does that mean we shouldn't call and express our opinions? No, of course not. But the entire point of having representatives in a representative democracy is so that your average person doesn't have to sit down and understand the ins and outs of every policy. It's really not their job to, and especially in America it's unrealistic to act like people will. Party leadership should be the ones capable of looking around, seeing the direction the wind is blowing, and coming up with a unified vision that addresses the issues of the people that voted for the party.

Also, however much I support contacting your congressperson, and have done so often myself, I've never once had it have any affect whatsoever. I still do it, but that's not a reliable way to get policies you want to happen. The only real reliable way is to vote in someone who was going to champion that anyway.

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

I have to disagree.

Congressmen are there to represent you. Most congressmen themselves say that they encourage constituents to reach out and express their concerns and ideas. That is the point of the structure. The average Joe doesn’t need to understand the details of the bill, you’re right, that’s what the representatives are for.

However, they’re there to represent the constituents, the bills that get put on the table get put there based on what the representatives hear from their constituents, and then it’s their job to sort through it for us. If you have a minority opinion on something or want something done different that no one else is talking about, it’s going to be difficult for you to realize your concerns in any bill that’s passed. But if you get more people to express their concerns to the representatives, the louder your concerns will get with them. And if they don’t share your concerns, that’s where constituents need to spread the word themselves. That’s how this all works.