this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
356 points (99.4% liked)

politics

26077 readers
3270 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
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 81 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Wish the DNC would take notes. Since, you know, the future of the republic is at stake.

[–] FranklyIGiveADarn@lemmy.ml 34 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

They are, it's in their notebook for things to fight against.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 10 points 12 hours ago

I remember some saying that the Democrats only exist to foil progressive candidates.

It really does seem like I’ve heard more shots taken at Mamdani than Trump…

[–] BCBoy911@lemmy.ca 36 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Chuck and Hakeem's AIPAC checks are much more important than "the future of the republic". Their cocktail party budget has exploded over the last 2 years!

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 11 points 19 hours ago

You guys just need to pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get a well paying gig as controlled opposition.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 70 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

In a Fox News poll released Thursday, Mamdani received 52 percent from likely voters, followed by Cuomo with 28 percent and Sliwa with 14 percent. Among registered voters, Mamdani dipped slightly to 49 percent while Cuomo held at 28 percent and Sliwa got 13 percent. The poll surveyed 1,003 New York City registered voters from October 10 to October 14.

Almost double his closest rival.

[–] ABetterTomorrow@sh.itjust.works 36 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The debate last night was a fucking slam dunk for him and New Yorkers….if they elect him and I hope they do.

[–] BCBoy911@lemmy.ca 19 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I suspect Cuomo is going to get 3rd place. Curtis Sliwa is at least a kind of funny, classic New Yawk guy. Cuomo just sucks.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 4 points 17 hours ago

Would be very funny, but New York is a Democratic stronghold. It's very unlikely that Sliwa will gain much if any support he doesn't already have.

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 45 points 21 hours ago

Damn those numbers on Adams are abysmal even for a dropout. He should consider moving somewhere else after his term ends. Maybe he can room with Giuliani in exile for NYC mayors who are despised by their own city.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 21 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Please ffs stay safe dude. I'm so fucking worried about him.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 2 points 35 minutes ago

I am really concerned Trump is going to do a mafia style hit on him

[–] Certamen@feddit.org 11 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

dems are collaborating with the gop since its inception lol

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 4 points 14 hours ago

Codependency

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago

Good for Mamdani.

[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 6 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Am I right that this is at least in part attributable to ranked choice voting?

[–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 16 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, but only because the ranked choice voting in the Democratic primary likely gave some voters/organizers/donaters confidence to back a longshot candidate like Mamdani, which eventually snowballed into a plurality win in the first round of the primary, a majority win after ranked choice took effect, and a polling lead in the first past the post general election. Still a success story, I'd say, but not a direct and unquestionable cause/effect chain

[–] xyzzy@lemmy.today 15 points 17 hours ago

This is exactly it. This is why ranked choice voting is so important as a tool to help break the two-party duopoly. Proportional representation being the next step.

[–] londos@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago

The general election isn't ranked choice.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago

More of this.

[–] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 29 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

Interestingly enough, their polling has been accurate. Credibility in other areas.. not so much.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 12 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

They have a news side and an entertainment side to their business. The primetime Nazi shows are all on the entertainment side so when they get sued they just say "we're not news, we're entertainment we don't need to adhere to reality! It's actually your fault for believing us!" Their polling comes from the other side.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 12 hours ago

I still look back fondly of the time Obama beat Romney and the Fox News entertainers (Karl Rove and Megan Kelly) just couldn't believe it, so they marched down to the polling office to demand answers

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

ROFL their "News" side (even local) is just as bad, just more coy about it. In this case, they gain nothing from fudging the numbers.

In fact, it is a way to attack the old guard Democrats who hate the young brown guy.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Fox News as live news is thrash, but Fox News' online page is surprisingly good. But it has been years since I went to their website.

[–] cmbabul@slrpnk.net 2 points 18 hours ago

Easier to design propaganda when you understand what the people you want to propagandize think