this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
847 points (97.2% liked)

politics

29736 readers
3010 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 44 points 7 hours ago (9 children)

Many believe Harris lost in 2024 because voters viewed her as too progressive

What are they talking about

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

They're drinking the kool aid.

Harris lost because she never should have been nominated. Before she was nominated she was polling at 2% among Democrats. Nobody wanted her. And her campaign offered zero new ideas or new energy or new solutions, basically promising to be Biden 2.0 (just without the trust carried over from Obama's presidency). Obviously that didn't work, and (just like Hillary), 'I'm not Trump' wasn't enough to get her elected.

Her being progressive had NOTHING to do with it.

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

There's also the unfortunate consideration that she's a woman. A black woman. That's like playing on hardcore+ permadeath mode when it comes to elections...

I wish it wasn't that way but it's the reality in the US if you want a meaningful shot of winning... There is an unfortunate amount of voters who just won't vote for a woman or a POC...

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 hours ago

It is BS. She lost because she is dumb politically. Obama won becsuse peoole viewed him as a progressive.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

American people outside of very specific online bubbles aren't, on average, moral or smart people. The amount of "Well, I hate Trump and I voted Biden, but I wouldn't vote for a radical socialist communist who is, you know and you know" that I've heard both from inside the US and, which is very surprising, outside of the US, is both deeply concerning, and made me lose all the hope in the north American continent.
Voting patterns repeatedly show that those people are more prevalent and/or active than normal humans.

[–] texture@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

oh that? those are just lies. :)

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It sticks out like a sore thumb. Define "many"

Does that mean "my editor and his owner?"

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 3 points 6 hours ago

It's the same "many many very important people " that trump throws in to his word salads to give the impression of authority

[–] commander@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

It was mostly sourced from her 2020 campaign that were fodder for commercials. Then there were stuff like her going off on Tulsi Gabbard about not being a democratic party team player that made her look too centrist and establishment for people further left. Another common fodder for commercials are stuff like how the democratic party only cares about black guys with stuff like that 10 point plan for black men becoming wealthy. That stuff would be open to everyone because it's just marketing really, but the lack of marketing to non-black people is fodder for marketing the democratic party as not caring for any other minority group along with white people. I don't remember that commercial people hated that was shaming men to vote Harris in some way. That was good fodder for conservatives to paint the democratic party as anti-men

[–] Eh_I@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

She grew a Cheney off her elbow.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PedroMaldonado@lemmy.world 18 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

How odd....a candidate that seems to give a shit about us is leading.

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 3 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Don't worry, some dirt will be invented, and unfounded rumours will be spread, well in time for her to lose.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 hours ago

Mamdani proved that harsh and cunning compaign against someone can help

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

She goes independent, splits the vote, President Donald Tr*mp Junior.

That's assuming we're not under martial law.

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 33 points 10 hours ago (8 children)

We generally need like 50 more AOC’s please.

[–] agingelderly@lemmy.world 12 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

AOCs as far as the eye can see!

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

A chicken in every pot, and a AOC in every political seat!

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

And free ponies for all!

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Brown_dude69@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Good, carry on AOC!

[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 19 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

genuinely she's the only worthwhile candidate I can imagine. I really hope she does it.

[–] agingelderly@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Well her or Bernie. But.. you know, age and all.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 6 points 6 hours ago

I'd still vote for Bernie, but I don't think he wants to run again. I'd also vote for Sen. Warren.

I generally don't (think I) vote based on demographics. I am more interested in platform (primarily) and past performance (secondarily).

[–] lando55@lemmy.zip 11 points 9 hours ago (5 children)

Yeah no one would vote for an old guy

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›