this post was submitted on 29 May 2026
70 points (91.7% liked)

politics

29946 readers
2848 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
 

The 192-page report, authored by a Democratic strategist and first published by CNN on Thursday morning, goes in-depth on several factors found to be detrimental to Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign in its ultimate loss to Donald Trump. Despite the contention within the party over then-President Joe Biden’s support for Israel’s genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, however, the war doesn’t get a single mention.

Also missing from the document are the words “Israel,” “Palestine,” “Arab American,” and “Muslim.”

A spokesperson for the DNC declined to comment on the omission of anything having to do with Gaza...

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 17 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Well duh. Whatever your thoughts may be on those who chose their vote purely based on Gaza, it is an undeniable fact that it played a not insignificant part in their loss to the orange paedophile.

Of course they don't want to admit that essentially ignoring their ally's genocide screwed them over... Because admitting that officially means they'd have to do something about it.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

It would also disrupt funding.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

It'll play a significant role in the next election too. Anyone who has either a D or an R next to their name and isnt clear around their support for following the law and ending war crimes isnt getting any votes for being slightly better than fascists. D no longer means default vote. Dems better wise up and start caring about what their voters want.

[–] Freeposity@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago

The document was AI slop. I can see why they didn't want to release it, but for crying out loud just be honest about why. The way they handled this only makes them look untrustworthy.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

OP been living in a cave or finally returned from Gaza.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'd like to congratulate OP for waiting a whole week before bringing this up again...

https://lemmy.world/post/47181932?scrollToComments=true

Someday I hope people realize billionaires hating the DNC is a good thing tho, and that it wasn't a coincidence the media waited till a new chair was sat until criticizing what Biden's DNC did.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

it wasn't a coincidence the media waited till a new chair was sat until criticizing what Biden's DNC did.

That doesn't apply to The Intercept, or other independent media like Drop Site, Democracy Now, ect

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

Im in these streets girl

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 0 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Is there any evidence that it was a top issue for voters? Every poll I saw was all about the economy and immigration etc. Americans are far too self-absorbed to care about a genocide they are paying for.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

There can be more than one dealbreaker. For example, candidate eats barbecued babies for breakfast, or candidate supports sending money and weapons to a country committing genocide.

Even if it were possible to rank them, I wouldn't want to support a candidate who does either.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

With the voters split pretty evenly, it doesnt need to be a "top issue". It needs to be enough of an issue that Dems will lose if they ignore it. The Dems are basically in a civil war, and progressives absolutely do have the power to keep them from winning elections if the centrists try to ignore them and pivot right again.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It does not even need to be a top issue, but you cannot deny that it was an issue.

It is indeed interesting that they did not mention this topic at all. If the issue was actually insignificant, I would expect it to be mentioned to clarify it.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

A proper post-mortem would have done a factor analysis of some kind, and then analyze the relationship between those factors. But that might lead to identifying root causes that make them uncomfortable, such as the glaringly evident fact that their donors' objectives are in opposition to those of a large subset of their voters.

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think, other than Michigan, it was just a part of a larger group of things that turned progressive people away from voting at all. Numbers were down hard for Dems and a lot of people were self reporting that they didn’t think Dems earned their vote or that they wouldn’t do anything good with it.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yeah, it's not exactly inspiring when the choices are to have MAGA running amok, or Schumer droning on about irrelevancies while MAGA still runs amok.