this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
278 points (91.9% liked)

politics

25308 readers
2689 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
 

The poll indicates support for the more aggressive position Newsom has taken in standing up to Donald Trump, particularly over a plan by Republicans in Texas to redraw their state's congressional seat map in the hopes of winning more seats in midterm elections next year.

The battle to become the 2028 presidential election candidate will likely set the new direction for the Democratic Party as it struggles with net favorability at what one recent poll showed to be a three-year low. Newsom has not formally announced his candidacy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Citation needed

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the DNC is and how it works...

If you weren't also insisting that you know how it works at the same time, I probably would have stuck around to explain it.

You're also ignorant of what their fundraising has been like and where it's coming from since the new chair.

Billionaire large money donations are virtually non-existent, and small donors has skyrocketed.

But again, if you were genuinely asking questions, I'd stick around to answer. Instead you're just insisting untrue things are reality and demanding I argue with you about it.

Very few people are going to invest the time required for you to understand this, when this is the way you go about it.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

If the DNC's fundraising situation has changed, it's not due to any policy forbidding billionaires and large donors. The DNC has lost the confidence of their major donors, according to Politico two days ago. They have raised very, very little in comparison to the GOP.

Talking down to me is not evidence that the DNC has changed significantly. When it comes down to it, they need their large donors because they refuse to shift left to compel small donors to fund them.

Even if the DNC is branding itself as friendly to progressives, those progressives will be absolutely crushed when a primary or election occurs. We need campaign finance reform to move forward as a society and to have a semblance of representation and democracy.

Again, I could give less than a fuck about the DNC's complexity as an organization. It is not nurturing progressives. Evidence is needed to support that assertion. The DNC will be back to taking primarily large donations before long, and so will the candidates that win the primaries (if there is any challenge posed by progressives at all).

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

When it comes down to it, they need their large donors because they refuse to shift left to compel small donors to fund them.

....

No, you're literally and completely wrong.

Because that is actively happening right now....

Major Democratic donors have withheld money this year amid skepticism about the party’s direction, while the small-dollar donors who have long been a source of strength are not growing nearly enough to make up the gap.

And:

“Chair Martin and the DNC have raised more than twice what he had raised at this point in 2017, and our success in cycles thereafter is well documented. Under Ken, grassroots support is strong,” former DNC Executive Director Sam Cornale said in a statement. “It’s now time for everyone to get off the sidelines and join the fight. Rebuilding a party is hard — rebuilding relationships and programs take time and will require all hands on deck to meet this moment.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/18/dnc-fundraising-donor-problems-midterms-00512473

The large donors stopped giving because the DNC pivoted left with Ken Martin.

And small donors are increasing because they approve of the party moving left

You literally don't know what you're talking about.

Everything youve said has been out of date, and yet you still keep blindly insisting you know what reality is, when you clearly aren't aware of what's happening.

If you don't want people to "talk down" to you, stop repeating misinformation and listen to the people who actually know what's happening.

We've raised more money that at this point in 2017, without billionaires.

What is so hard to understand here?

Why do you keep consistently insisting that we should ignore reality in favor of your opinions?

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

They have raised nothing truly significant by their own merit and the billionaires/etc. will be back - they will need their money to win. There is no visible shift left or to socialist policies. Support your assertions, Ken Martin and the DNC have already been arguably very hostile to a leading progressive in the DNC, no matter how you spin it. I provided receipts - the time for the DNC to enforce neutrality would've been during the court case where they were called out for rigging the primary against Bernie, not after Hogg got elected as Vice Chair with publicly visible positive intentions and goals. If literally everything has changed in 2 months, enlighten me.

Just because the DNC and Ken Martin are seen as hopeless by large donors now doesn't represent a significant shift. Americans also don't see the DNC/Democratic Party very favorably, according to recent polls. If small donors are flocking to the DNC more than they have in the past, it's because of Trump and what is left of democracy at stake.

Even on Ken's Wikipedia regarding his position as DNC chair put it this way:

Martin's first months as DNC chair have been described as chaotic and plagued by infighting. Under his leadership, the party has seen a significant drop in donations.

Infighting against progressives is clearly what they are referring to.

You're asserting he's garnering more small donations because there is a shift left. I am arguing that it's because people are more politically active.