this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
16 points (94.4% liked)

politics

30739 readers
2566 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 10 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Socialists need to be able to make the case they’ll defeat Republicans.

This leads directly into the next point. It should have been clear after Joe Biden’s victory over Bernie Sanders in 2020 that the ability to defeat Republicans in general elections is nonnegotiable for Democratic primary voters. In places like New York City, where the GOP runs a local mascot like Curtis Sliwa for mayor rather than an actual candidate, this is less of a concern. But in a state like Wisconsin, where voters remember the devastation wrought by eight years of Scott Walker’s austerity-crazed, viciously antiunion Republican administration, Democratic primary voters were unwilling to take a chance with someone they viewed as less likely to win the general election.

Socialist candidates need to embrace the work of making this case, and need to campaign in a way that demonstrates to voters that we take beating Republicans every bit as seriously as they do.

This is a very important point I rarely see leftists talking about.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Leftists talk about it all the time because we're forced to defend ourselves against disingenuous "electability" concerns from a political faction that lost twice to a rapist and pedophile with the mental acuity of a 6-year-old. The typical centrist Democrat is historically unelectable and yet they still feel like they're in a position to lecture progressives on electability, when it should be the other way around.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -1 points 55 minutes ago (2 children)

Democrats get the presidency roughly fifty percent of the time.

What’s the leftist percentage?

[–] joe@lemmy.world 3 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)

This logic suggests that women need not apply for presidential elections, after all, men have won them 100% of the time.

Is that really the rationale you want to lean on?

I think we can do better than that, myself.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 25 minutes ago (1 children)

But women have gotten many, many more votes than leftists in presidential elections so far so the average voter is definitely more interested in voting for a woman than a leftist.

I know that the amount of sexism with democrats and leftists (just look at the reactions here to the Graham Platner scandal) definitely played a part in Clinton and Harris losing but Biden winning.

[–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 18 minutes ago (1 children)

But women have gotten many, many more votes than leftists in presidential elections so far so the average voter is definitely more interested in voting for a woman than a leftist.

But there was a point where women had no votes for president, was that a reason for them not to run? Do you really not see the error?

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 1 points 31 seconds ago

The women also had a lot of people in lower offices so they had put in the ground work too.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 0 points 36 minutes ago (1 children)

That statistic implies nothing except a confirmation of our deeply entrenched two-party system.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 1 points 23 minutes ago

Unfortunately it is our reality for the foreseeable future and it would be for the best of everyone to be able to recognize that fact.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 8 points 1 hour ago

There's a cadre of chodes out there who think that anything short of immediate overturn of the entire system is unacceptable. Overturn to what, they can't say.