this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
340 points (98.3% liked)

politics

26576 readers
569 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
 

Left-leaning challengers in the Rust belt are throwing chaos into a divided party struggling to rebuild after Trump’s win

From Detroit to Pennsylvania to Buffalo, New York, and here in Ohio, insurgent, progressive Democrats are defeating their long-established colleagues in dozens of school board, city council and mayoral races, throwing the already-divided national party into chaos, even as polls indicate it stands to potentially benefit at next year’s midterm elections due to the Trump administration’s divisive policies.

In Lancaster, Pennsylvania, one of seven swing states whose voters in recent years have decided the country’s presidential election, 37-year-old Jaime Arroyo was elected mayor on 4 November, becoming the first Latino mayor in the city’s 295-year history. In La Crosse, Wisconsin, another swing state, Shaundel Washington-Spivey, the city’s first Black and out gay mayor, beat a fellow Democratic party candidate with extensive local government experience last April.

Candidates such as Turner-Sloss, Arroyo and Washington-Spivey are campaigning on combating rising housing costs and providing better public transit infrastructure at a time when affordability issues and federal government policies are driving many working families into crisis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If Chuck Schumer were replaced last election, what would have changed?

We'd have had one fewer senator organizing the Dem capitulation caucus. We'd have also had one fewer senator capitulating to Trump in March. Maybe, just maybe, someone willing to fucking do anything about Trump would've been in office. Also if he was replaced in, say, 2019 there would have been one fewer pro-genocide reactionary voting to give Israel everything it wants.

and with even a simple majority so much suffering would be completely avoided.

*Delayed. It would've been delayed, just as it was in 2020, because that's the thing: Democrats don't fucking do anything. Their favorite excuse is the filibuster, but they can just get rid of it. It's literally that simple. Whether this is incompetence or malice (though it's obviously the latter), the Democratic establishment needs to go before anything resembling progress can happen. You'll never get fewer Republicans if their competition is Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden or Kamala "most lethal army in the world" Harris. Trump is the result of 50 years of Democrats gargling corporate balls is Trump, and you'll never get rid of Trump if you don't do something about the corporate balls.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

We might not have 1 less capitulating to Trump, we might have another Republican.

DNC have had 48 or often less seats for over 10 years. They talk about getting rid of the filibuster but doing so would just give Republicans the same free reign that they have currently.

The last time the DNC had a real majority, not even a supermajority, was the most productive congress in decades. Dems have spent decades taxing corporations and limiting their ability to influence politics and they get no credit for that endless uphill battle.

Whenever Dems relax the rules, like when they made a simple majority required for Cabinet Picks under Obama, it ended up backfiring, such as getting used by Republicans to put oil barons in charge of foreign policy, private school executives in charge of the Department of Education, Coal Lobbyists in charge of the EPA, and Pete fucking Hegseth in charge of DoD.

Dems dont have a magic bullet for all your problems, we need to vote into power a substantial majority or even a supermajority.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

DNC have had 48 or often less seats for over 10 years.

And is that because they're terrible at winning or because they don't want to win? Take your pick. Either way they need to go.

The last time the DNC had a real majority, not even a supermajority, was the most productive congress in decades.

And they used that opportunity to pass checks notes Romneycare. So productive.

Dems have spent decades taxing corporations and limiting their ability to influence politics and they get no credit for that endless uphill battle.

If they've spent decades fighting that "battle" and this is the result, maybe they're not actually fighting at all.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If you don't think they want to pass what they introduce: call their bluff and promote them and vote for them.

If you do think they want to pass what they introduce: call their bluff and promote them and vote for them.

If you want Republicans to win: insult the DNC

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If you want Republicans to win: insult the DNC

Sure, fuck the DNC and this is why.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

At least you're being honest about promoting Republicans, now.