this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
360 points (95.5% liked)

politics

25238 readers
2704 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

AOC has a major problem she doesn't have a penis.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think Clinton's or Harris' problems were their genitalia. I think it was that they both were fundamentally bland and uninspiring candidates running bland and uninspiring campaigns against a guy who got his base whipped into a frenzy every time he stepped on stage. They are both immeasurably better-qualified and more well-suited for the office, but Clinton ran on an "it's business as usual, which means that it's my turn" platform, and Harris ran on a "let's get back to business as usual, I'm better than the other guy" platform; and by the time they course-corrected, they had both run out of time.

Harris even had a taste of that base-engaging fervor in the early days of Walz's selection, when he was going on attack and calling Republicans "weird," but then her consultants pulled the leash and he brought it back to business as usual.

Would AOC succeed where Clinton or Harris failed? I doubt it. She's been the subject of a GOP smear campaign for six years now. But it won't be just because she's a woman. There's still a lot of misogyny in the American electorate, of course, but I think it'd honestly account for something like 3-5%. Enough to make a difference in a close race, but not enough to truly sink a good, compelling candidate.

[–] yonderbarn@lazysoci.al 2 points 13 hours ago

Pretty much agree with everything that you've said. The goal is to motivate the base and to galvanize a new wave of voters. You can't achieve that if you don't provide anything substantive.