this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
23 points (82.9% liked)

politics

25875 readers
3364 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
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Since the advent of the modern primary election system in 1972, an incumbent president has never been defeated by a primary challenger, though every president who faced a strong primary challenge went on to be defeated in the general election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_challenge

Which is exactly why everyone said it was Biden's decision. A strong primary challenger meant Biden would lose. Should Biden have been convinced to not seek re-election sooner? Yes. But that's still his decision.

The time for Biden to step aside would have been right after the midterms. Maybe behind the scenes Harris tried to convince Biden, but she clearly failed. Maybe Biden really was at the top of his game and no one saw it until his debate performance, but I'm not sure anyone really believes that. Publicly Team Biden said he was doing backflips around the White House, but of course when the public saw him he was your typical old man.

So... whos to blame? I blame the Democratic party/DNC at large. It's clear to me most people who vote Democrat want someone more progressive. The DNC would rather play it safe.

[–] Kalon@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Safe, and beholden to corporate donors.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Biden shouldn't have just done the Johnson "I will not seek, nor will I accept..." He should have stepped down as President in 2022 and let Harris run the incumbent bump through 2024.

I don't believe that would have made a difference, but it was the best shot at a '24 win.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I agree with the pledge, I disagree Biden should have stepped down.

A full Democrat primary with a wide range of fresh faces and pitching their ideas for the future. The last election was the same old Biden versus the same old Trump. Sure we did get a last minute change and I think Kamala did an OK job but she should have had a much harder pivot.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Then you have the same problem, nobody was going to tell the sitting VP she had no business being the candidate and you have the DNC putting their thumb on the scale same as they did for Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020.

[–] Loduz_247@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

In 2028 it could be quite different depending on the results of the midterm elections.

[–] TheCriticalMember@aussie.zone 7 points 2 weeks ago

Nobody cares, Kamala. You promised you'd fight and then you disappeared. Your 15 minutes are over.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Nobody can tell a sitting President not to run. People want to play it like taking away Paw Paw's car keys, but this is not the same.

It was on Biden to make the call, he made the call too late.

[–] Marshezezz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

I’m sure all the tool bag lib idiots buy it up too like good little cattle