this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
922 points (96.8% liked)

politics

29745 readers
2452 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

Part of me hates to see her try. As long as she is straddling the line between serious presidential candidate and popular US House member my head cannon reasons there is still some sanity in some small part of our political institutions.

Watching her actually seriously try to get the top job and watching the DNC ruin her for it would be so depressing.

[–] tinfoilhat@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I would rather her primary schumer

[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

That I could get behind. Probably do more good from that position as a whole as well.

Tbh, if she gets the inertia and then the DNC tries to kneecap her, I think enough voters are fed up with the DNC’s leadership at this point that it might not actually matter - that, or it’ll trigger a schism in the party that finally destroys the chokehold on power that the old guard has.

[–] olympicyes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Katie Porter is a cautionary tale.

[–] LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 1 points 2 hours ago

Yep that's my thinking. The dems don't do good campaigns and they often don't pick good candidates. Tbh I'd rather see her not get it

[–] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 75 points 18 hours ago (11 children)

Many believe Harris lost in 2024 because voters viewed her as too progressive

What are they talking about

[–] ssladam@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Skimmed other replies... What I didn't see...

This quote is actually TRUE. What it doesn't capture is that it was an intentional smear campaign. People on the left knew she was a center-right Democrat in a similar vein to Biden. But on the right, no matter who runs on the left, they will ALWAYS paint the Dem opponent as too progressive, and people on the right believe it.

That's the point.... Rather than cowing to that pressure and running people less and less progressive, run an ACTUAL progressive.

[–] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 2 points 31 minutes ago

Maybe this is a weird semantic difference.

If she lost more people by being hawkish and right leaning than she lost by being too liberal with social policies that nominally leaned left then that means she was too far right as that lost her more votes than her left leaning policies.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 21 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

They're drinking the kool aid.

Harris lost because she never should have been nominated. Before she was nominated she was polling at 2% among Democrats. Nobody wanted her. And her campaign offered zero new ideas or new energy or new solutions, basically promising to be Biden 2.0 (just without the trust carried over from Obama's presidency). Obviously that didn't work, and (just like Hillary), 'I'm not Trump' wasn't enough to get her elected.

Her being progressive had NOTHING to do with it.

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

There's also the unfortunate consideration that she's a woman. A black woman. That's like playing on hardcore+ permadeath mode when it comes to elections...

I wish it wasn't that way but it's the reality in the US if you want a meaningful shot of winning... There is an unfortunate amount of voters who just won't vote for a woman or a POC...

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

i reject this stance. the same thing is said about a black president. and women make up 50 % of the vote base.

especially since this is a talking point of operatives who seek a gender based wedge.

and also moot when there were a lot of issues whith both women candidates who were the democrats primary candidates in the last few presidential elections. these issues supersede all other reasons. the internal reports point to the backing of a genocide and aligning with establishment democrats, the ultra wealthy, and her “tough on crime” stance that is by design targeting minorities.

AND AND she lost by a narrow margin, male nominees have lost by FAR MORE then she did

do not accept such arguments

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah rejecting it doesn't make it false... Just because 50% of the voting base are women doesn't mean they're feminists. There's a lot of internalized misogyny.

Obama was a bridge too far for a ton of American voters and he was only a well educated light skinned black man... He still ticked all the other boxes for an American president. A female president is beyond the pale for a lot of Americans.

The Democrats are welcome to deny reality, ignore candidate popularity during primaries, kill all other candidate potential, and then lose the presidency again and act confused about why that happened... I guess the big thing they have going for them is trump isn't allowed to run a 3rd time so the trump cult candidate will be a weaker option compared to trump himself.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

what makes it false is the idea that she lost because she was a woman.

the numbers do not agree

it is a sexiest point because it pushes the thought that democrats can not run female candidates if they want to win.

this is provably false, even considering misogyny. and like i said, is sourced from political operatives looking for a wedge. misogyny is just not that influential.

Harris was polling to win the election, up until the listed slights against the progressive base.

you can see that even within the democratic party a push to reaffirm conservative power by reassigning failures of the party on such things like inclusiveness, sexism, racism, ect. they attempted to hide the result of their internal investigation that counters their talking points.

it is also a thought terminating accusation with no one to blame and fights against progression in this regard. and should be shouted down when ever and where ever it crops up.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 16 hours ago

It is BS. She lost because she is dumb politically. Obama won becsuse peoole viewed him as a progressive.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] PedroMaldonado@lemmy.world 35 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

How odd....a candidate that seems to give a shit about us is leading.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 46 points 21 hours ago (10 children)

We generally need like 50 more AOC’s please.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 95 points 1 day ago (14 children)

If she throws her hat into the ring I fully expect the DNC to sabotage her at every opportunity.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 20 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

They will destroy her, she's worse than Bernie because she's not in her 80s, so they will sabotage her in every way possible. It's almost as if their entire scam depends on it keeping people like her out of office. They will at least be sure to keep her out of any leadership role.

I'd love to be wrong, as an Independent I will vote for her over any other person serving in office now. At least she's held an actual job.

The Democratic party is a private institution and won't be swayed by anything as silly as votes.

[–] Footer1998@crazypeople.online 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

It isn't because she isn't in her 80s, it's because she poses the mildest possible threat to entrenched ruling class interests who own and control the entire media landscape, from CBS to CNN to Twitter to TikTok.

The wealthy ruling class would rather move towards fascism than socialism because fascism benefits the ruling class and socialism is a step towards dismantling the ruling class.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›