It wasn't a blowout if you forget to look at how much money AIPAC spent.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
175 points (98.9% liked)
politics
30667 readers
2447 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
$70 million, if I remember correctly
Michigan Dems will vote blue no matter who, we had a primary we know outlr canidates and now we unite going forward.
One can only hope; centrists tend to be pretty flaky.
Exactly. Centrist may choose not to vote.
As are progressives
No? Statistically progressives tend to vote blue no matter who more than centrists by a fair margin.
I'm interested in the source for that, the fact that we don't have president Harris speaks against that.
it wasn't progressives who stayed home dolt
So we have president Harris and not Trump?
FYI, Pew Research found that only 85% of Biden voters showed up in 2024. If all eligible voters had shown up, though, Harris would have lost with 45%.
Source?
Where's your source that progressives stayed home more than centrists? You demand sources from others but provide none of your own.
I didn't quote anything specific other then my feels and obervations, if you tell me a source supports an alternate/correct assessment Im all ears/eyes.
No. You're telling people their anecdotes aren't good enough, but you're here arguing your gut feelings are enough. The problem is you're a hypocrite demanding a higher level of proof than you yourself are willing to provide.
The anointed one gleefully embracing the most lethal neo-conservative partnership in the world, that Harris?
You speak of facts, but conveniently leave out the fact that Trump walloped her so badly he won by a wider margin than there were self-identified protest vote progressives to begin with. It literally made no difference how they voted.
I hope she runs again in ‘28 and has to face an actual primary vote where she will once again receive single digit support. Who knows, maybe if she moves even further right she can pick up some more maga voters and break into the double digits lmao.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/17/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-242819
Sanders appeared to be referring to a YouGov survey that found that 24 percent of those who voted for Clinton during the 2008 primary backed McCain over Democratic nominee Obama in the general election.
Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study
So I'm tracking HRC said Bernie (the progreesive) didn't bring his supporters around in '16 like she did in '08.
I voted for her, every progressive I know did too. Maybe you're thinking of the protest votes against genocide? I'm not sure if they were progressive.
The protests (at least online) all came from progressives so I can only assume that the split democatic vote cost Kamala.
You know what they say about assuming...
nope. progressives aren't radical leftists. the radical leftists who thought trump would be better for palestine did that.
I didn't know they were progressive I thought they were liberal for some reason. Thanks for clearing it up. For what it's worth, people tried to talk them out of it, tried hard.
lol get fucked. progressives show up while people like you stay home whining about progressives.
They don't and thats the point
wondering if the state there says “primary winner is the candidate” and if they planned on still running the other guy since the dem leadership is pro israel anyway.
This man has policy ideas that are good. Policy over party, yet cool he's gonna caucus with the less crappy party.
Yeah, blue no matter who right you bunch of worthless, hypocritical assholes?
I'm stuck having to vote for Katie Hobbs who's supposedly running with a god damn Republican so you assholes better man the fuck up too.
I mean some of us who said that actually meant it. Despite all of the wailing, tactical voting remains the correct way to participate in first past the post elections, even for leftists.
Yeah, it makes for a simple effective slogan. Unfortunately the neoliberals specifically are the big flaw in it. As they openly won't. There needs to be a simple catchy way to convey voting against Republicans in the most effective way possible. Which often but not always would be voting blue.
So now that it’s done Haley Stevens is going to concede and back El-Sayed right? Blue no matter who????
We’re fucking waiting you little hobbit.
Edit: I should have looked harder. She did do those things. My bad.
I think she did
A quick search shows she already did, what's with the vitriol?
I guess you commented as I was checking and making the edit. Yep, you’re right.
The vitriol is real, but in this case undeserved.
Angry leftists raging and wondering why people side eye them.
are the leftists in the thread with us now?
Yeah those first two comments.
Shouldn't be that hard to figure out.
It's hard not to be angry when the world is on fire
There historically has been a lot of reluctance to. And there was a lot of dirty campaigning in the primaries. Like what you'd expect in the general normally. Not to mention there's been a lot of baseless neoliberal pearl clutching, not strictly related to this in particular that's already getting ugly. It was never a given they would concede magnanimously. But so far it seems they have. Which is good. Hopefully the sooner people like James Carville or Bill Maher switch their registrations to Republican. The situation will only improve.
El-Sayed specifically said that he is not a socialist, so I don't see why he'd fail to see full support for the general election. People confuse opposition to a specific label (a label with a great deal of negative baggage) with opposition to a specific set of policies.
People confuse opposition to a specific label (a label with a great deal of negative baggage) with opposition to a specific set of policies.
No offense but that's exactly what you did. The party establishment uses the socialism rhetoric to its advantage, but ultimately what they don't want is for the rich to pay for their fair share.
You know exactly why.
The Democrat establishment don't confuse that. They are against socialist policies full stop, and they only use the socialist label to fearmonger in support of that .
Because terminally online progressives need to find offence or they can't sleep at night.
Second they're worried the party will do them what they've done to the party
Oh, so it'll support them and give them votes and money even as they repeatedly spit in its face? Why would they be afraid of that?
I scheduled an appointment with president Harris so you guys can hash it all out. I'm sure your totally achievable list of demands you won't compromise on will get settled at that meeting.