401
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I am wondering if the mods of news@lemmy.world and politics@lemmy.world regret censoring the people who rightfully said these things and it would cost us the election. Like there's mods in here who go "yeah that sucks, I knew it." but also just defended Biden/Harris and removed good faith users who posted citations that even their beloved Media Bias Bot said was a good source.

They did it, banned the people who said it, and then people went "where are all those critics now? i guess putin turned them off! hurr hurr haw haw!"

Genuinely wonder if they question their choices of just doing this for free with literally zero benefit to their website and the country as a whole.

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 186 points 1 day ago

Let's blame Joe so Kamala can run again.

Not fooling me, DNC. I smell what you're cooking.

[-] robbinhood@lemmy.world 67 points 1 day ago

I want to tell myself that there's no way in hell they would let this happen, let alone make it happen.

Then I remember it's the DNC.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 40 points 1 day ago

It’s not like they colluded to kneecap Bernie’s campaign. Wait…

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 day ago

Kamala or Buttigeig, you can bet on it.

Seriously, go to Vegas. At least you'll make money on the end of the world.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'd bet they'll try to run Blinken or Shapiro. Harris cant bring in campaign donations, and donations are all the DNC cares about.

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

I feel like they have really poor name recognition. And while Shapiro looks great and presidential, Blinkin has a real "off" kind of look to him.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 17 points 1 day ago

Buttigeig is likely going to run given that he is giving up his chance at a Senate seat.

I feel like Walz is going to run as well. He's been showing up in national media a lot and seems to be becoming the face of the opposition.

Newsom seems like he's going to run as well, but he's been making terrible choices recently.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Newsom seems like he’s going to run as well, but he’s been making terrible choices recently.

Yeah, he's trying to become the preordained nominee by making choices party leadership likes.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 22 points 1 day ago

This guy gets it. Speaking as a Californian, this is exactly, precisely what's happening. I don't use this term a lot because it resurfaces trauma of not realizing I was posting in a thread on Hexbear, but Newsom is straight up the textbook definition of a shitlib. He's always kinda been a shitlib, with a ratio of one kinda okay decision to like four disappointing, mediocre, and shitty decisions that make the wealthy and corporate donors happy. Now that he sees a path to the presidency laid bare, he's fully embracing his shitlib instincts. Please, for the love of Buddha, don't vote for him in the primary.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Please, for the love of Buddha, don’t vote for him in the primary.

As though primary votes matter. The party successfully argued in court that they don't.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah, Walz refuses to announce (like they always do) but you don't make the amount of noise he is without gearing up for something. I don't think there's any way he doesn't run, and currently he might even be my favorite of those that I'm confident will run. We've got a while before the next presidential election though, so anything could happen and I can't really be bothered thinking about.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Helvetica@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago

She's free to run again, but this time she has to win the primary. And that's unlikely. It's rare in modern times for someone to lose a Presidential election and get another shot at it, Nixon and Trump are the only two in over a hundred years.

[-] Doorbook@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago

You seem to forget what they did to sanders. If they want a specific candidate they will make sure they win.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 day ago

Same reaction here, and the DNC is just dumb enough to do it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 47 points 1 day ago

Sounds like an excuse. She could've had a different stance but didn't. Because she's the same thing. She was asked point blank how she's any different than Biden and she couldn't answer.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Harris couldn't answer basic policy questions when she was running for president in 2020 either.

[-] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago

Nonsense. In 2020, she was one of the few that was supporting universal health care, for one thing. Unfortunately, she somehow decided, or was pressured, to stick with Biden's platform in 2024 instead of her own, more progressive, platform.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Doom@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 day ago

she's setting up for 2028. assuming we have elections

[-] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

After an L like this, I don't think Harris makes it to the 2nd primary debate

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hello_there@fedia.io 72 points 1 day ago

It's ridiculous to think that Harris couldn't have done what she wanted. Once you're named the nominee, that's it. They're not going to back out.

[-] nickhammes@lemmy.world 52 points 1 day ago

If she was unwilling to break from him because of his wishes, even if she was theoretically able, that speaks volumes about her as a leader.

[-] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

If she runs again, we lose again.

[-] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

IF there is another election, HitlerPig will get 98% of the vote, and he'll use his "popularity" with the American voters to justify defying the Constitutional prohibition against a 3rd term.

[-] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

Oh I'm with you on the big IF. Hell, I'll be surprised if we even have legitimate mid-terms.

[-] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 2 points 20 hours ago

He will do anything to preserve his slim Congressional majorities. They give him credibility, even though he is legislating through Executive Orders anyway.

I expect that he will find an excuse to impose Martial Law and suspend elections until peace is restored.

OTOH, if he allows elections to happen, it's because he is confident that their cheating strategies will win, and we'll even see strong blue districts flip.

They will use polls reflecting current voter anger at weakling Democrats to justify the obviously fraudulent results.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

The problem was her campaign was largely run by Biden's people. He clearly was interfering with her campaign and she kept trying to make the most of it.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

Did she ever say that publicly? No. So she did not make the most of it.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

I mean, that was the line from centrists anytime someone wanted any hope from harris that she might be less of a lapdog for netanyahu than biden was.

[-] robbinhood@lemmy.world 118 points 1 day ago

To be honest, this is just a signal that she probably wouldn't have been a good leader. Better than Trump, sure, but that bar is so low it's a tripping hazard.

She should have told Biden to pound sand after locking up the nomination.

But we should verify the claim before passing judgement.

[-] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 40 points 1 day ago

Honestly, her campaign already signaled that. This, if true, just reinforces it. It also reinforces that Biden was a bad leader, which he was.

Obligatory: I voted for Harris and Biden and dems down ticket every election since I've been old enough to vote.

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago

Obligatory: I voted for Harris and Biden and dems down ticket every election since I’ve been old enough to vote.

Man I am getting sick of needing to say this ahead of time/to anyone who goes "well if you criticized our candidates of their serious and actual issues, you must be a Republican!"

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I'm still content that I left my vote for president blank. No to all genociders regardless of party-- no exceptions. Maybe the DNC will learn not to ever try that nonsense in an election again if they know they can't possibly win doing it. Or maybe this country will tear itself apart, but if the price of keeping it together is engaging in the mass murder of innocents, then this system of government will have to end and restart in some different form.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 7 points 1 day ago

Definitely. And as soon as you say something leftist you're accused of not voting or "throwing away your vote" so you can't complain. Like, I get it. "Have the day you voted for" etc, but libs are pointing fingers at the wrong people. I've said it like a million times before, but sooo many of my leftist friends reluctantly voted Kamala when they were vehemently opposed to her stance on Palestine and now feel like they sold out for nothing. Like, at least if they hadn't voted they could say they stood for something. Now they don't even have a high horse to ride into the apocalypse on. The way libs will break your spirit is wild. They have more energy to fight leftists than republicans.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Lunar_Voyager@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago

The way democrats talk: "We're turning the page and letting the daylight in!"

The way democrats act with a majority: "We couldn't get any daylight this time, but we did pass these bipartisan flashlights which are known to explode occasionally due to republicans demanding amendments be added to the batteries."

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 day ago

"We've also means tested the flashlights, so those who recall the time before the great darkness get less of the flashlights, and anyone who has flashlights that explode will be required to have a daily check of their pupils to ensure they've been good at not looking at the daylight."

[-] Hugin@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

His legacy is in the toilet so congratulations advisors.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I feel like blaming her loss on others takes away her agency. Seems sexist to me. We dont reassign blame like this with male failed candidates, but with Hillary and Harris everyone wants to paint them as purely victims.

[-] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

They were both extremely bad candidates who should not have been in a position to run. If the party had been allowed to speak they would not have been allowed to run.

They weren't really candidates that failed on their own merits, they were set up to fail by being put into a position they should never have been in.

Neither Hillary nor Kamala could have won a primary that wasn't rigged in their favor. Since they didn't get to their position as candidate based on their own merits, it's reasonable to describe their failure in similar terms.

That said, there is such a thing as more than 100% blame, and this is a situation where A lot of people have a lot of blame. Those two women are 100% responsible for the stupid decisions they made. No one can take that failure away from them, but because of the nature of the mistake, there were a lot more people who should also be blamed and similarly excommunicated from politics.

There are elements of sexism here, but that's just endemic to politics. They didn't fail because of sexism, they got to where they were because of it and were set up to fail by it, but there are a lot of problems here beyond and before sexism.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago

I can believe this. She seemed frustrated when she spoke about the Palestine situation, and I picked up a strong subject that she wanted to say more about her objections over Israel's actions than she did.

load more comments (2 replies)

“Didn’t allow her” what does that even mean, in the context of the campaign? What the actual fuck was she doing listening to ANYTHING from Biden at that point? He was a clear looser. He stepped back from the campaign (after he was forced to, but he did nonetheless). That was an incredibly obvious opportunity for Harris to openly and cleanly split from policies she thought were wrongheaded - but nope, can’t have that. Jesus tapdancing christ.

Biden’s hubris put us here, I guess. What an unmitigated fucking tool. He sold us down the river and expects to be remembered fondly by history? Fuck that. The title of his subsection in history books will be “The President who Couldn’t Keep the Republic” (a pointed reference to Ben Franklin’s quip at the original constitutional convention).

[-] arrow74@lemm.ee 26 points 1 day ago

The pressure the DNC seems to exert over it's canidates is insane. There was probably a lot of pressure on her to toe the line. I heard they reigned in Walz quite a bit too.

Maybe one day the DNC will learn

I don’t expect the DNC to learn, because I don’t expect the DNC to exist when the next presidential election comes around.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 day ago

Honestly, I kinda don't buy the idea Biden controlled Harris. Biden could have in 2008, but not in 2024. We all saw his term. He could be great, but when he slowed and floundered, it hampered his goals.

I'm torn between:

"I don't think an adult woman would instantly bind herself to an old man, she can have bad ideas on her own."

"I don't think she had everything planned out, she took advice from those around her, and the advice was shit but it's hard to get anything from outside this POV without getting even worse feedback."

But either way, I'm kind of glad that parts of the DNC is admitting fault after royally fucking up a second time and giving us Trump again. But I was also told they learned mistakes from 2016, and clearly they didn't, and must have fired everyone who did.

I wish Harris won merely as a stop-gap who is younger and more coherent, maybe could have gotten someone better next primary. Would have been messy and I would prefer anyone else, but not as bad. But it wouldn't have stopped the fascist uprising we're having, just keeping the cyst growing until it popped. If Biden didn't get Trump arrested, I doubt Harris would have, despite her history.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] WatDabney@fedia.io 23 points 1 day ago

I'm calling bullshit on this.

There's no possible way that Biden or any of his people could let or not let Harris do anything. They had no actual control over her campaign.

The only outsiders who had any control over her campaign were the DNC and the party establishment - the same pieces of shit who torpedoed Sanders in 2016 and 2020,.

I'm 100% certain that this narrative is coming from them, trying to dodge the blame they so richly deserve by pinning it on the senile guy.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 20 points 1 day ago

This is hilarious, because of Biden's "I'd have won if I was the candidate" bullshit. More like "Harris might have won if I wasn't hamstringing her", but okay, sure, Joe. Let's get you to bed, now.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
401 points (100.0% liked)

politics

21970 readers
3758 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