1351
(page 6) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AreaKode@lemmy.world 304 points 1 week ago

Weird. The party that claims to be "for the people" keeps putting centrists in charge. We're ready for someone who is actually for the people!

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 199 points 1 week ago

Quickest way to mobilize the Democratic party is to threaten to put a progressive in charge

[-] Catoblepas 149 points 1 week ago

They learned their lesson with Obama. The funny thing is he’s not even a fucking leftist, the party is just so full of dinosaurs they think a modern centrist is a leftist.

[-] WarlordSdocy@lemm.ee 57 points 1 week ago

With Obama they just learned how to take a somewhat progressive candidates and bend them into a moderate. It's the same thing that happened with Kamala, although of course it's hard to say if either were ever really progressive or if they just used that for votes and didn't mind discarding it once they got pressured by the party and consultants.

[-] Redditsux@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago

Kamala was never progressive.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 32 points 1 week ago

Neither was Obama. Not long after he put a bow on the nomination, he voted for an expansive security bill. A lot of people were surprised, but not me.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MajinBlayze@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago
[-] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 week ago

See Bernie Sanders.

[-] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 week ago

they'd rather lose to Trump for a third term than do that.

[-] resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee 73 points 1 week ago

They’re definitely for the billionaire people.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 60 points 1 week ago

DNC: I am here for the working people-- from billionaires, all the way to millionaires.

[-] SippyCup@feddit.nl 27 points 1 week ago

From the business owners to the CEOs, the Democrats are here to hear you. All the people, white or tan, brown people of light complexion as long as they have a 401k and 10 million in assets they will LISTEN

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] chunes@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago

Sadly I don't think it's possible to have a party "for the people" with only two parties. There's too much pressure for both of them to champion the status quo.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world 150 points 1 week ago

she's got my vote

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 140 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

She's not the face of the Democratic Party

She's the face of a completely new and different party that has nothing to do with old Democrats.

To me, I've been viewing the US as being governed under a one party state for a while ... the Republicans and the Democrats form two halves of the same organization.

The US doesn't need a third party

They need to form a new second opposition party because the old one morphed into the monstrous thing we have today.

[-] lemmus@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago

One of the UK’s two parties has died and the other is in the process of killing itself. Two party duopolies can disintegrate, even under FPTP, we just have to hope that Left parties emerge, not just rebranded far-right ones.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] zebidiah@lemmy.ca 71 points 1 week ago

That's funny, because the dnc does not share any of her ideology, and it's not even close

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 47 points 1 week ago

Because the DNC leadership doesn't represent anyone except for the donors who own them.

[-] Mustakrakish@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago

Yeah she needs to spilt and be the face of an actual workers party, not the mask for the failed democrats.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 62 points 1 week ago

“Currently, there is no consensus on the face of the Democrat Party, as a majority of voters either give the title to AOC (26%) or simply say there is none (26%),” Co/efficient concluded.

Never heard of Co/efficient, but “Democrat Party” is a bit of a red flag. From mediabiasfactcheck:

FiveThirtyEight, an expert on measuring and rating pollster performance, has evaluated 20 polls by co/efficient, earning 0.7 stars for accuracy, indicating they are Mixed Factual by MBFC’s criteria. They also conclude that their polling moderately favors the Right with a score of -2.7, which equates to a Right-Center polling bias. In general, co/efficient is considered moderately accurate and demonstrates a right-leaning bias in polling.

[-] 9point6@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

MBFC gives The Guardian and Breitbart equivalent ratings for factuality, which is patently ridiculous

It's not a reliable gauge of anything, and it's harmful to trust its rankings

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] frezik@midwest.social 61 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Make it clear to the Democratic Party establishment that progressive candidates will be on the ballot in every congressional district in Nov 2026, and they will be a spoiler candidate if they have to be. Either way, we are done with their shit. There will never be a better time.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 41 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

they will be a spoiler candidate if they have to be

I'd rather phrase it as "and they better not run a neolib spoiler candidate". It's not the progressives with popular support who are spoilers, but the neoliberals who are only propped up by corpo lobbies.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] nthavoc@lemmy.today 56 points 1 week ago

Water is wet. Wasn't this obvious when the DNC kingmakers, I mean, leadership decided to boot her out of a key committee position with a person that that could have passed for a republican and retired after getting the position? A poll was needed to see this?

[-] PaulBunyan@lemm.ee 35 points 1 week ago

Water isn’t wet. What touches water is wet.

[-] valkyrieangela 28 points 1 week ago

Water touches other water therefore water is wet. If you isolated a single molecule of H2O, that water would not be wet. However, it is nearly impossible to do this, hence it would be the exception and not the norm.

This argument isn't profound, it's just short sighted.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 47 points 1 week ago

DNC: "Ewwww a progressive? We wouldn't be as rich with a progressive in charge!"

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago

Ocasio-Cortez was far ahead of other listed Democrats. Coming in a distant second was close ally Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The pair recently went to various states with their Fighting Oligarchy tour. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) placed third in the survey with 8%.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris came in fourth with 6%. Following her was Pete Buttigieg with 5%, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) with 5%, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) with 4%, and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.

Why did they list the percentage for all of these people, but not for Bernie's second place position?

That is a rhetorical question.

I was going to calculate his percentage but 26 + 26 + 22 + 8 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 2 is 98%. Did they lump Bernie in with 'other'?

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 29 points 1 week ago

and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.

Looks like Newsom will be the candidate for 2028 then...

[-] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago

Crockett has suggested the major donors have lined up behind a straight white guy

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago

Coming in a distant second was close ally Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The pair recently went to various states with their Fighting Oligarchy tour. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) placed third in the survey with 8%.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris came in fourth with 6%. Following her was Pete Buttigieg with 5%, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) with 5%, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) with 4%, and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.

LOL, Chuck Schumer didn't even place. That gives me a little hope.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago

and she is old enough for presidential nomination now. do it, aoc.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago

"And it's not even close"

She's in a statistical tie with "nobody".

[-] gobbles_turkey@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I dont think the electoral system allows for this "nobody" person to win. Maybe someone can change their legal name to "nobody".

[-] ScrambledEggs@lazysoci.al 27 points 1 week ago

She should distance herself from that sinking ship. It's like continuing CPR on a victim who is already dead. Yeah you're trying but ultimately it's no use. Both main parties have been so tarnished that even being associated with the name is a smudge on the record.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] anachrohack@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

I'd describe myself as a liberal more than a progressive, but it's obvious that she's become the most recognizable Democrat at the federal level. Other democrats simply have not been pushing back on the Republicans in the way that she has, and it's fucking baffling. My theory is that most politicians are really skilled at fundraising rather than building groundswell political movements and so they're just completely out of their element in this environment. I don't agree with all of the progressive platform, but we need more politicians with character like hers and fewer geriatrics who refuse to release their grip on power

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
1351 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23643 readers
2151 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