972
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] areakode@riskeratspizza.com 229 points 2 weeks ago

The DNC is not gonna be happy about this... 😆

[-] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 222 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Sure they will be. They'll look at the poll results, throw them in the garbage, and run Newsom like they were already planning to

[-] tryitout@infosec.pub 54 points 2 weeks ago

They weren't happy about Bernie and look at the fucking mess they caused.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] protist@retrofed.com 19 points 2 weeks ago

The DNC is currently up shit creek. Many other major Democratic organizations are out fundraising them by a wide margin. Many "true blue" Democrats are pissed as hell at DNC leadership and how utterly spineless and opaque they're being. I don't think we're going into this next election cycle with a DNC that's powerful enough to thumb the scales in that way

[-] Akh@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago

They are protecting the Epstein class

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] 4am@lemmy.zip 187 points 2 weeks ago

Many believe Harris lost in 2024 because voters viewed her as too progressive, and that Ocasio-Cortez could face the same problem.

Who’s this “many”? Kamala lost because of her Joe Biden neolib policies, her hard heel-turn to the right, and her “nothing will change, we are the most lethal military” stance on the Middle East.

Instead of reassuring the masses who she thought were a shoe-in, she tried to appease the “I’ll never vote for a black woman” crowd, which alienated the former and would never have worked on the latter.

It was either the greatest miscalculation ever, lead by Third Way focus groups, or someone tugged the leash. Either way, with the GOP rat fucking that was almost certainly happening to some degree.

Pretty shitty of Newsweek to pretend that progressive policies are unpopular with a majority of Americans.

[-] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 46 points 2 weeks ago

Personally, I think it is because there was no Democratic Party primary. Biden stole the time that any potential candidate could have used to prove their mettle to voters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago

DNC has already shown they aren’t taking that as the lesson learnt. They won’t even release the 2024 autopsy cause they don’t like what it says

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 weeks ago

No, she lost because she was black and a woman. People always underestimate just how racist and sexist the US is. Don't fall into this trap.

[-] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 30 points 2 weeks ago

The polls say otherwise. She was leading after her announcement, when she was still talking about healthcare reform, economic justice, taxing the rich, etc. For about three weeks.

Then she talked to her business rep corpo brother, and shifted gear to espousing pro-corporate policy, defending the wealthy, calling leftists Bernie bros, etc, and fell behind.

I agree that Palestine made little difference, btw. It cost her around half a million votes, but she lost by three times that. That's looking at state by state, too.

She lost because she turned herself into Biden 2, instead of what people wanted her to be, which was Obama (until he became President. He lied very well, then governed well enough that we forgave him for being friends with the corps).

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Women won senate races in three of the swing states she lost and a Hispanic man won a fourth. It's hard to imagine an explanation more out of line with actual evidence.

[-] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago

It's possible that it she was a white man, and absolutely nothing else was different, that she very well might have just barely eeked out a victory. That's still a failure. It should have been a blowout. It was a failure of a campaign, racism and sexism against the candidate by the general public was a component, but the least relevant one.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 23 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah. Her argument was that she was Joe Biden, but younger and more diverse. But Joe Biden was LOSING. Even before his debate performance. And he only barely won in 2020, which also should have been a blowout.

It's not the blackness or the femaleness, it's doubling down on shitty uninspiring politics. An old white male Joe Biden was going to lose even worse than the middle aged black female Joe Biden.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

No, she lost because she was black and a woman.

"Kamala Harris ran the perfect campaign, she was just stabbed in the back!"

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

You couldn’t mention her name around here without a bandwagon of “She’s the literal genocide queen and a vote for her is a vote to murder Palestinian children.”

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 weeks ago

Since you mentioned the name, I did notice quite obviously the disrespect everyone had toward Kamala Harris in the news and online comments simply due what they called her.

Almost everywhere, it was quite common for people to refer to her as Kamala and not Harris.

I suspect it was either due to her being a woman, or due to her being Indian (Kamala sounds a lot more foreign than Harris).

It was always "Kamala vs Trump" never Harris vs Trump or Kamala vs Donald.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] demizerone@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

She came out look ling like Darth vader in one of the televised things she did and did the war hawk dance. Fuck off forever, you lost to Donald Fucking Trump after spending 1.5 billion.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 16 points 2 weeks ago

Many = the author. Every time.

load more comments (30 replies)
[-] Hegar@fedia.io 113 points 2 weeks ago

THERE IS ANOTHER ELECTION BEFORE THAT.

It's two years away. It's not even the next election! And this is all presuming that there even is another election, which is far from given.

There is absolutely nothing you can say about a hypothetic 2028 election in 2026.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago

There is absolutely nothing you can say about a hypothetic 2028 election in 2026.

Speculation on the 2028 presidential race began five minutes after the 2024 polls closed.

The Forever Campaign is much like the Forever War, in so far as it is a suffocating political miasma that strangles any other conversation.

[-] starik@lemmy.zip 18 points 2 weeks ago

They run polls on potential 2028 primary candidates all the time. This was the first one AOC has led in. It is notable.

The point of these polls isn’t to predict who the Democratic candidate for president will be in 2028. The point is to gauge what the Democratic primary electorate is currently feeling/prioritizing. They’re moving away from “just give me a safe white guy who can win the general” and toward “give me the most progressive one you got.”

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Doorbook@lemmy.world 98 points 2 weeks ago

The democratic party funded by AIPAC will rather see Trump for a third time than having AOC as president.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 97 points 2 weeks ago

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

[-] thlibos@thelemmy.club 28 points 2 weeks ago

They'll play nice and keep it on the down low and then pull some Obaman, secret, backroom Super-Tuesday fuckery to steal the momentum and likely nomination from ~~Sanders~~AOC and give it to a center-right, corporatist shill like Buttgiggle or Shamala.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 82 points 2 weeks ago

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

What are they talking about

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 22 points 2 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] CircaV@lemmy.ca 74 points 2 weeks ago

I’d laugh so hard if the backlash against trump was an AOC presidency!

[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 22 points 2 weeks ago

And I would NEVER let any maga family live it down. Everytime would be like that Asian surgeon from Scrubs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 weeks ago

AOC President with Bernie as Senate Majority Leader.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

Well, there is a thing called counterculture. One generation didn't like the prevailing culture they grew up in, and so they go against it and set new values. This then leads to the following generation disliking that new culture and go against it.

Rinse and repeat.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 46 points 2 weeks ago

We generally need like 50 more AOC’s please.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] its_kim_love 42 points 2 weeks ago

Democrats are starting their primary already? Must want to try and get people to vote in the midterms.

[-] Watermark710@piefed.social 17 points 2 weeks ago

No, it clearly states in the article that this data was from a poll conducted by AtlasIntel, a Brazilian marketing company. They also point out that not a single other poll has gotten these results. This post is very misleading. But people see a headline they like, and they upvote/comment without bothering to read the articles.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PedroMaldonado@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago

I have zero hope she'll win the primary, but I'd bet money she'd win the general if she got to it. The next problem after that though is if she ends up being president in 2028, she'll probably not get jack shit done because of the newly massively gerrymandered congress, intrinsically anti-democratic senate, and actively hostile SCOTUS.

We'd see her win and the american left would get the largest blackpill ever as she gets fucked over and gets barely anything done, is blamed, and then we get Cyber-Trump in 2032.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

she’ll probably not get jack shit done because of the newly massively gerrymandered congress, intrinsically anti-democratic senate, and actively hostile SCOTUS.

Using the Trump precedence, she can ignore Congress and SCOTUS.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 27 points 2 weeks ago

AOC hasn’t even said what role she’ll be putting her name in for in 2028 yet, has she?

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 25 points 2 weeks ago

No one on the list has.

[-] noxypaws@pawb.social 23 points 2 weeks ago

genuinely she's the only worthwhile candidate I can imagine. I really hope she does it.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The polls are all over the place, but this one seems more believable than anything with Harris leading. AOC-Buttigieg-Newsom as front runners at least seems like the opinions of real people actually thinking about the next primary. Harris leading just screams people who don't recognize any other names. You just don't come back from a failure that catastrophic.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
972 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29895 readers
2244 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS