this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
1369 points (98.6% liked)

politics

23601 readers
2667 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nthavoc 55 points 3 days ago (12 children)

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?

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 61 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

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 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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)
[–] ExPLiCiT@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago (6 children)

My concern is that now that Trump is in office and project 2025 is in full swing, that we will never see another fair election again.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago

Well afaik she’s the only one doing a nationwide campaign at the moment

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 57 points 3 days ago (10 children)

“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 53 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

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 (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] SnarkoPolo@lemm.ee 12 points 3 days ago

There is no more Democratic Party.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 46 points 3 days ago

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

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 42 points 3 days ago (6 children)

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 (6 replies)
[–] bufalo1973@lemm.ee 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

So "AOC not even close" with 26% but Kamala Harris + Pete Buttigieg + Hakeem Jeffries + Cory Booker + Gavin Newsom = 22%. And that 26% has almost guaranteed the 8% of Crockett and the 12% of Sanders. So 26 + 12 + 8 = 46% but "not even close".

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (11 children)

I don't know half the people you mentioned

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 48 points 3 days ago (8 children)

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'?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Xanza@lemm.ee 28 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The best part about it, is that the old-as-fuck Democrats hate it, which makes me love it all the more.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›