this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
230 points (97.9% liked)

politics

23968 readers
2680 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.world 84 points 1 month ago (3 children)

She will run, and the DNC will sheepdog her like they did Bernie, keeping everyone herded up in the party until they realized they got fucked over, again.

[–] mercano@lemmy.world 61 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Bernie’s being doing some rallies with her recently. If I were to guess, Bernie’s not going to run for POTUS again, he’s going to endorse her.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Bernie could get the VP nod.

[–] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If we could stop floating ancient and/or billionaires, that would be greeeaat.

[–] neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Bernie is the one exception though. The only exception.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I love Bernie and I would vote for him if he were on the ballot, but he has no business being president at this age. I think he recognizes that and that's why he's actively helping the new generation.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

he has no business being president at this age

Things we can say now that biden is no longer running.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Personally, I prefer Bernie as the main - we need as many years of progressive presidencies as possible. Having 8 of them with him as the lead, and another 8 of AOC, would be a good start to reforming America. Odds are, though, we will simply have AOC replace Bernie during one of his terms. VPs are meant to be backups for when a president isn't able to hold office anymore.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And both she and liberals will still keep defending the party after it.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 17 points 1 month ago

Yes, she's never questioned the party leadership or directions. :rolls eyes:

She'd be better in party leadership and not pursue the Presidency (yet).

[–] derry@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

So if not her then who will it be?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 10 points 1 month ago

Another neoliberal.

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago

Shapiro from Pennsylvania. Pro-genocide, loves billionaires, condescending. Ticks all the boxes.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

newsom. It's already newsom.

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

The face, gender, or race doesn't matter, it will be someone that's not a threat to the existence of the neolib establishment.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth 80 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I want AOC to be President, but I think Americans are too sexist to vote for her. We're a callow, superficial people.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago (2 children)

We also thought Americans were too racist to vote for a black man.

IMHO, Americans will always prioritize swagger, the ability to clearly call bullshit, and the ability to generate hype and a sense of connection.

This is why Americans vote for celebrities and actors.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I kind of see where you're coming from - there's an imperfect fungibility of bigotry. If you're bigoted against one kind of person, it's not hard to make you bigoted against another, it just takes a little propaganda.

But it's not a secret that young men broke for Trump by over 10%. I attribute that swing to the manosphere podcast circuit working round the clock this past election, and Elon Musk purchasing voters with his "sweepstakes."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Exit_poll

2020, Biden: 81,283,501 2020, Trump: 74,223,975

2024, Harris: 75,017,613 2024, Trump: 77,302,580

These numbers suggest that not only did more people vote for Trump than in 2020, even after living through the fucked COVID response, even after seeing January 6, more people chose not to vote at all. And it's a 50/50 split: Trump converted 3 million votes from Biden, and 3 million more just stayed home.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And demographically, the biggest swing towards Trump was Latino men. It was like 18%, that seems insane to me. I don't think "eggs and Palestine" is sufficient to explain what happened there.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not sure about that. I agree americans love the celerberties but Think women's rights vs black men right to vote. Black men had more rights before women for like 50 years. Its gonna be a bit for the old folks to die off and even then we got those Tate trolls trying to keep status quo.

Also Obama wasn't even "full black" and that was too much for some people. Probably sooner see a Hispanic dude than a full black guy or a woman. Its gonna be like that scene in head of state with people running to polls to stop Chris rock.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Maybe, but women do win places that have a lot of dumb misogynists. I think the ability to connect with voters, or voters wanting to be associated with someone interesting and cool, has a lot of power.

And at the end of the day, if you look at the folks who are right of center in the US, they’ve elected twice as many women as people of color.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

I want AOC to be president, and think that the "Americans are too sexist to vote for a woman (now that a progressive woman might run)" argument is being used to hold back all women in order to hold back one woman.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This line is coming from neoliberals who can't understand why Hillary and Kamala lost and are blaming sexism because they can't come to terms with the fact that the American people are turning away from the establishment in its entirety.

Yes, sexism is a problem in America. No, it is not why liberals are losing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ABetterTomorrow@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not all of us. Dudes for AOC!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 9 points 1 month ago

I also want AOC to be president....starting now.

[–] Goretantath@lemm.ee 50 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I want Tim as president and AOC as vice since I dont want to risk the bunch of idiots who wont vote for a woman fucking everything up again.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 39 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Kamala's campaign wasn't fucked because she's a woman, it was fucked because she's a careerist who doesn't believe in anything.

[–] Xanza@lemm.ee 32 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Two things can be true.

I know a lot of women who didn't vote for her because she was a woman. Shit is crazy to me, but that doesn't mean it's not the reality. I'm sure there are a shocking number of people who didn't vote for her because she's a woman.

[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, conservative women are a really odd breed. I live in the Deep South, which means I get to actually interact with all of the hardline conservatives on a regular basis. I have 100% heard the “I just think a woman’s place is to follow her husband” rhetoric from women.

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Those will vote Republican anyway...

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I highly doubt that the number of people who claim the fact that she's a woman is the reason they didn't vote for her is anywhere near high enough to swing the election. Even if it were, those people are not worth conceding to. There are far more people for whom her gender is irrelevant but did not vote for her due to a myriad of other reasons than there are brain-dead morons who think women just aren't cut out to be president.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

As a person who has a lived experience as a woman in this country I wholeheartedly disagree.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Xanza@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

This is the ideal progressive ticket, IMO. It's not as scary for the mid as having a female President (grow the fuck up, guys), but she'll still be able to provide her support and opinion far above her current station. People seem to really like Tim, which is great.

But in the end none of it matters. They're all historically pro-Israel and people don't forget that. They've begun to change their tune, but only just now. It seems disingenuous to get votes, which just seems...hollow.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 47 points 1 month ago (3 children)

If the Democrats were wise they would choose the next candidate now in order to get the party going in a specific direction, just like the Republicans have done unofficially from 2020 to 2024

[–] rustydomino@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

As a Democrat, no one has ever accused my party of being smart.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

perhaps, but democrats are held to a higher standard

any tiny misstep - or even correct step that the republicans figure out how to spin - over the next few years would poison the waters

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 6 points 1 month ago

By this logic the Dems held onto Biden and then Harris with the intent to loose the election. Which... kind of makes sense given how they were more focused on keeping progressives out, as these seem to be the real danger from their perspective, not the fascists under Trump.

[–] match@pawb.social 3 points 1 month ago

sorta sounds like they needed to fix that problem

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If the Democrats were wise they would choose the next candidate now in order to get the party going in a specific direction

As though they haven't already chosen both the person and the direction. It's newsom and rightward, respectively.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cephus@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd rather she primary Schumer.

[–] Veedem@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

That’s probably the more impactful move if she were to win.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

AOC Pres with Tim Walz VP would be great

[–] carlossurf@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 month ago
[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago

"Swerves?" WTF

[–] whereisk@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It seems to me that the US is unfortunately too “-ist” to elect AOC.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ABetterTomorrow@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago
load more comments
view more: next ›