this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
393 points (96.2% liked)

politics

28762 readers
3220 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
[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Oh for fuck sakes! C'mon lady! Sacrifice! Let a new face do it! There's 300 million of us. I'm sure someone else can be better than you know who. Go do something else to help democracy. I'd vote Beyonce.

[–] Knightfox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (6 children)

Who would be your alternative?

EDIT: if you say Hillary is your alternative then you're smoking crack. This is an important question because the Democatic Party is the most likely group to succeed, so who then would you vote for if you had to decide? Geriatric Sanders? Centrist Newsome? Unlikely to be elected AOC? There's a lot of people who could be candidates, but few who I feel confident could win.

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I want the democrats to put forward a good slate of candidates, have them discuss issues in a reasonable and informative way, then have us vote on our favorite. There are people whose jobs are to know who would make a good candidate. Most people, myself included, don't have enough information to say who should run. I do think that most people can name a few who they don't want to run and I think Kamala and Hilary are both high on most people's lists.

Someone saying "please don't run Kamala" shouldn't mean they need to offer an alternative. That is the job of the democratic party.

[–] Knightfox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I 100% agree, but in the world we live in it feels like there are no decent alternatives. It feels strange to live in a world where no one seems to be able to think of a good potential candidate and we're all just waiting for one to be shown to us.

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I'll offer one, then. As a Coloradan, I'd vote for Joe Neguse.

[–] Knightfox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Oh cool, I'll look into him. We need informed voters to start talking about candidates now rather than in 2027.

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Pritzker. Relatively progressive. Pro union, pro building up housing, pro worker's rights, pro higher minimum wage, unrestrained in his support of lgbtq, and yet still Measured and budget conscious, which helps him be more palatable to the big stage.

I think he's the best possible option that still has a good chance to win.

[–] Knightfox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Thanks for the feedback, I'll look into him!

[–] super_user_do@feddit.it 1 points 14 minutes ago

I was thinking of Marianne Williamson 

[–] LuigiMaoFrance@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 hour ago

Hillary Clinton

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 3 points 1 hour ago

Not Hilary either. Anyone. The neighbor Lady.

[–] Zannsolo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 54 minutes ago) (1 children)

I think AOC is highly electable. Good speaker, good positions, attractive, not old. Vs Kamala bad speaker bad positions moderately attractive, not old and Hilary moderate speaker, bad positions, ugly, old. Vs Newsome good speaker, bad positions, attractive, not old. Vs Republican field bad speaker, bad positions, likely ugly or unattractive, racist(positive for their base) likely not old.

I think AOC fires up the left and gets out the vote (most important Democrat quality), the moderate left and centrist independents votes for her over the right, the moderate right stays home (moreso than normal) and the far right goes Republican

[–] Knightfox@lemmy.world 1 points 54 minutes ago (1 children)

I hate to say it, but 2008, 2016, and 2024 have left me unconvinced that Americans are ready for even a potential woman President. It's wrong, it's prejudiced, but there hasn't been sufficient evidence that American's will support a woman for president. Republican's predominantly seem opposed while Democrats are either unconvinced or insufficiently motivated. I think AOC could win her own state primary, but I'm not convinced she would beat Newsome or any male candidate in the conservative state primaries.

[–] Zannsolo@lemmy.world 4 points 48 minutes ago

Hilary and Kamala didn't inspire the left AOC would.AOC could talk circles around Hilary and Kamala.

[–] DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 hour ago

I think both parties should split

[–] unphazed@lemmy.world 4 points 47 minutes ago

No. Just no. Other countries cn rise above misogyny, but not us. Dems need to drop this whole "please the right" schtick too. We need someone actually progressive, someone who doesn't ride the Israeli money train, and alas - is male. Bonus points for not playing the "we need to forgive and forget" card either. It didn't work, and a lot of these assholes are just regurgitating the South. They lost, but never faced punishment. If we let racism slide, we let them build confidence and organize.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 14 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Either there will be a socialist president in 2028 or democracy will be dissolved by 2036.

[–] DoomedFromTheStart@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 hours ago

Sure doesn’t feel like a democracy.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

What, this doesn't spark joy?

[–] TechAnon@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I don't get why people are saying, "no" in here. Let her run, we will get to check out all the options and decide in primaries. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[–] cashsky@sh.itjust.works 24 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Because the DNC will try to fuck over any potential progressives with her if she runs

[–] TechAnon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Won't they try and do that with any candidate of their choice? Maybe we should just, I don't know, vote on it?

[–] ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world 11 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

People seem to have forgotten the only reason she was the candidate was because Biden dropped out and she was the VP.

She got practically no votes in the primaries.

[–] Knightfox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

To be completely fair, Biden dropped out after almost all of the primaries had happened. Harris didn't get many primary votes because the person she was replacing dropped out after the primaries.

[–] DeepSeaString@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

She wouldn't have won any of the primaries though. Ive reminded my friends irl before that she ran in 2020 and dropped out really early because no one liked her campaign a lot of dem voter in 2024 were under the impression she made it a lot further in 2020 then she did because that was the only way that her campaign to cope with the fact that she wasn't that well liked and it was the only way that people could be hopeful leading up to the election. 

[–] Knightfox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Eh, I don't think comparing 2020 to 2024 is a fair comparison. In 2020 she was extremely disliked due to her political past and her general demeanor. In 2024 she had had several years out of the lime light and a concentrated effort to improve her image. If, from the get go, Biden had stepped out of the way, and the Democratic political machine had been behind her, I believe she would have had a better chance.

We're in a bit of the same situation now. Whoever is going to be the next candidate the party kind of needs to coalesce around now. They need to be having pre-primaries, they need to be publicaly building a candidate. If they wait until the primary season they will already be 3 years behind.

[–] DeepSeaString@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Eh I dont see a reason for anything like a pre primary. They just need to choose someone that the working and middle class will like. The issue with the dem party is that they have super votes that allow those with money to get more of a say in who is the dem candidate. That's a HUGE issue because it leads to these mediocre candidates being chosen that won't change anything. One of the big reasons why trump won was because the dems kept saying things are ok and that the status quo is fine but the issue is that it's not. people are not making enough money and the rich keep getting more money. Trump was able to lie and say that he would fix the broken system this led to a lot of people voting for him because he atleast is saying he wants to change the broken system. The dems just need to choose the person that is popular and wants to change things to improve the lives of the people. Literally if someone ran on a plan to give Medicare for all, break of mega corps, and raise taxes on the rich they would easily win because those are very popular ideas across the country. The issue is that the dems won't choose someone like that because their corporate donors and super voters will choose the boring person. 

[–] Knightfox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I agree with the statement about supervotes, but I think if Democrats wait until the primary to find out who is their go to candidate they will lose too much time in leading up to the election. The Democrats need to pick a successor now to begin laying into Trump and his campaign so that when we get to the primary they are already being attacked. Right now the GOP has 2 years to pump Trump or JD while Democrats need to be pumping their candidate.

[–] motruck@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 hours ago

Hubris not serving be American people is the only reason why she would run. Sorry but by trying to jump the gun you ruined your prospects for life. Find another line of work.

[–] turdburglar@piefed.social 3 points 3 hours ago

nobody wants that tho

load more comments
view more: next ›