this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
434 points (96.6% liked)

politics

29912 readers
1911 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
 

archive article https://archive.is/hXQTC

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

She’s the only federal level Democrat with any sort of broad public support.

No one else is note worthy or generally liked.

She is literally the only option. Anyone else is risking mass voter apathy and a voter turn out flop in an election that should be a slam dunk.

If you’re going to vote in the dem primaries, don’t fucking vote based on who “is most electable”, vote for who you want to win. Choosing the candidate that “is the most electable” keeps losing elections, because that crown keeps getting chosen by corporate owned media who just anoint that tittle to the most corporate friendly candidate, and voters don’t like corporate friendly candidates.

The most electable candidate is one who excites people, no one else even considered for running excites anyone except for corporate lobbyists.

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They'll ice her out and close ranks against her the way they did for biden against Bernie.

And they'll lose again.

[–] valtia@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This sentiment is not actually mutually exclusive. If AOC will get iced out and the corporate candidate is guaranteed to win anyway, then there's no harm in voting for her during the primaries

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 6 points 3 days ago

And voting for her in the primary, and not the corporate candidate in the general, is the best way to signal exactly what this shit is costing them.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (6 children)

I like her, but I also think Mark Kelly would be a strong candidate. Former military. Retired Astronaut. Wife survived an attempted political assassination. He stood up to the Trump administration who tried to charge him with crimes punishable by execution and waved it off.

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 days ago

Barley anyone knows his name or anything about him. If the candidate doesn't throw down the gauntlet with the GOP and trump, show they can fight this shit, they will lose. Trying to convince ppl in a few months that that's Kelly isn't going to work. AOC is in the trenches fighting visibly, every day, and has Bernie's backing, bigger name recognition, aligned with mamdani whose showing what's possible with the next generation of dems, and is probably the best candidate with momentum to build around. I don't know if even that's enough though tbh.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

It seems to me that Kelly is a centrist who stands for nothing in particular. Why have you decided to support him? Sure being a navy pilot and a member of Nasa is cool, but we dont need cool, we need a dem who will take a stand on the issues for once. Issue support is what we need to win, not some cult of personality.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 6 points 4 days ago (5 children)

But have you considered how electable a zionist white thumb is in Trump's America? /s

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 39 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I WAS going to Vote for AOC because she Represents America instead of Israel until all I saw Day Old Accounts telling me Newsom was Better! NEXT time AOC NEXT Time!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] homes@piefed.world 130 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

This lady got me drunk on margaritas in between classes when I was a student at Parsons. We talked about Bernie Sanders and politics and she was cool as hell.

I will definitely vote for her if she runs for president.

[–] FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works 25 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I wish I drank those margaritas that AOC cooked up

[–] homes@piefed.world 20 points 4 days ago

It was, like, a year or two later when she ran for office, and I was like… I know her… But then it took me a little while to put two and two together and remember where I knew her from. It blew my goddamn mind, lol.

Unfortunately, I didn’t live in her constituency, so I couldn’t vote for her at the time. But I did live in Hakeem Jeffries constituency, so I voted for him.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 69 points 5 days ago (7 children)

Just wait until the DNC tanks her like they did Bernie.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] VoidMentat@lemmy.zip 27 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I would vote for AOC in a heartbeat. I am tired of old men ruining the country, and tired of Israel making us their errand boy.

As far as "experience", when did that really matter? Obama didn't have much foreign policy experience either and he was 1000x better than this current troglodyte pedophile.

To me the whole foreign policy angle is a non-sequitur. Unless an candidate has been a senator/congressman for several terms, it doesn't really apply. And how many presidents were that? Some of the best presidents had zilch in foreign policy experience and weren't an elected official for much before they became president.

Obama (one half-finished term as senator). Clinton (Arkansas AG and gov...hardly a place that had any need of foreign policy). Bush Jr (gov of Texas). Reagan (gov of Cali).

Not to imply all were great, but they definitely had, at least from our current perspective, a rational viewpoint where they thought from their POV that they were doing the right thing for the country, instead of this chaotic, narcissistic, demagogue, corrupt stupidity.

At this point a gerbil with schizophrenia would be a better option than Trump.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

As far as "experience", when did that really matter?

It stopped mattering to me when I considered myself smarter than the president. And I'm an idiot.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 days ago

And I'm an idiot.

Yes, but you're also self aware of it, which further differentiates you from the Oranguturd Chumpanzee.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago (10 children)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is young and lacks experience, especially in foreign policy. But that may be exactly the kind of person we need as president: someone relatively untainted by both the DNC and the GOP, and someone who has not spent decades being shaped by corporate lobbying and the protection of profit margins.

We need leadership that is still capable of idealism, somebody willing to push for the kind of social programs this country increasingly needs if we want to reverse the direction things are heading right now.

AOC absolutely could be elected. A 2028 presidential run is not some impossible fantasy. The deciding factor is simple: younger voters would actually need to show up and vote in meaningful numbers.

[–] pbjelly@sh.itjust.works 21 points 4 days ago

Young? I’d take young over dementia riddled. Besides, this country desperately needs fresh leadership and engagement from people who are younger.

If Emanuel Macron became French President at 39, I’m sure there’s no issue with AOC being 38 by 2028.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 68 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (32 children)

Sadly, I feel there are still too many bigots and sexists in the US who cannot bring themselves to vote for a woman, esp. one who isn't 'white enough'. That, piled on top of the 'establishment' Dem factions that will do everything possible to subvert a campaign... which will let the right-wingers/fascists drive right up the middle again.

Feel free to prove me wrong, USA. Please.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 67 points 5 days ago (31 children)

Copy paste from elsewhere in the thread.

You seem well-meaning, but the racism/sexism card is way overplayed at this point in the game. The two examples DNC sympathisers point to for why an AOC run is a bad idea both lost not because they were women, but because they were utterly terrible politicians. I wasn't around for Hillary so I can't go into too much detail, but Harris specifically did her utmost best to destroy every single ounce of goodwill she had. And as for the racism, well, America did overwhelmingly elect Obama in 2008. Even on the far right you see MAGA elect women and minority politicians they agree with (see: MTG), so there's no way the everyone left of Reagan coalition wouldn't be able to elect AOC due to sexism. It's just a complete and utter non-issue.

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] almost_genocide@lemmy.world 46 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

When the DNC runs candidates who's campaign promises are status quo, corporate subsidies and serving Israel then yeah, the bigot and sexist vote becomes significant. People need to stop using that as a condemnation of the country as a whole. It's a condemnation of the two party system, a corrupt or derelict Democratic party or a "democracy" which is no longer functioning.

Meanwhile candidates who actually prioritize American voters can win without the help of bigots. Obama proved this back in 2008 and Zohran has proved things have only gotten better. Not only did he win without the bigot vote but without all the other piece of shit voters who showed up for Cuomo in the general election.

Harris was a garbage candidate. Biden was a garbage candidate. Hillary Clinton was a garbage candidate. American voters as a whole are not responsible for the abhorrent behavior by the DNC and assholes who vote for people like Biden and Cuomo in Democratic primaries.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

the 'establishment' Dem factions that will do everything possible to subvert a campaign

What you're doing now is part of how the establishment subverts campaigns. They always selectively apply the 'electability' argument only to progressives and insurgents while embracing identity politics for their own candidates. Whenever a progressive of any minority group runs the nation "isn't ready," but when it's one of theirs "it's time."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[–] Heikki2@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago

America isn't ready for competent leadership

[–] Folstar@lemmus.org 16 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (9 children)

I like AOC. I would vote for AOC. AOC will not win POTUS. We're tried this twice already, and a woman who has had years of non-stop character assassination attempts lobbed at her is not going to win. It's terrible that sexism and lies play such a big role, but that's where we are as a nation. Dems had the right idea in 2020 setting up the first woman president via VP. Then they did the worst job possible of handling any potential transition, because of course they did.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

tHiS cOuNtRy Is SeXiSt

points to boring corpo centrist candidates who happen to be women

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think she's a good representative as in she didn't get corrupt and votes the right way most of the times but I'm yet to see any proof she would be good president. I keep seeing videos about AOC "crushing" people in hearings and they always disappoint. She struggles to explain her ideas or deliver convincing message and she's simply bad at confronting people. I think she's over-hyped because all other candidates suck and she would get crushed in presidential elections. People really need to start looking for a candidate that can actually win.

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