this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
576 points (97.7% liked)

politics

30937 readers
2198 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works 199 points 3 weeks ago (50 children)

My voting flow chart is socialists, then democrats, then nobody.

Imo, we can fight over what shade of blue after the pedos are out of office.

[–] Red0ctober@lemmy.world 82 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

This right here. And it goes for centrist dems too. If a progressive is the candidate on the ticket, vote for them. Don't let the pedophiles win this one

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Seems notable that we don't have a headline with Joe Biden or whoever urging moderates to vote Democratic

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 21 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yes. The centrist ass dem I voted for veto'd a pro union bill. I would still vote for her over the alternative.

My primary votes are all left though.

load more comments (49 replies)
[–] protist@retrofed.com 67 points 3 weeks ago (18 children)

If Democrats don't take at least one chamber of Congress in the fall, I genuinely worry they may never again. The little that's left of American democracy won't survive another 2 years of full MAGA control. Anyone urging you to not vote for the Democrat in your races or to not vote at all is either running a right-wing/foreign influence campaign or so clueless about the big picture as to be safely ignored.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip 62 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

And if you don’t vote in primaries, you need to start. It’s the only chance any of us have a say-so on who ends up on the Dem ticket.

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This will not work by itself. The Dems have been cheating in the primaries for decades. Do it anyway! But also, we need to get into the bureaucracy.

We can't stop at voting in the primaries. The reason we have never gotten anywhere is because we are not in the machine. We watch from the outside.

If you personally can't do it, push someone you know to try. We have to be in the machine watching the boring procedural stuff, sitting and taking minutes, making and checking internal votes, leaking information when the status quo cheats, changing things from the roots.

The magats took over the Republican party. It took 30 years, and they had big money helping, but we can do it faster and cheaper if there's enough of us!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dan69@lemmy.world 49 points 3 weeks ago
[–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 42 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

It’s hard to buck the establishment. ~16,000 people were the difference in a state of 10 million.

If every eligible voter participated it wouldn’t even be close. Always blows my mind seeing comments on voting doesn’t matter when I’m on average voting for 3-4 other citizens in primaries.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

On one hand, true. But some things to consider:

  • Only about 1.4 million votes were cast, ~13% of the state's registered voters. If you look at a map of the volume of El-Sayed's votes, this low turnout let a relatively small number of local hot spots swing the election with higher-than-normal turnout due to his focus on them
  • That moneyball strategy succeeding is a good sign regardless of the margin; the opposition spent millions of dollars in big market cities (notably Detroit) and on state wide campaigns and still failed to keep up. Spending from AIPAC and corporate interests was something like 11:1 vs his total campaign spend ($95 per non El-Sayed vote vs $9 for)
  • Michigan has open primaries, meaning any voter could ignore the red side of the ballot (mostly uncontested and landslides) to poison the opponents primary. I'm not sure if this is quantified anywhere, but it's definitely a factor considering republican strategists view the nascent progressive wing as a larger threat than establishment dems
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Floon@lemmy.ml 27 points 2 weeks ago (18 children)
  1. There is a material difference between the Democrats and Republicans that's worth observing. Dems are merely corrupt politicians: the Republicans are Xtian extremist white-nationalist fascists.
  2. It is vanishingly unlikely that a 3rd party candidate can win in 99% of the elections. Most successful independent politicians became independent after they were first elected, and win as incumbents.
  3. Not voting for the viable candidate running against the fascist GOP, because that candidate is not as $SOMETHING as you want them to be, is simply demonstrating privilege, that you are insulated enough from the effects of the fascist regime that you're not personally harmed by the fascists winning. Vote like defeating the fascists is the only objective.
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] tigermountain@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There better not be one fucking democrat that doesn't vote in the midterms and the presidential election in '28.

[–] IEatDaFeesh@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (24 children)

The "I vote third party bc I wanna stick it to the democratic party" people will find a way to justify their delusions.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] Microtonal_Banana@lemmy.zip 23 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)

It totally depends on the candidate, their platform and who is financing their campaign. Just voting for someone because theyre a democrat gives us people like Kristen Sinema, Joe Manchin and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez who end up voting with the fascists.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 32 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Fetterman, Manchin, and Sinema, bad as they are and were, were still the better choice compared to their general election opponents.

An occasional collaborator sucks,. but is less-bad than either an unrepentant facist or an aligned "moderate" like Collins.

[–] tburkhol@slrpnk.net 36 points 3 weeks ago

I feel like people forget that the alternative to Fetterman was Dr Oz.

Swapping Fetterman for Oz would have given the GOP majorities in both House and Senate, put Mitch McConnell back as Senate President, and generally been an objectively worse outcome.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Exactly this. I don't disagree with wanting to cut the weakest members of the team to find someone better, but that's for the primaries.

Looking at real numbers, Fetterman is better than Manchin or Sinema. Fetterman breaks with party lines around 25% of the time while Sinema was at 33% and Manchin was almost 40%. That makes him around twice as good as Manchin.

Idealogically, he also seems to stack up more favorably than both Manchin and Sinema, and a few other well know congressfolk that never get brought up in these conversations. Fetterman, like Manchin and Sinema, just seems to draw more attention to himself when he does it.

Do I dislike Fetterman and want him gone and replaced by someone better? Heck yeah! But the record shows he's about 75% better than having Dr Oz as my senator would have been. Ignoring the times he did do what he was sent to do is very misleading to people that don't take the time to look at actual data, which is going to be nearly everyone. Conor Lamb's ideology score doesn't look any better, so what we got is still about the best we had a chance to get.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] baronvonj@piefed.social 18 points 3 weeks ago

It totally depends on the candidate ...

That's what the primaries are for. Hope you have or will vote in yours this year.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (15 children)

Oh, we’ll vote for them, but the Democratic Party must cease to be undemocratic, and they must stop their ploy to act as a honeypot to capture and neutralize progressive policies and politicians. They must reckon with us, not the other way around. Armistice. That is the offer. After the midterms there will be deep canvassing in every district the shitlib Democrats thought were safe. Now they can go ask for more fucking money from their malefactors. They’ll need it.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 21 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

And this is consistent with how Bernie has voted over the years. If his vote doesn't matter on a bill that will move things towards his goals but not enough, he votes no. However, if his vote is needed, he'll vote yes because some progress is better than no progress.

And it is always amazing how people will claim to like Bernie but really don't like it when this is pointed out.

[–] MJKee9@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)

Perfection is the enemy of the good. I understand that. I am also empathetic to the choice of those who sit out elections when they feel ignored. I don't agree with it, but i understand.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 3 weeks ago

And then continue to work to make the party more reflective of its members

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (46 children)

Might as well pin this. Going to need this until November.

Just your friendly reminder that online right-wing operatives have a strong inclination to sow defeatism and apathy and push people to vote third party when it's abundantly clear that there won't be a race anywhere in the country where the Democrat isn't better than the Republican in a binary choice election. Clearly, Bernie agrees.

load more comments (46 replies)
[–] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

It'd be weird if he told people not to vote.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We've been voting for the Democrats to vote progressive for years.

Let's figure out an agreement and perhaps we're on board.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

It's such weird phrasing. Encourage progressive voters to back democrats? The progressive candidates run as democrats. We're trying to vote for democrats, and the bulk of voters have been clearly trying to get the entrenched democrats to get behind that and support them. But they keep not doing that.

The voters aren't supposed to follow the will of the party establishment. They're supposed to follow the will of the voters. They have it all backwards and feel like they should get to vote whatever way they're paid to vote on issues and that we're the ones doing bad and causing Republicans to win if that causes us to lose trust in them

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

even if moderates are victorious in the primaries

Just tell the DNC to ratfuck the primaries again, the people will obediently vote for the people happy to fund ICE at home and genocide abroad. There's no way telling the dems they can do whatever they want without risking lower turnout can backfire.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (17 children)

History time.

Frederick Douglas was an escaped slave who became one of the most influential speakers of his time. In 1860 he had a choice. He could support an Abolitionist candidate for President, or he could throw in with Lincoln. Abe had said that he supported the Union over abolition. Douglas figured it was better to win and have a seat at the table than to lose.

edit -Alcohol Corn responded to this comment, then reedited his comments later.

Kind of skews the actual conversation.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Even when Dems win I don’t feel like I have a seat at the table.

At best I feel like I’m at the kids’ table. “That’s nice that you want that, sweetie. Now eat your veggies and maybe there will be pie”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (16 children)

Did progressives get a seat at the table with Biden? No, it just told the DNC they could do deeply unpopular things and still win.

4 years later, we had more deportions than ever plus genocide under Biden and now we get genocide and deportations to El Savvadorian concentration camps under Trump.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›