this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
418 points (99.5% liked)

politics

27335 readers
2309 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lps2@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, you have policy proposals which she came in with very few (maternity leave, child tax credit, and removing the filibuster were the big ones) that addressed the economic security that the middle loves. She instead focused on culture wars, pointing the finger at Republicans in the Senate, and refusing to distance herself from Biden. Nothing in her proposals was exciting for the middle class and while her platitudes played well in opinion polls, 6.2 million less people came out to vote for her compared to 4 years prior. That's a lack of excitement - people viewed her as more of the same rather than something new and promising

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They carefully calculated those public policy proposals based on polling. But again, they’re basing all that on what it looks like their voting base wants. But the dem voting base is all over the place.

Do you think they looked at all the best demographics and polling they could get and said ‘nah, let’s go a different way lol’?

The issue here is you want something very different from non-rightist B, who wants something very different from (and maybe diametrically opposed to) non-rightist C, and so on. And I’m not saying ‘dem’ or ‘leftist’ here because those terms piss off someone on your own side.

There was no way to make any of that work, and thinking there was, that it was their strategy or the candidate, misses the point. ANY non right candidate will lose again if this issue isn’t understood.

[–] lps2@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Do you think they looked at all the best demographics and polling they could get and said ‘nah, let’s go a different way lol’?

Yes, because the policies that are popular with their base and with the middle are not popular with their corporate donors and they have even refused to release their post-mortem analysis of the 2024 election.

There was no way to make any of that work, and thinking there was, that it was their strategy or the candidate, misses the point. ANY non right candidate will lose again if this issue isn’t understood.

I agree there that the "left" needs to coalesce more and quit with the purity test B's at least on the national stage