this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2026
251 points (99.2% liked)

politics

29286 readers
2158 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
 

“US President Donald Trump on Wednesday delivered an incoherent primetime address in which he threatened to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages” while also claiming negotiations to end the conflict were ongoing, remarks that provided no clear indication of when or how the illegal war of choice would end.

“Trump’s speech marked his first major address on the war since the US, in partnership with Israel, started bombing Iran more than a month ago, without congressional approval and in violation of international law. A day after declaring that Iran “doesn’t have to make a deal” to end the war, Trump said during his Wednesday speech, “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously”—a grave war crime.

“Collin Rees, US campaign manager at the advocacy group Oil Change International, said in a statement that “Trump’s rambling lies can’t conceal how his reckless, illegal war of aggression is sending energy prices for working families through the roof.””

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

None of the data suggests that leftists had any significant impact on her loss.

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Nor is there any evidence that her laugh caused her defeat.

The point is that the liberal has to choose: did the "moral high ground" leftists cost her the election, and thus have the power to sway elections - or did the leftists NOT have the power to sway the election, and thus liberals should be quite about the "moral high ground" leftists?

Edit: and your point is also dubious. It's known that Kamala's refusal to break from Biden's policies was a huge part of what cost her the election - bad enough that the DNC was recently in the news for hiding the Kamala campaign autopsy.

RootsAction, a progressive advocacy group that conducted its own analysis of Democrats’ 2024 loss, said in a statement that the DNC’s refusal to publicize its findings “undermines the goal of defeating Trumpism.” RootsAction’s autopsy, authored by journalist Christopher D. Cook, found “ample evidence that Harris lost many voters, especially young voters, Arab-Americans, and critical support in Michigan and elsewhere, due to the campaign’s failure to shift or even signal a potential shift in policy on Israel and Palestine.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/kamala-harris-gaza-2024

[–] PapaSkwat@lemmy.wtf 1 points 3 days ago

RootsAction, a progressive advocacy group that conducted its own analysis of Democrats’ 2024 loss, said in a statement that the DNC’s refusal to publicize its findings “undermines the goal of defeating Trumpism.”

Thank you for this!

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com -1 points 4 days ago

I've said it before, and I'm happy to repeat it now, I really wish I lived in the country you're talking about, where people cared more about other people than themselves, but we really don't. We can probably cherry pick stats all day (lies, damn lies, statistics), but 54% of Biden->Someone not Harris voters said her Gaza policy made no difference. 10% said it'd make them less likely. That's 64% of that uncaptured demographic that chose someone other than her for a completely unrelated reason. Other top 3 issues: 24% - The economy 12% - Medicare and Social Security 11% - Immigration and border security

Seems like those are people who want less of dem policies, not more of them. Also, the above is just voters who voted for not Kamala. There were plenty of people who stayed home because they simply didn't like her (black/woman/maybe Israel policy) and didn't care enough to vote for someone else.

To be clear, anyone blaming leftists is just whining. Kamala failed to do the thing she was supposed to (win) and they see that as other people's fault and not hers. At the end of the day she either got the votes or she didn't. If they think there's nothing she could've said/done to get the leftist vote, then they don't have to blame her. In reality, she could've EARNED those votes and she didn't. Maybe it would've cost her other votes. I don't know for sure, but either way it was her decision and she chose not to.

Source of poll from your article: https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling

Also, pretty sure the laugh thing is a meme. They used the sarcasm indicator, so I'm pretty sure they're being glib.