this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
168 points (98.8% liked)

politics

24736 readers
2735 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 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's not just about winning, it's about ideology. Embracing demsoc candidates wouldn't just be a change in strategy, it would be a change in the party's core ideology. Ideology is why political parties exist. Political parties are usually based in ideology, that's why in other democracies there are liberal parties, conservative parties, socialist parties, Libertarian parties, etc. But here in the US we don't have a system of political ideology plurality, so the two parties that we do have are often fighting internally to determine what the core ideology of the party will be.

You know why so many Democrats don't like demsoc candidates? Because they're not demsocs. They're social liberals or neoliberals, and they want the Democratic party to remain an ideologically Liberal party.

If our democracy were more like most every other democracy on the planet, the neoliberals and the demsocs would each have their own party, and they wouldn't need to be engaged in this constant, zero sum fight for control of one party.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

You're right that they'd rather lose with a neoliberal than win with a socialist.

They knew Hilary would lose but chose her as their candidate anyway. Up or out.

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 22 points 2 weeks ago

Copying and pasting my comment from the earlier thread.

Did anyone actually read the article or did y'all just read the headline?

He says probably not, but it doesn't matter, because it's up to the people to rise up and push them out like they've started to as part of the Sanders/AOC rallies, the No Kings protest, and Mamdani's primary victory.

[–] 20cello@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

History loves a rhyme. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 weeks ago

How can they learn what they already knew? The weakness/corruption/etc. is on purpose to serve their donors. The DNC already knows how powerful a leftist, grassroots movement is, which is why they snub the lefty candidate at every chance instead of letting their namesake run its course.

[–] lemmy_get_my_coat@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 weeks ago
[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 weeks ago

Will the current Democratic party leadership learn the lessons of the Mamdani campaign? Probably not.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Those of us not in a ranked-choice system in NYC may need to have a plan for the seething MAGAt olds that infest our red states and rural areas. Ignoring them does seem ideal, but the math doesn't work out right.

[–] ClownsInSpace2@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago

A girl can dream

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Bettteridge says no.