this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
111 points (93.0% liked)

politics

27493 readers
2934 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 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 11 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Obama beats Trump

hah, wouldn't that be nice. Bet Barrack has a mean right hook.

[–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

He’s a lefty so that left hook is probably more powerful.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Yet another headline that I am disappointed to find is only a metaphor.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

I'm surprised it's still only an 11 point spread. I'm thinking a lot of that 33 percent are uneducated whites.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 45 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Also beats him in Nobel Prizes.

[–] kurmudgeon@lemmy.world 21 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 14 points 21 hours ago

Obama has something else that is much bigger that trumps.

spoilerIt's his smile. Obviously trump always looks do sour.

[–] 4grams@awful.systems -2 points 12 hours ago

Whatever libtard, they both posses a Nobel peace prize.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 24 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

The 22nd Amendment explicitly prohibits anyone from being elected president

i am not sure they have read that amendment correctly 😂

[–] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

The 22 amendment prohibits either of them from running.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

they also have this quote i am quoting above literally, about the amendment preventing ANYONE from running, which is what i am laughing at.

[–] NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

... from running for a third term.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I wonder what percentage of people responding to this poll actually bothers to vote?

A link to the polling website just says they polled “1002 US adults”. No mention of whether these people voted in the last election, or if they are even eligible to vote. Even on the linked data table.

Also look at the suspect Fox News numbers mentioned in the article. 30% of Fox viewers dislike Trump enough to vote for Obama??? Doubt it.

Also 77% of the people who claim to be Republican in the data table claim they would vote Trump. 11% “some other candidate”. So really, nothing has changed.

https://researchco.ca/2026/01/26/amendment/amp/

[–] MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk -1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Soooooo.... Obama '28, why not?

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 3 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

because of the constitution.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

If they nullify the part that stops Trump from running a 3rd time, then nothing stops Obama from running a 3rd time.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

I've seen it mentioned that they would try to claim it only applied to consecutive terms, so Obama, Bush, and Clinton would be out.

[–] EditsHisComments@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

Then he could enact the legislation he always wanted since 2007, and also restore the rule of law.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 21 hours ago

No no, because “reasons”.

[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 22 hours ago

Yeah, that obsolete piece of paper ain't working so well for 'Murica...