this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2026
149 points (100.0% liked)

politics

28358 readers
2244 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
149
Progressive Texas organizers hail shock win as far-right Republicans left reeling (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 days ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 29 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Taylor Rehmet, a Democrat and local union leader, won a runoff for a state Senate seat that’s been held by Republicans since 1992. What’s more, he bested the Republican Leigh Wambsganss despite having one-tenth as much money. Much of Wambsganss’s funding came from Dunn and the Wilks brothers.

Republicans blamed low turnout for Rehmet’s victory, while pundits opined that the Trump administration’s unpopularity was to blame.

In America today, these are the same thing. The way you win is by encouraging certain people to vote and discouraging other people from voting. Trump has been taking care of discouraging Republicans and MAGA from voting all by himself.

I really think America needs mandatory voting to stop this behavior, but it's much easier to encourage or discourage people to vote than it is to actually carry out the will of the people.

[–] ExFed@programming.dev 17 points 1 day ago (4 children)

America needs mandatory voting to stop this behavior

As much as that seems like a good solution, it's unlikely to win many supporters. You'd be better off making voting day a federal holiday.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Presidential election should be a holiday. And move it to a Monday. Not sure why it's so difficult. I'm sure there's some deep seeded evil explanation.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Bone Apple tea! Its deep seated, haha.

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

You’re right, but I do think deep seeded could carry the same meaning.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

I think it should actually be moved to Wednesday if made a holiday. It should be pushed as far as possible from being an opportunity for a long weekend where people choose leisure over civic participation.

[–] cattywampas@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Federal holidays do not guarantee a day off of work (edit: unless you're a government employee or work in a field that needs the market to be open). There are, however, state-level laws in some states that do guarantee time off to vote.

[–] ExFed@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago

Good point; I was unaware of the state-level laws. Regardless, I will stand by my statement: it's better than what we've currently got.

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

it’s unlikely to win many supporters

If I could just somehow get permission to amend the constitution for one day, I'd fucking shove democracy down people's throats so hard, totally against their will.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I really think America needs mandatory voting to stop this behavior

Yeah, forcing people to perform an act to legitimize an unjust system is really a great way to achieve reform.

Please explain how that's supposed to work?

[–] baronvonj@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago

By at the same time also requiring some form of ranked choice for every election, and to have a "none of the above" option, and if over 50% of the votes have "none of the above" as the #1 choice the election must be redone with all new candidates. Everyone is thus able to truly vote for who and what they believe we have the turnout to never have to discuss the legitimacy of the winner.

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

forcing people to perform an act to legitimize an unjust system

I assume this means that you don't believe votes are properly counted and that all of our elections are "rigged."

If you have that belief, then what reforms do you think are possible? Most people who I've heard express those opinions are far right wing people who want to discard democracy.

[–] MirrorGiraffe@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not the one you responded to but if I may hazard a guess I'd say they see non-voting as a protest against the two party representative democracy currently in place. 

If you're forced to vote and there is no blank alternative, you are being forced to legitimise it whether you like it or not.

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

In Australia, for example, which has mandatory voting, the only requirement is that you participate. So, you can do the equivalent of submitting a completely empty ballot if you want to protest.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

We also hold elections on a Saturday, and allow early voting. It's not a perfect system, nothing is, but it's far better than the shit-show in the US.

And there's sausages!

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 2 points 20 hours ago

And there’s sausages!

JItYhrZY17oqqKE.jpg

[–] g0nz0li0@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

Mandatory voting creates more room for independent and minor parties to collect your vote, instead of just abstaining in the booth. The preference system tends to avoid outcomes that don’t reflect the electorate.

In Australia, far left and far right politicians and candidates can and do bloviate all they want, but ultimately mandatory voting pulls politics back to the centre.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Taylor Rehmet, a Democrat and local union leader, won a runoff for a state Senate seat that’s been held by Republicans since 1992. What’s more, he bested the Republican Leigh Wambsganss despite having one-tenth as much money. Much of Wambsganss’s funding came from Dunn and the Wilks brothers.

Here's the DNC chair talking about it two weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/J9Nk7RcZh7k?t=46

We're not "over performing" this is the natural result of undoing the damage of 30 years of neoliberalism and especially the "victory fund". Up until a year ago the goal of the party wasn't "as many seats as possible" it was just to have a neoliberal president and at most House or Senate, but never both.

It's like going from a pitcher who wants to win but not cover the spread, to one who just wants to win by as many runs as possible.

Dems aren't intentionally holding themselves back, so we're going to keep seeing massive gains.

[–] supernight52@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Dems aren't intentionally holding themselves back, so we're going to keep seeing massive gains.

Tbf, MOST of them aren't holding themselves back. Jeffries, Schumer, and a couple others are definitely trying their best to keep things as terrible as possible.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago

The more progressives enter the party, the more untenable are the positions of people like Jeffries and Schumer.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Well, I was saying Dems "as a party"...

You're referencing the House and Senate leadership, who notably got elected a week or two before Martin, when the old DNCs threats of "vote neolib or we defumd your state party and let Republicans take all the seats" was a valid and well proven threat.

They've been lame ducks this entire congress and everyone knows it. The media just won't say it because they're still trying to prop up neoliberals as effective and in control. Just because that will depress dem.primary turnout and help neoliberal candidates.

Like, Jeffries and Schumer are literally trying to be as terrible as possible intentionally

If a progressive Dem becomes president, they name the next DNC chair and neoliberals lose the party for good. They'd 100% rather a Republican wins 2028 if it's not a neoliberal, because that gives them a chance to take the party back.

Like, I dunno man. I overestimate people a lot, but I really feel like all of this should be common sense and easy for people to figure out on their own.

But it's seems like despite most people realizing billionaires are the problem, they still only listen to what billionaire owned propaganda says on the TV

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

We're not "over performing" this is the natural result of undoing the damage of 30 years of neoliberalism and especially the "victory fund".

Anywhere you can point me to read more about this?

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Meanwhile in California, a MAGA governor seems inevitable. Never underestimate the ignorance of the average American.

[–] raynethackery@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

Is Newsom that unpopular?