this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
99 points (96.3% liked)

politics

30099 readers
2114 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

He sure has the personality, colleague support and inner strength to easily win it. /s

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Translation: he's waiting to see if their efforts to undermine the midterms are successful so that they might be able to steal the 2028 presidential election.

[–] Furbag@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago

Sure buddy, you're allowed to run from a prison cell. Your best buddy Trump will be right there next to you, and I'm sure he'll use his daily phone call to canvas for you.

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

Conservatives will still vote for him. They’ll do it even if they say, outloud, that they don’t like him.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

"We'll see how well we can steal the midterms"

[–] mech@feddit.org 42 points 2 days ago (1 children)

… the way that I make decisions is that I try not to make them until I absolutely must.”

That's like the worst possible trait for a President

[–] ptu@sopuli.xyz -4 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] mech@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wasn't commenting on Vance's (or Obama's) announcement date.
I was commenting on his actual quote. The one I quoted in my comment.

[–] ptu@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

Lol it was so absurd that I didn’t even register it, thanks for clearing it out

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Oh Good grief.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Do you uh, do you think he made that decision like, right before he announced it?

[–] ptu@sopuli.xyz -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, I’m just saying he had a similar timeframe. Or do you have some proof he had made the decision before he announced it?

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Presidential candidates are internally campaigning and working on infrastructure for fundraising etc. I guarantee you he did not make the decision right at 2007.

[–] ptu@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was talking about the public announcement. Similarly we can’t be sure if Vance has in fact made the decision yet

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

I agree. He probably already has. He just doesn’t want to say it.

It also doesn’t excuse the asinine comment he made about waiting until the last possible moment to make a decision. That is a horrible trait and probably something you don’t want to say publicly.

The 2 aren’t mutually exclusive.

[–] Dr_Fetus_Jackson@lemmy.world 53 points 2 days ago (4 children)

He's already chosen his running mate.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For the first time in history, a candidate's running mate and the First Lady are the same 'person'. (Technically, the sofa now has enough human DNA in it to count as a person in 3 states, thanks to obscure anti-abortion laws.)

[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Holy hell WHO designed this!?

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most American made furniture is ugly AF.

[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

If you say so, I still ain't never seen something "THIS" vagina

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's too human like for his taste.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Do it. I can’t imagine a better schmuck to tank the GOP’s chances

[–] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago (2 children)

People said the same about Trump. Both timss.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Naw man, Trump opened up with a racist and controversial speech. He had an immediate following and cult formation very early on.

Vance has been around for a while. No one likes him and every attempt he makes backfires spectacularly.

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

That's why Elon fixed the election for him.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

There is a 0% chance they'll make it through a primary. Just like Harris became Bidens' running mate through transactional politics, so to did Vance become Trumps, excepting that Vance was a net negative to the Trump campaign. Trump didn't bring on Vance because he needed Vance's charisma is a bit of an understatement.

Now they'll be saddled with all the unpopularity which will come from the unpopularity of Trump 2.0 (who is deeply underwater with pretty much everyone).

Just like Harris would have never made it through a 2024 primary, neither would Vance through a 2028 primary, with one notable exception, which is the case that Trump dies in office. That could change things. But with the current layout of the board and where things are coming and going, put a bet down against Vance.

I honestly think dumpy's handlers would go that route if they thought they would lose control, and by doing so would retain it through little jimmy and his couch collection.

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, Vance is not gonna grab MAGA after Trump is gone. He's neither charismatic or extreme enough for it. I am expecting MAGA to put out their own candidate that will somehow be worse than Trump.

Also Vance saying he's gonna wait until after midterms is him waiting to see how much the GOP will get fucked or not. If there is a blue wave in the midterms he may not want to throw his hat in the ring and just get humiliated if that wave keeps the momentum going until the presidential elections.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I am expecting MAGA to put out their own candidate that will somehow be worse than Trump.

If Trump doesn't explicitly name an heir, it will be half a dozen different figures vying to replace him, all of them tearing at each other's throats as they do. It might be enough to tear their support base to pieces as well, with loyalists of one faction unwilling to ever support the head of a different faction, even after the outcome becomes clear.

Also there's the factor being forgotten, Trump invigorated a largely inactive section of the population who will almost certainly go back to being inactive at least in part once he is either dead or indisposed. No way in hell is Vance keeping those people active.

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah. Though who would Trump even name as an heir? I think he hates Vance so I don't think it will be him. One of his kids? None of them really strike me as able to take over.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 4 points 2 days ago

Given his selfishness, if he did name an heir, it would either be one of his kids (so he can continue to see his name on things) or it would be someone he thought he could exert complete control over and basically stay in power with them as a puppet.

(And for the latter purpose, someone obscure, currently barely known would be ideal, someone who owes everything to Trump and has no independent base of their own. But also needs to be somebody with deep financial ties to the Trump family and a lot of debts to be paid off. Oh, and preferably also involved in the whole Epstein situation, to help control them through blackmail.)

[–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

apparently that's what happened with Teddy Roosevelt. party leadership didn't like him as the governor of New York because he was too progressive, so they "promoted" him to McKinley's VP, a position where he would have less influence. but then someone shot McKinley, and suddenly Roosevelt had a lot of influence

McKinley being shot was unironically one of the best things that happened in US history, followed quickly by Roosevelt losing his temper at the trusts and going on a crusade.

[–] OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

Last I checked, the only person who wants him to run is himself.

[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Better kill him before that I guess

[–] hitstun@feddit.online 1 points 2 days ago

It wouldn't help. There are 77 million more Trump supporters that would take his place.

[–] mech@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

In this timeline, wouldn't surprise me if the next US president will be Jacob Chansley.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago