this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
448 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22161 readers
3373 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

That would guarantee more Republican wins

[–] suite403@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'd have agreed with you pre-2025. But I could see it now. The Dems have been letting us down over and over again. We need a party that cuts out billionaire money and promises to enforce the same on all politicians once they take power.

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It could still be something like 40% third party 15% democrats and 45% republicans, unless Republicans split as well, a third party can only make the "left" weaker.

We see it in Europe in countries where the left parties refuse to create alliances for ideological reasons.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago

Either that it would result in the Democratic party collapsing entirely, why would anyone vote for it if there was a better alternative available? You might see the Republicans win an election or two but that happens anyways

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

It's actually exactly how the Weimar Republic fell giving rise to the Nazis. The right was united enough to form a government after the splintered left and center failed multiple times consecutively.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The problem is, it is very hard to win elections without money. So a party that cuts out billionaire spending is less likely to win while also splitting the dem vote.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Democrats outraised trump and still lost.

You need to not tell your voters to fuck off if you can imagine that.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The DNC didn’t have foreign bot farms and billionaires on their side.

Elon literally bought votes but you don’t count that when you say “outraised Trump”.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The DNC didn’t have foreign bot farms and billionaires on their side.

I know! Maybe if they abandon everyone that you don't care about and focus only on the bot farms and billionaires that you do care about, they'll win!

Democrats can't keep moving to the right like you want them to. They hit a wall. They peeled off none of the republican votes you envy. But they got to throw people you hate under the bus, so it's good for you.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They’ve literally won the majority of elections since the 90s by appealing to moderates. They lost in 2024 because Russia had a war at stake and billionaires didn’t want to get taxed. Add in inflation from the pandemic and you have a tough campaign to win.

The argument that democrats can’t win without the left is not based on reality.

Dems tried to appeal to leftist and they screeched “genicide Joe” until Trump won.

Meanwhile republicans won because voters to the right of leftist know the importance of not shitting on the candidate they want to win.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Dems tried to appeal to leftist

That's a bit of a fib, isn't it?

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Not even a little

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Splitting the dem vote implies that Democrats are entitled to all votes, not Republican. They have never done anything to earn mine. And after lurching far to the right, like they did this last election, I can't see how anyone thinks that they have earned their vote.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Then you will get more Trump and the GOP and fascism

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The DNC gave us Trump and fascism.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Na. That was fake leftists screeching “genicide Joe” and claiming both sides are the same.

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In case you didn't know leftists are not Democrats, Democrats are closer in policy to Republicans than leftists are Democrats. Your party hosted more cops, zionists, and Republicans onto their convention stage than they did progressives. They cuddled up with right wing war criminals, and tried to out Republican Republicans. Your party did this.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Left and right is a spectrum of ideology.

In the US that spectrum doesn’t exist to the left of democrats. It ends at democrats.

Those cops, zionists and republicans are also a part of our democracy and they have a vote. Leftists consistently lose elections for not considering this.

Democrats tried to be less moderate in 2016 and 2024 and lost because of it. Which is expected because leftists can’t win elections.

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

They lost in 2016 and 2024 because they abandoned their base in an effort to lurch right.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Doing things your way did just that.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Dems have won the majority of elections since the 90s. Biden/Harris lost because of inflation.

Republicans lost by waaay more in 2020. If they followed your mentality they would’ve lost in 2024. Instead they doubled down and won.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Democrats did what you wanted in 2016 and 2024 and lost. But at least you didn't have to move to the left.

You prefer trump to moving to the left.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Leftists aren’t winning elections.

Dems tried to cater to leftists in 2016 and 2024 and lost as a result.

The majority of Americans don’t want leftist politicians as we can see with election results.

Leftists are forcing Dems to the right by giving the elections to Trump

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Leftists aren’t winning elections.

Leftists aren’t winning "primaries."

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Have to get through what democrats have the gall to refer to as primaries first.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

India Walton, Nina Turner?

Won the primary. Lost the election.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

The Democrats wanted to tax the rich and they still got way more donations than Trump, but all of that pales in comparison to buying out Twitter.

You don't have to be poor to see that Republicans are a threat to us all.

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Keeping the dnc intact ensures that government is run by Republicans.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How so? Republicans lost by a lot more in 2020 than dems lost by in 2024.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Republicans didn't win because the DNC couldn't attract more voters on the center and right. Republicans didn't win because more people joined them in 2024, their numbers barely changed at all. Republicans won because leftists stayed home.

Because we refused to empower the DNC. Because the left splintered.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Why are you posting irrelevant bullshit? We're not talking about running a "third party" candidate. We're talking about destroying the Democratic party and rebuilding it into something that isn't traitorous and corrupt.

it's time for the Democrats to go the way of the Whigs.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Sounds like you’re warming up for the next election when you’ll be trying to convince people not to vote or vote 3rd party.

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

Sounds like you're trying to dismiss my argument out of hand by associating me with the pro-fascist concern trolls and their useful idiots who did that in this previous election. You can fuck all the way off with that dishonest, ad-hominem bullshit.

There's a huge fucking difference between abandoning a candidate in the middle of the election with fuck-all for alternatives, and trying to reform or replace the party with literally as much margin as possible before the next election. If now is not the right time to try to get shit done, when is? Tell me that, O Great Arbiter of Political Acceptability!

You need to quit your bullshit, and on top of that you owe me a goddamn apology.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Splitting the only opposition to the Republican Party during a coup is a guaranteed benefit to the GOP.

That’s what you are arguing for.

You want me to apologize for pointing out the cause and effect of what you’re asking for?

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

You say splitting is a guaranteed benefit to the GOP, but I'd say that keeping the resistance neutered by being stuck behind "leadership" that's ineffectual at best, or a traitorous quisling at worst, benefits the GOP even more.

Anyway, I'm not arguing for splitting the opposition. I'm arguing for supplanting it so thoroughly that the old guard (Schumer, Pelosi, et al.) finds it untenable to continue.

If that fails, it fails, and we crawl back and support the Democratic candidate as a last-ditch effort at harm reduction, just like before. But we've got to try, because otherwise Schumer is going to "collaborate" us straight into the gas chambers.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The problem with that approach is you do all the work for the GOP propaganda machine every time you argue against a democratic candidate.

So by the time your revolution fails, your campaign gets weaponized by the GOP. Everything negative you had to say about the democrat candidate is now being said by the GOP. And it’s super effective at convincing some democratic voters to stay home because it’s the same talking points used by their own party.

Instead of trying to discourage voters from choosing democrats, leftists should just say why voters should chose the leftist and accept the results when voters choose the moderate option.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So by the time your revolution fails, your campaign gets weaponized by the GOP. Everything negative you had to say about the democrat candidate is now being said by the GOP. And it’s super effective at convincing some democratic voters to stay home because it’s the same talking points used by their own party.

So, let me get this straight: leftists say "don't vote for Schumer; he's a fascist collaborator!" And then the fascists say "yeah, don't vote for Schumer, he's a fascist collaborator!" And then, according to you, that's supposed to make Democrats stay home instead of voting for the candidate primarying Schumer from the left?

If you really think Democrats hate leftists so much that they'd refuse to vote for one even when the alternative is somebody both sides agree is fascist, then they're basically lost to the enemy already and that's just even more reason to break from them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

accept the results

I won't, and I won't accept the results of voters choose gop candidates.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This logic of yours? Has it actually resulted in snowing or stopping fascism? Now it hasn't. Maybe it's time we try something different than what's obviously not working

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

How would making it easier for fascism to win, help stop fascism? Your logic doesn’t make any sense.

[–] 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

More wins than they already won?