this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2025
223 points (95.9% liked)

politics

26306 readers
2913 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
 

California Governor Gavin Newsom holds an early edge over Vice President JD Vance among young male voters for the 2028 presidency, according to new polling from a Republican-affiliated firm.

The latest League of American Workers/TIPP survey, conducted October 22-28, shows that among young men, 38 percent would vote for Newsom compared to 33 percent for Vance.

The findings suggest that Newsom—a prominent Democratic voice—continues to outperform expectations with a demographic that has trended toward the GOP in recent years. The results come amid renewed debate within both parties over how to win back young men, a group increasingly seen as pivotal to future national elections.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You realize "the DNC" is just the chairperson right?

There's ~400 voting members who pick the chair, except when a Dem wins the presidential they go with the pick.

So 2016 they fucked up and picked a shitty chair.

2020 they went with the presidents pick.

And 2024 they realized that wasn't working and didn't pick a neoliberal.

Those ~400 people have turnover too. The ones who voted in February this year weren't the ones who voted in 2016.

Change can happen very quickly because of how it's structured. We have a non biased chair for the first time in like 50 fucking years bro. Because Obama abandoned the DNC instead of appointing a progressive or at least someone unbiased

Since the party put it's fingers in the scale for Carter because even Jimmy Carter was further right than voters if his time wanted.

Like, we won the war over the party months ago, and you're like one of those Japanese soldiers that kept "fighting" on an island for decades because they never got the surrender order.

The closest thing to pro-billionaire Martin's ever said is:

Yeah, we'll take their money if they give it, but we won't be biased for it.

And yeah I know what your response will be "they'll only give it if they get something!!!!!"

Which logically...

Means billionaires aren't going to give to the DNC under Martin.

Exactly what you want. Martin just said it diplomatically because it was during his campaign for chair, and he was making it clear that if billionaires stop giving, it's not because he's be rejecting their donations, it's because they'd only give if it's a bribe instead of a donation.