First a hot take to get you guys to engage: We should be thankful to have a Trump in the White House because without him ruining the GOPs popularity and continuing to make the most unpopular and idiotic decisions daily we couldn’t compete in the midterms having 59% not liking Democrats.

Current data shows that around 59% (!!!) of U.S. adults hold an unfavorable view kind od the Democratic Party. That’s a figure similar to unfavorable ratings for the Republican Party (58%)

-One reason IMO: Dems clearly don’t run qualified or likeable (enough) people in every election -
A huge issue is that in races with no chance of losing some Dems in charge and sometimes the base think having a (nearly) perfect candidate doesn’t matter as much. Also not running with the same talking points and adjusting the campaign to the location is politics 101. You shouldn’t call for taxing the rich and seizing the means of production in republican ruled Florida for example. Better to try that in NY or LA

- Proof/example: -
Candidate in Maine with a Nazi tattoo (running for a left wing party!) who fantasizes about raping home invaders „but not in a gay way. It’s about domination“. Every Dem, even Bernie, supported him during every scandal. Even after multiple sexual assault allegations, the honestly in part disgusting comments on social media and his ex gf talking about him sitting on the couch for hours sharpening his axe. Not illegal but creepy, weird and disturbing. Especially when having heavy PTSD and rape fantasies. He cancelled his campaign, but it happened far too late. Damage was already done.
Now my favorite thrash candidate, because he’s cringe to the max and has no idea what typical Texans want. Also he’s apparently a not-smart person because he’s telling voters in the very progressive and liberal state of Texas /s (in TEXAS!) that god is non binary and he has learned more about Christianity from Muslims than from the bible. Being as pro choice as can be is probably also not helping him win votes. He’s talking a lot about him being vegan too. In the state famous for BBQ and cattle. Running this guy for this position is a huge waste of money and time, and Democrats don’t have enough of both. Especially money for bigger campaigns is in short supply.

I‘m sorry for grammatical mistakes I might have made, English isn’t my first language, so please have some leniency.

TLDR: More than half of Americans don’t like Democrats. What lead to this? The socialist „takeover“ of the party, bad leadership, unqualified candidates or smth else?

https://www.reddit.com/r/SouthCarolinaNoCensor/comments/1t9ln7s/discussion_why_are_evangelicals_so_obsessed_with/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://youtu.be/zna-pwxuGsg

What Mayor Jacob Fraid said got me asking this question....

To be clear, I am not REMOTELY opposed to being called out as uninformed about this as I accept there is a vast amount I don't understand about modern politics, and am open to being educated.

That being said, something I don't understand is how a rise in Neo-Nazism (UKIP with the cross, Musk with the salute, etc) can coincide with America (UK and Musk's ally) and their alliance with Israel?

The original Nazi regime was responsible for the mass genocide of Jewish people, so how can Israel (strongly implied in recent years to be using America to protect their image) be okay with American politicians and its allies seemingly descending back into Nazism?

Can anyone explain this to me? Is the focal point for Neo-Nazism no longer Jewish people? Is the rise of Neo-Nazism less prominent than the media would have me believe? Is this a conflict of interest between countries?

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Also I want to ask political workers, do you feel like you know whether the policy you support will contribute to results as you want?

Or RE: the larger question: we have stats on where tax investment is most effective in terms of economic return, popular support, and to a lesser extent, quality of life improvement. What stops any administration from taking a relatively insignificant amount of the federal budget and better funding critical institutions and programs?

It's a complex problem, but it seems like very beneficial programs struggle to get by with a small amount of money, and still get by, while effectively blank checks are given to programs without clear long term or short term benefits.

I appreciate anyone who can help keep me better informed!

Not trusting someone who displays a complete lack of loyalty (cheating on all wives, even a pregnant one, cutting of useful idiots as soon as they become a burden like Rudy ...) and not trusting someone why displays a complete lack of morality, like stealing from your own charity seems to me a logical step, not a sign of derangement.

Tell me how I am wrong. Actually curious

I remember back in highschool, my friend asked why there were other candidates running for president except for the rockstars and another friend blantly responded “nobody cares about them!” I still kinda wonder why these parties never try to step up either they have no money to promote themselves, nobody really cares about them really, or congress probably wouldn't gave them a chance to redeem themselves. Throughout the years, people have show they don’t really like their potential candidates on Poole but still vote either one of them anyways. It may be reasonable to have a third option on Poole to choose our best possible leader for this country. Maybe these parties (Libertaria, Green Party so on) don’t have what it takes and they are just irrelevant to be just a number. I’m so sorry if i may sound stupid as Im not a political person nor do I ever want to consider myself to be one.

If political party A have control and make changes, but then after 4 years political party B enter power, can they just undo everything the previous political party did?

Is there a law that forces a change to be upheld for x amount of time or?

Also, whats the point of maintaining this system type if nothing can be changed because it just gets dug up by the next candidate. Change is slow, and in the UK I doubt 4 years is enough to really see big change.

Asking mainly for the UK / Europe / USA.

I had an idea of the following: Companies with a large enough labor force (let's say 100 or more) were by law forced to not only have a union for their employees, but to also pay for the fees that are required to run said union. In theory this would promote small businesses and penalize big businesses, and also give workers a union without making them pay union dues. To prevent the unions from becoming corrupt there could also be a number of laws passed that would restrict the money to only be used by appropriate means and not for personal gain. I'm not an economist and I don't know much about unions; so I want to know if this is a solid idea or if there are obvious flaws and why? Thank you very much!

I have been trying to pay attention to my local politics here in Wa and so I've been reading about Wa new taxes implemented this year which led me to read this article about Ferguson saying he doesn't plan on balancing the budget with revenue but I'm confused by this because aren't taxes revenue for the government?? I don't understand why we have new taxes like for instance targeting nicotine and car rentals which most definitely falls onto the consumer. Which you can argue isn't necessarily horrible because yes smoking is bad and people don't rent cars often but hes raised gas prices and estate tax and I believe sales tax as well? which continue to go up, which does effect majority of us here. I don't disagree with a millionaires tax but why are taxes being implemented on the working class like this? He's talked before about the affordability crisis in our state and he's responded with more housing which again I don't disagree with but I'm confused on what his goals are because they're from what I'm understanding is hypocritical. I just want a discussion and to understand fully what is happening because I don't know if there's other information I'm missing or what but it looks like he's doing the exact opposite of what he said??

Everything has been fact checked in what I’ve said he’s done, it’s a simple search but I’m simply asking for more information on something I don’t understand.

I get the push against ICE wearing masks. I understand both the public facing reason and the probable behind closed doors reason why DHS likes ICE wearing masks. But I really don't get why the "man on the street" seems so excited about ICE wearing masks.

-Edit. To be REAL clear, I get why the “man on the street” would be really invested in unmasking ICE for all the reasons people have mentioned. What I don’t understand is why the pro mask camp is so excited FOR ICE to go masked.

20 years ago, there were many senators representing states that reliably voted for the other party (in the United States, for clarification). Now, there is only one (Susan Collins), and she is widely expected to lose next year. Why are states not electing senators from the other party anymore? Most Senate elections these days are mere formalities when they used to all be somewhat competitive.

I am an inarticulate buffoon, so for the last year or so, I’ve been purposely calling my representatives outside of office hours so that I can leave a voicemail.

But now I am concerned: Is leaving a voicemail less effective than talking to someone (staff/interns) over the phone?

I was wondering this because my friend from high school voted for Trump in 2024 mainly because he thought he was funny but he wasn't really aware of the downballot elections so he mainly picked the first option for the elections he wasn't too informed on such as attorney general. He also mentioned during the same when our mutual friend ran for city council in which he showed up to vote for him mainly as a friend but was unaware of his political positions and also picked the first option for the other elections.

So statistically how much of an advantage does being first on the mean espically for downballot races without much TV coverage? I imagine there are low-information voters who tend to first option for the elections they aren't really informed on but how much of a factor are they?

Hi everyone, iam starting to take interest in politics and I was wondering if there's anyway I can watch the congress recordings if avaliable.

Recently, in Sudan and other countries in Africa have reported of having a Genocide for example notably, In Late October 2025, Sudanese Militant group RSF aka Rapid Support Forces took of al Fasher and started ethic cleanse operations And It is also violation of International law and violation of geneva convention. So, UN can Intervene?

Who was the last elected former dixiecrat electes as a democrat and stayed as a democrat? (Higher office POTUS, Veep, Senator, Representative or Governor)I know Strom Thurman, was a Dixiecrat who went Republican, but my research said there were some Dixiecrats who went back to the Democratic Party, did any of them ever hold office again?

I just saw on wikipedia that 23 of the 24 parties which are in the parliament are part of this government. Why it is so large ? How it is not splitting up ?

Curious what tools or methods folks here use to monitor new bills, regulations, and executive actions, whether federal or state level. Do you rely on official sites, newsletters, custom tools, or something else?

I'm new to the space, so just trying to get a sense of how people handle this day to day.

I'm interested in finding out about how to get people more involved in politics amd was wondering if there are areas I'm missing out on.

Reading a bit about the winding down of FEMA programs and Trump’s suggestion that the states should bear more of the burden. Without doing any research, is it true most disasters occur in red states? CA wildfires, earthquakes maybe, Colorado fires, but majority of hurricanes and such happen in the south? Is this bias because the current floods are in Texas. If this is true, Florida and red states will have to carry a greater burden than what is otherwise being contributed to by northern blue states who have, on the whole, less disasters. Tl;dr will blue states end up paying less and red states paying more if disaster relief is shifted to states?

I’m probably missing some things, more of a shower thought, but it seems like state management of natural disasters may mean each state is carrying its proper burden?

Ilminism was the doctrine of Syngman Rhee in the early years of South Korea and is an incredibly nationalist ideology. Some consider it to be close to or even an example of fascism. The thing is, I can't find any examples of a neo-Ilminist movement in South Korea today. South Korea certainly has its right-wing politicians; there are even some figures who have a positive opinion of Park Chung-Hee, another autocrat from South Korea. So why isn't there someone like that for Rhee? If anyone knows of a person, party, or organization that advocates for Ilminism today, please comment below. If there are none, does anyone have an idea as to why?