Mamdani, a proudly socialist 33-year-old, holds a 44-36 percent lead over over former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo – who was hoping that New Yorkers had short memories, and were ready to re-elect the textbook centrist Democrat.
However, after the disaster of Trump’s first year back in the White House – with everyday American life interrupted by protests, immigration raids, corruption allegations and the unshakebale feeling that the nation is about to enter World War 3… It seems the pendulum is swinging back towards left-wing politics.
It appears that the success of Mamdani isn’t so much a vote against Trumpian politics, but more a vote against the stale nothingness of the Democrats top brass – who, while pitching themselves as the progressive option in America’s political system, very seldom action – or even – offer – left-wing policies.
I don’t consider any of Mamdani’s proposals especially left-wing, either. They’re all bare-minimum, common-sense social programs that pay dividends. The fact that people are going mad over this tells you exactly how far gone the US has become.
Wait, so if candidates actually run on what voters want, they can succeed?
Amazing
Yes, because the new normal expectation is that common sense is far from common, and that no matter who you vote for, the results will be more of everything that’s wrong with the world
They’re not shocked, they’re alarmed that the left has gained such a clear and dramatic groundswell of support and that they found a flaw in a mechanism they have traditionally used to tilt the scales in favor of machine incumbents.
They are taking steps to mitigate this, I would absolutely expect them to even overtly rig the general, and everyone should be paying attention to who owns the voting machines, whether the software is audited, and how the votes are tabulated.
absolutely disappointing that the Democrats would rather have a sex pest mayor than someone just a LITTLE more left than them.
I don’t think they care so much if you are left of them…. It’s left of center right that they are worried about….
There’s also kind of an answer here to why people voted for Trump.
People are angry. They don’t necessarily know the best policies to resolve the country’s poor direction, but it’s clear to so many people that what we have isn’t working.
Many of us have had a conversation over drinks with a confident person at a party who maybe has a job you don’t understand well, and who just speaks confidently about all the things that are fucked up, and what they’d do in charge. As long as they don’t make claims of “Things are mostly okay”, they can make up any target: Immigrants, trans people, government overspending on overseas programs. The key is, they have to match the voter’s anger. The rest follows naturally.
I’d also say that’s how Obama got elected. He had a message of hope and change.
I know people who voted for Trump specifically because they thought the best way to make things better in the long run was to elect someone who would make things drastically worse first. That it was necessary for him to win to teach a lesson to various dysfunctional parts of the system that would otherwise be complicit in a decline to the same destination, differing only in speed.
It’s unfortunate that fascists don’t give back power. I have a coworker who was getting fed up with people like Macron succeeding over here, and he was saying “sometimes I wonder about Le Pen getting elected, maybe it’ll work to show how bad they really are at doing anything and people will finally vote left” (he’s from Algeria, he absolutely 150% isn’t a far right voter or even heavily religious himself) and when he saw Trump the first time, on Jan. 6, it finally registered in his head that you really can’t give fascists a single step in the door, ever, even if they’re shit at doing anything, you have to erase them everywhere because they’re not shit at keeping and abusing power.
What’s even more unfortunate is that the other people who are in power most of the time (“center right”) don’t actually want to keep fascists out of power if doing anything costs them power.
What’s even more unfortunate is that the other people who are in power most of the time (“center right”) don’t actually want to keep fascists out of power if doing anything costs them power.
Like you said, fascists don’t give back power.
I have two points to add to this:
1 - As a liberal, there was nothing more frustrating than having to vote for Kamala, a candidate who was aggressively “pro-cop”, especially as many in the country were protesting for defunding cops. Youre not going to energize most people with an angle like “You want us to vote to stop Trump?”
2 - As a person who is part of the black/immigrant community, the government has a history of ignoring us for decades. It’s not the federal government, but the local government too. Systematic racism has always kept us down. And I hate to say it, Trump got a wall going. Trump has ICE harassing immigrants. These are newsworthy events, even if they’re in the wrong fucking direction. But a Democrat has a history of never wanting to create a ripple as they appeal to all sides.
Old guy Biden planted trees despite knowing he’d never see the shade. Harris said she’d care for the trees and let them grow so everyone would have shade. Electorate grows impatient. Trump promises to chop down all the saplings, and electorate somehow decides this will get them shade more quickly
Old guy Biden planted trees despite knowing he’d never see the shade.
That’s a very generous way to describe selling weapons for genocide.
Posting this to offend the white supremacist mods in the politics forum
White supremacists mods in the politics forum?
On Lemmy?
Out of the loop here.
They whip out the ban hammer if you talk about actually pushing back against the Nazis. They’re Lemmy’s own Occupy Democrats who post whiny rage bait for karma but still want the status quo protected.
I’ll add a tangentially connected piece of my own opinion - immigration is clearly beneficial, following a few simple rules:
-
No labor migration, unless it’s a wider agreement meaning citizens another country can freely cross the border. Otherwise a labor migrant can be threatened by deportation, thus becoming legally disadvantaged de-facto. The points further describe immigration, a one-way ticket.
-
No legal disadvantage, an immigrant should be certain that if they get robbed\killed\bullied, there’s a legal mechanism that will work to get some kind of justice (until they get citizenship).
-
No filters other than quota, sufficient language knowledge and personal crime history. Filters can be easily abused. Except one - they must have a plan on how do they intend to make their living. Needed in most countries even for long-term visas, so not much to ask. A crowd of third-world country peasants trying to sneak somehow speaking worse English than me (not in text) is not going to pass that. Or if some will - it’s for the better even. The rest can look for some other way.
-
Advanced language, basic history (high school level), law (same), economics (same) and culture (the things that natives usually take for given, like not using your left hand for a handshake in an Arab country, or pop culture references, or the general perception of this and that idea, say, ex-Soviet immigrants in many countries, like some my relatives, seem to think they get to be conservative and racist to “brown” immigrants purely due to skin color and that they themselves are perceived as civilized people, well, LOL, why did you immigrate then) courses for immigrants, with exams mandatory to pass very well to get citizenship. However, their children get citizenship due to being born in the country (and receiving the mandatory education and going through other necessary procedures making them, well, not very different from anyone else in the country).
-
No special support nets for immigrants. No tolerance to, say, crowds of illiterate Afghan people who’ve moved through a few countries, call them shit, but expect to get unemployment payments and social support and live like in heaven once they reach, say, Germany (in this example Germany will be called shit too once the person sees that there it’s too expected that they find a job and work for themselves).
-
Maybe programs to help new immigrants with finding a job are fine.
I generally think that citizenship of some countries being an unachievable dream for some who don’t have it is a wrong situation. Horizontal mobility has been historically a source of good things. Just have to make sure the rule #3 is followed. And rule #4 - people in some countries live so differently from the west, that their perception of it is as of some magic land where white people give them candy and free stuff, some heaven they have to only get into. Rule #2 too - because we don’t know which governments will put which rules into policy, affecting the composition of immigration. Some might prefer ex-Soviet idiots because they vote for people like Trump. Some might prefer Muslims because they vote for the more authoritarian kind of Democrats no questions asked. Some might prefer to let in a wave of poor Afghanis, because it’d be both a good scarecrow for something like sundown towns and a source of cheap labor, affecting labor rights of everyone else and the ability of protests to paralyze economy, for example.
OK, I’m talking about this from Russia, where the problem with Central Asian and other immigrants is that they are basically legally disadvantaged. It’s very hard for them to get citizenship, but as a source of cheap labor they work very well. At the same time they won’t do anything if the employer, say, takes half of their formal pay, or does something else illegal. Without Russian citizenship they in practice can’t do it. All this while technically CIS and EAEU rules forbid all such stuff, but, eh, who can prevent Russia from doing what it can in its own toy integration projects.
Sorry I’m not reading that wall of text, but yes, the US has unequivocally benefitted from migration. It’s a good thing, in many ways, and clearly in our best interest to guide and encourage, to continue taking advantage of.
A big part of our mythos is welcoming immigrants, becoming a “melting pot” combining the strengths of many peoples. While we may struggle to live up to that sometimes, it’s a worthwhile goal to work toward
-
I don’t think anyone is actually shocked. It’s quite obvious that if you push policies that benefit large numbers of people, you might get support from large numbers of people. Of course that’s not a guarantee, but it doesn’t need to be.
But many Democrat politicians have been keen on appeasing their corporate backers by pretending otherwise, even though they knew it, we knew it, Bernie was saying it The cat has been out of the bag for a long time.
Bernie has corporate backers too. I think that might be just because he’s old and doing what AOC is doing by not having backers is maybe a new progressive thing. I mean, she has a few small donors, but not like the older dems.
Which? He ran his presidential campaigns without any corporate backing.
If Mamdani pulls it off, I hope he can keep his promises or at least give a good fight for common sense. For the moment, the USA is fucked up.
Republican: I can’t tell a socialist from a communist but I can be racist at the same time.
Amazing! A week ago they were all saying how awful NYC is. Now it’s great. What an incredible transformation.
without looking at the name, it’s impossible to tell which party he’s from.
Can you give me an example of a democrat saying something this Islamophobic anr calling for someone’s deportation?
Not deportation specifically but very Islamophobic: https://omar.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-omar-spokesperson-statement-islamophobic-statement-democratic-colleagues
It could be verbatim and he wouldn’t accept it.
It won’t be verbatim because Democrats wouldn’t be so direct with their hatred, which is why I disagree with your assessment that its impossible to tell which party that comment was from.
The sentiment is identical, though.
Yeah, but the wording are usually not.
Jesus fucking christ, where my crew at?
This is our moment to fucking run it in the faces of the idiots telling us we needed to have candidates with barely left of center politics in this country.
People who have told you you need to accept less from candidates because abwd are the toxic bane that handed us Trump. You can’t win elections on being a diet piece of shit; you actually have to stand for some thing.
what does abwd mean?
ABWD refers to “Any Blue Will Do”, which is a slogan, ideology, and voting strategy associated with what is now collectively known as “Blue MAGA”.
The charitable version of their argument is that we need to just support every D, no matter what. The problem that ABWD creates is two fold. The first problem, is that in effect, the policy works against its self as electoral strategy. It second problem is that it also works against itself as governing strategy. I’m going to refer to these as “anti-strategies” because I think its important to point out that they are thought about and employed as if they are in-fact strategies that could win an election. They make you feel like a smart person, and are regularly used as a cudgel against other approaches, but they are self-defeating: an anti-strategy hurts you, not helps you.
This clip of Whoopi Goldberg saying she would vote for Joe Biden even if he was pooping his pants on stage highlights:
So the issue that ABWD creates in this context is that, even though Whoopi here is clear that she would vote for a candidate so aged that they shit themselves on stage, American voters wont. And this problem is rampant across Democratic primaries. We’re constantly getting candidates forced into elections through AIPAC, the DCCC, directly from the DNC, who aren’t electable within the Democratic base, for whatever reason. Here, Whoopi has effectively lowered the bar to the floor. And the problem is, that while a pants-shitter might be fine for Whoopi, its not fine for literally everyone else. By insisting on this anti-strategy, that we had to support Biden as the candidate when it was clear he was completely incapable of governing, let alone winning the election (even when Trump was as unpopular as he was), this insistence was basically an instance we lose the election. Its an important historical footnote that Blue MAGA/ ABWD did win the ideological fight that summer. And we lost the 2024 election as a result.
So the second issue with ABWD/ Blue MAGA is that we end up with Blue Dogs, or Democrats that are basically worthless for progressing any Democratic legislative or governance priorities. Effectively, ABWD is used to put conservative, basically Republican Democrats into safe blue districts, which they might hold for decades. A classic example of this was AOC versus Crowley, where Crowley held the house seat responsible for Queens, NY, one of the most progressive house district populations there is. And he REGULARLY defeated, shut down any kind of progressive legislation. There are many, many others, for example, Ed Case, House District 1, Honolulu HI, who voted to censure Al Greene. ABWD/ Blue MAGA results in bad Democrats getting into office and holding space which would otherwise be occupied by more reliable, more progressive Democrats. When you go to actually get get anything done, ABWD defeats your ability to govern.
Do you really think that Biden’s “non governing” was worse than Drumphs autocratic “governing”? I think that if the stakes were less, then your approach may have merit. But right now, we’re talking Drumph, and literally anything is better than what he offers.
See what you are doing there? How you are trying to reframe the point into something it isn’t?
The question if djt or Joe Biden being better is a non issue, because the election wasn’t actually between two deeply unpopular candidates: it was between voting and not voting, and not voting won by a landslide.
If you don’t change your understanding into these terms you’ll never actually be able to push down facsism, because, as demonstrated, being a lessor evil simply isn’t good enough. It’s not a negotiation. There is no wiggle room. You fail to present a better option, and you are intentionally trying to lose.
I’ll try to work it out, as people are currently dying in El Salvadorean concentration camps, of pregancy difficulties, and due to measles and any other medical denialism. As allies are betrayed to generational enemies, and Drumpf flirts with WW3. As the world, but especially the US economy crashes. As millions of people lose their jobs. I’ll say it again for those who have their heads up their own asses. Drumpf must lose FIRST to potentially save the world. It’s possible that it’s already too late and that there will not be another election. The stakes can’t be much higher. THEN fix your stupid electoral system.
You want the electorate to be different than it is. You want them to have seen the existential threat which Trump was and is. You want them to be engaged and committed to showing up even when there is nothing on the ballot for them. I wish that voters were better than they are too.
But this is reality and we don’t get to base our strategies on how we wish things are. We have to base them on how they actually are. We can’t run campaigns for the voters we wished we have access to, we have to base the campaigns on the voters we actually have access to.
You want the electorate to be different than it is; but it isn’t. If you approach predicates the electorate be different than they are, you will lose.
You either meet the voters where they are at or you are making a conscious choice to lose.
Great explanation.
Look, the average American is not the most well-reasoned individual. Not always their fault due to the situations we are all in over here. The main cultural systems are primarily focused on punishment, not reward. The average American isn’t well-educated, because again, why would they when there isn’t a tangible, understandable reward?
This means that getting people to do what you want is like herding cats. If you have a group of cats and bring them two food choices, and a large portion of the cats hate both, they will display protest behaviour and pout while the food is picked at by the other cats.
You mentioned in another comment about not living in the past. I had to vent about the protest voters too, but I also understand it is a core, unshakable value for them. The past is important to learn from, and the Dem party needs to do so, or people like Trump will never face actual opposition in the polls.
The main problem with ignoring the past is repeating mistakes. The main frustration with learning from the past is to watch others make those mistakes while they ignore your warnings.
I know it’s rough-and-tumble and this was a long message. Hope you find peace where you can and support from those around you. ❤️
Drumpf must lose FIRST to potentially save the world.
He already lost in 2020!.
But the Democrats insistence on using him as the only justification for voting for them meant he came right back
the electoral system is working as designed so there’s nothing to fix.
the way it works against the will of the people was its main goal as it was designed to prevent other very popular social movements (eg anti-slavery) from gaining popular approval.
The point is that ultra zionist neocon warmonger that is most Republican of anyone in DNC, while successful in replacing Trump in 2020, also kept him out of jail so he could run again, as the best candidate the DNC could hope for, until Oct 7th, when Israel first rule over America made DNC intentionally elect Trump as best Israel friend to “finish the job”. The only important election platform of “defeat Trump” even if it motivates us to vote that way, is a very low bar, that doesn’t turn into any progress or change.
I agree that not jailing Drumpf for life was a major failure. I do blame Merrick Garland for that, primarily, and Biden by extension as his boss. But that doesn’t change a thing about TODAY’S situation, nor the importance of removing him again.
Stop living in the past. It’s not really relevant, especially for those that don’t learn.It’s not really relevant
I always hear this from establishment democrats. no post mortems please, No looking at structural problems, lets only focus on the immediate future.
No to that. No more passes. We need to examine why the dems are structurally incapable of doing anything but selling out and why they have been failing us for decades. Its time to fumigate the whole house, not just squash the roaches on the countertop. Lets not just slap a bandaid on it and call it good. The party is almost dead here, lets fix the root of it for once in our lives.
Stop living in the past. It’s not really relevant, especially for those that don’t learn.
Don’t examine history, I want to repeat it!
Theoretically not facing Trump in 2028. DNC could nominate John Fetterman if pattern continues. AOC if she disavows Israel first rule, and proxy war on Russia could result in Mitt Romney as GOP candidate. instead of Rubio or Vance.
Whataboutism.
Well, I’d differentiate between primary and general election. It’s definitely time to overthrow the democratic establishment, and do the same as AOC or now Mamdani. Third parties won’t have a chance, but overtaking the Democrats (like the tea party) is possible.
Nevertheless, in the general election, you should definitely vote against fascism, even if the Democratic candidate is awful as well.Nevertheless, in the general election, you should definitely vote against fascism, even if the Democratic candidate is awful as well.
So, like, you have to start hearing this: If you (or any Democrats) continue to approach elections with this mental framework, you will lose elections. What you are saying; what you are thinking: it directly contributed to Democrats losing in 2024. Not adjacently, not tangentially: directly.
What you are engaging in is an anti-strategy. You feel like you are doing the smart thing by expressing it, but actually, this tactic when applied at scale, gives candidates the permission structure to be worse. It gives them the space to hold onto policies that preclude them from being electable. What you are doing is the exact point I’m railing against, because its been demonstrated now, over and over again, to lose elections.
The election isn’t about you or me: its about the candidate and the electorate. And the only force we wield in that dynamic is our vote. We need candidates to understand that they do NOT have our votes, not in a primary, not in a general, if they don’t move to our policy positions. If they think that they’ve got your vote and don’t need to work for it, they won’t and don’t.
And we don’t need to argue about this. We’ve run both the positive and negative sides of this experiment so many times, its basically solved. Every election since 1996, on both the left and the right, has been won by the candidate who moves to where their side of the electorate is at. When you give your leverage away for free, you give the candidate permission to not change their position and this loses the election.
ABWD is what you are expressing, and by doing so, you are setting things up for failure.
The massive problem a lot of Americans are struggling with is that they only have two choices, and one vote. I think there would be massive pressure on terrible Democrat candidates if voters felt like they could vote for who they really want to and keep these terrible candidates as a reluctant backup. We have the system we have now and have to work within it, but God damn I am so hungry for a instant runoff voting system.
Part of working with the system we have now is to not myopically focusing on just the election in front of you. Short term thinking and voting blue no matter who is what got us to where we are today.
They have two choices in each election, but if they look at mid and long term, they have more than two choices because how they vote (or refuse to) today influences who gets put forward next time around.
The US Elections aren’t a Trolley Problem from Philosophy (because: most effects of the choice can be undone, they’re a cyclical choice rather than one-off, you don’t really know for sure what each choice gets you because politicians lie, they’re not an individual choice) they’re more like a Cyclical Ultimatum Game from Game Theory between the party of the political side of a voter and the voter, and the party puts forward a candidate with a certain mix of policies and the voter can Accept - and then both the party and the voter get a little closer to getting that mix of policies - or the voter can Reject - and then the party and the voter get a little further from getting that mix of policies.
This being the cyclical version is what matters most here: both sides get to do another run of the game in 4 years time, which is why a Reject on the side which can chose “yay or nay” can make sense as a way of inducing the other size to put forward a candidate with a different mix of policies on the next round.
(The main difference from the actual cyclical Ultimatum Game is that the actual Accept or Reject is the sum of many votes, and both Parties in the US use the inherent difficulty of people in working as a group to get Accepts when they should be getting Rejects)
The American Voting System is fucked up and not really Democratic, yet unlike and actual Power Monopoly, there are still ways to influence the Power Duopoly in the US but they require voters to be Strategical in how they vote rather than only Tactical.
This is myopia. Every election is the most important election of your lifetime. But it’s suicidal to only consider one election at time. Consider two different options:
Option 1: Vote blue no matter who
Election 1: establishment pushes a corporatist through the primary, Dem voters reluctantly vote blue no matter who, corporatist loses by small margin to the Republican candidate.
Election 2: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Election 3: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Election 4: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Election 5: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Option 2: Demand better from Democratic candidates.
Election 1: establishment pushes a corporatist through the primary, Dem voters refuse to vote blue no matter who, corporatist loses in a blow out election.
Election 2: corporatist candidate gets no traction. Dems vote in a decent candidate that can inspire people. Dems win general election.
Election 3: decent candidate has edge from the beginning. Dems win general election.
Election 4: decent candidate has edge from the beginning. Dems win general election.
Election 5: decent candidate has edge from the beginning. Dems win general election.
What if the Democrat candidate is also fascist, as was the case last time?
Narrative not allowed. You’ll now be inundated with text explaining how just letting the Republicans win is better.
Bruh what do you think the guard dogging of Harris resulted in?
Anyone blue will do…maybe?
Correct.
Blue MAGA is such a stupid fucking term. Anyone who uses it should likely be disregarded.
If Blue MAGA doesn’t want to be referred to as such they can change their behavior any time.
It is however extraordinarily fitting:
And that one is from the early days of the use of the term.
tl;dr your image is as bullshit as anyone who says “Blue MAGA”. It’s a thing you and others are trying to invent. Fuck off with your both sides bullshit.
In this essay, I will discuss why most of the points in that image are bullshit.
First line is tenuous at best. There wasn’t outright cheating like ballot stuffing, but there was an absolute brick on the scales. The media calling all the superdelegates before anyone actually voted was bullshit. Nuance is a thing.
You’d be hard pressed to find anyone saying Bernie is a DINO.
Nobody on the left says “fuck democracy”. And if they do, they’re not neolibs.
Absolutely nobody says only corporate votes should count.
In the end, if you don’t ally with most Democrats, our country is doomed. You can turn them more progressive, especially in primaries. But if you abandon the Dems, you might as well be one of those right wing podcaster being paid by Russia.
I get that some people want to threaten them. But threaten them from the left, not from the fucking stupid.
Your “most Democrats” just handed the country to fascists because rather than be critical and demand better than a pants shitting, geriatric, defender of genocide, they decided any blue would do.
And what we just showed you: Your approach to politics doesn’t work and ours does. You want to win? Follow us. Stop pretending that forcing through shitty candidates does any other than hand governance to Republicans.
“Join us”, like I wasn’t out there knocking on doors for Bernie.
So what happened to you? Why have you become just another defender of the establishment that has betrayed Bernie, instead?
Genocide Joe has got to g…
Wait what are we doing again
We’re taking a victory lap.
God damn Michelle Jenneke is amazing.
Mamdani is a Democrat party candidate, you’re bashing his party and claiming to celebrate his victory? I doubt it.
you can’t tell the difference between the party establishment and the electorate they obstinately refuse to represent.
This ain’t your party.
Earlier today this same article was crossposted from ML to Not The Onion, where many people pointed out it’s an opinion hit piece that makes the claim that Democrats reacted with shock or disbelief with the following citations and evidence: their feelings. It’s less than a nothing burger, the article genuinely lies to your face. You’re not going to make friends doing that.
The article is clearly satire. What it is satirizing, however, is very real. I’m pretty sure I actually told you specifically that Democrats could win if they ran on progressive policies and you insisted they had to moderate themselves instead.
You must be shocked. If not, you’re in denial. As Mamdani-style campaigns continue to sweep primaries you can either continue to cope and seethe or admit you were wrong.
If everyone knew the DNC’s policy stances and vote history, this discussion would not be happening.
-
It’s the Democrats’ jobs to educate the electorate about their policies.
-
Those of us who are politically engaged (as many of us are on lemmy) are well aware of the policies of establishment Dems and are not impressed. Public-private partnerships, deregulation, and incremental reforms that never seem to materialize - presented to the public individually or more recently as an “abundance” agenda - are no replacement for genuine progressive policies effectively communicated through populist messaging.
-
Most establishment Dems vote histories are their greatest shame - assuming they are actually capable of feeling such a thing.
- It is our job to elect representatives who will enact positive change, all of us. Thats how democracy works, we’re in charge.
- Your kind of people certainly hate talking about those policies and votes. I’ve seen tankies avoid discussing stances like plague.
- Oh no, they removed money from politics until the SCOTUS overturned it, expanded medical coverage every single time they had power, expanded workers and unions rights, fought discrimination, and fought to give us stimulus, emergency aid, and pandemic relief! Oh the humanity! Those monsters!
- You’re either naive or living in the past. This might be true when most Americans are not struggling to live paycheck to paycheck, but nowadays the political chaos is the least immediate of the average Americans problems. Your insistence on not recognising this fact is actually very much inline with establishment Democrats thinking.
- Another proof that you call anyone to left of you a Tankie. Get out of here with that stupidity.
- They also didn’t codify Roe v Wade, didn’t put Trump in jail, didn’t do electoral reform, didn’t provide free medical healthcare. Most of the things you listed are band-aids compared to the cure they should’ve fought for in the first place.
Maybe I believe we’re in the position we’re in because WE HAVEN’T GIVEN DEMOCRATS MORE THAN 50 SENATORS IN OVER 12 YEARS.
Also Tankies aren’t Left, like at all.
-
Sadly many voters do have the memory span of a moth…
Shocker progressives are popular because checks notes … they fight for everyone not just the rich
You dirty socialist commie (those are the same thing, do your own research), how dare you support something other than tax breaks for billionaires. Those are job creators! People like Bezos deserve a second yacht for his yacht because the first yacht lacks a helicopter pad.
That’s communism! /s
Frankly I don’t know what folks should have otherwise expected. The “standard” candidate was a former governor who left the office in disgrace after misconduct.
Even if people were for whatever reason skeptical of a progressive candidate, the business as usual candidate was such a bad idea that people would rather go for it than vote for Cuomo.
Now we watch as Cuomo probably ruins everything by running in the general anyway. The same reason why people say the progressives that can’t win Democrat primaries should bow out for general elections without RCV applies to “centrists” in the same boat. A progressive candidate won fair and square, stay out of his way.
With Adams and Cuomo running as independents, I think they are going to split the vote of the people that weren’t voting for Mamdami anyway, and is going to actually help him.
Dems continue to be baffled by the popularity of progressive politicians. They can’t fathom Americans wanting less & less to do with their moderate-right-wing bullshit, while the far-right moves farther & farther right.
It’s the foreign influence within the DNC brought in after private money flooded US politics. Get rid of Citizens United and the system will do a lot to correct itself.
Lol, no it really isn’t. Citizens vs United was the culmination of decades of the DNC constantly bending over backwards to compromise with conservatives.
Basically in the late 80’s and early 90’s the legislative grid lock we all know and love today was becoming the status quo. So a strategy of compromising with “moderate” conservatives over policy that benefited aspects of both parties was popularized by the Clinton’s.
This “Thirdway politics” led to short term benefits, and allowed the Clintons to get a death grip over the DNC. After a short period conservatives took advantage of this tactic of compromise to drag the DNC further and further to the right. Basically every sitting senator and most of the politicians in the house made their political careers by being the best at compromising with the right.
I was under the impression moderate compromise was code for working to satisfy donor demands. Which wouldn’t be so pressing with meaningful campaign finance reform.
It was definitely touted as one of the benefits of Thirdway politics. However, the real imperative was ending gridlock in Congress. Back in the late 80s and early 90s gridlock was new and actually seen as a big problem, especially after it caused a gov shut down under newt. Bill Clinton basically swept the presidential race for his second term for “solving it”.
I was under the impression moderate compromise was code for working to satisfy donor demands.
At best. Usually it just means rank capitulation to fascists.
It’s always foreigners, isn’t it? What about the domestic private money flooding US politics? What, because they’re American billionaires, it’s fine?
When the GOP vacations in Moscow and the DNC allows Palestinians genocide. Yeah, it’s totally a domestic based set of issues only. For fuck sake, be real.
No “only” but primarily. Domestic billionaires are the primary enemy, they’re the ones who directly benefit from making things like rent and healthcare more expensive, they’re the ones who benefit from keeping unions weak and disorganized, they’re the ones who benefit from mass surveillance and the police state. Foreign billionaires might benefit from doing those things in their own countries, but for the most part we have more to fear from our own rich people than from other countries’ rich people.
Removed by mod
If I said the reason you have a bruised face is because you’re advertising that anyone is free to punch you for 10 dollars, am I blaming the bruises on the people that punched you or am I blaming you?
Not moderate, not center, firmly not-openly-sociopathic-yet right.
Removed by mod
You call everyone to your left tankie scum.
Shhhh he doesn’t know how much he’s telling on himself when he does that
It appears that the success of Mamdani isn’t so much a vote against Trumpian politics, but more a vote against the stale nothingness of the Democrats top brass
People worth their salt, especially academics, mentioned this multiple times, neoliberal politics is no longer working. People want anything away from the forty-year old, outdated policies. Populism is getting a bad rap (either unintentionally or deliberately) but it is simply democracy. When surveyed, many voters who’d be open to vote right are also willing to vote left provided that bread and butter issues that affect day-to-day lives are addressed. Mamdani won the primary because he ran on providing common sense policies that the duopoly parties and oligarchs have brainwashed many Americans to fear. It seems that Americans are gradually waking up from establishment conditioning.
If American progressives continue with running on addressing bread and butter issues, and take away the narrative from the right, then the country could be saved from fascism. There may not need be a civil war to oust the Trump administration, but only time will tell.
I have met a shocking number of Trump voters who really like or liked Bernie Sanders. That number is four, but it’s still shocking and I don’t go out much. Obviously they aren’t paying much attention to policy or reality, but I wonder how common this is? My father-in-law is one.
If you look at it in the way that both people promise to shake up the system
Sometimes the direction is less important than the action
I mean, fuck trump and the only thing he wants to shake is the pockets of everyone else, but there is a commonality that can’t be ignored
I have you tagged as a whacky RP account in my client, but your posts have been markedly sane as of late.
Is it the meds?
I’ve reported your harassment so many times and the mods never care, so I’m taking care of it myself this time.
The Bernie-to-Trump pipeline is real. They both promised to shake things up, but the Democrats decided that they’d rather promote Trump, then let Bernie win. Most voters are sick of the status quo, but they don’t know enough of the details, and vote for whichever candidate promises to fix things.
They like Trump because he promises change. They also like Bernie because he also promises change. But for the last three elections, the Democrats have run status-quo politicians that keep telling the voters everything is fine. And the voters aren’t having it.
Now we have a chance to point out the direction that the Democrats need to turn to if they want to actually win.
