These past few years have been very illuminating
Some related links, which I should have included in the first place!!
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/zohran-mamdani-democratic-party-establishment/
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/26/democrats-zohran-mamdani-meltdown-new-york
1601
Comments190
I mean at this rate with about %70 of democrats saying no to Bernie's stop arm sales motions, we can already safely assume yes they are. They have only been caring about their seats for quite a while and the deals they have made to stay on those seats do not align with the aims and interests of people like Bernie and Zohran. That is why they try to stop such candidates as ferociously as Republicans.
Yeah, you're just an Islamaphobe. I know this because you're specifically focusing on Islam, rather than every other major religion.
Nah I hate all religions, Islam is just as bad as it gets when checking to see if women have any semblance of respect
Spoken like a true chauvinist. The UK murdered tens of millions more in India alone under the guise of the values of enlightenment than Islam has in the past century and a half.
Islam makes women 2nd class citizens it's a guise for enslaving a whole gender. Fuck Islam. Defending it means you don't value 50% of humans.
Yeah you're right, unlike evangelical Christianity, which treats women as valuable and treasured members of society... Nah just kidding they are just ambulatory wombs that occasionally make noises as far as the evangelicals are concerned.
I am disgusted by religion, all religions, but let's not blind ourselves to the reality that when religion is an excuse for shitty behaviour it's not restricted to a single religion, and its not like getting rid of the religion would remove the shitty behaviour it would just mean coming up with a new justification.
I think the same of all religions, Islam is as bad as it gets though.
What inspired your discrimination?
The open misogyny and discrimination against women
Western chauvinism makes non-whites 2nd class citizens. It's a guise for enslaving the whole global south. Fuck western chauvinism. Defending it means you don't value 80% of humans.
Fundamentalists of any religion do this.
Yes and Islam is bottom of the barrel
I'm pretty sure they're with Zohran because he's literally the DNC candidate.
Yes, of course. That must be why they tried ferociously to stop him from winning the primary with Islamophobic smears and are now freaking out that they failed, and why the corporate media (yes, even the "liberal" media) are all crashing out.
What sort of stuff were they saying
Here's an article from the corporate media about the DNC's response to Mamdani's victory, and Here's an article from independent leftist media about the Islamophobic attacks against him.
I won't include an article from right-wing media, but I'm sure you can guess how they're coping with the electoral victory of a Muslim socialist immigrant born in Uganda to Indian parents (not well).
The post we're commenting under has also included some articles.
Ah yes, the great DNC freakout of 2025. It was legendary. Why even Bill Clinton made such vile remarks as
These horrible disgusting people would stop at nothing to keep them off their ticket. Except, of course, not inviting him to run on their ticket, for some reason.
They're all maintaining decorum (something they would die before dropping) by congratulating him on his win while denouncing his policies and stopping short of endorsing him. Ever since his victory all the "liberal" corporate media has been praising the "energy" of his campaign while criticizing his policies as dangerous and painting his pro-palestinian views as anti-semitic. Don't even try to pretend the way the DNC has been responding to this is normal. In nearly every other democratic primary the DNC have been quick to line up behind the victor.
DNC doesn't even stand for anything anymore. People use it when it's not even relevant.
Don't forget Bernie.
DNC had the same exact response. With the same exact Trump.
Took the DNC ten fucking years to pull their head out of their ass long enough to complain about young men populism being the key to victory, despite literally pissing away all the young men populism voters they had with Bernie Sanders.
Thank fuck it's now blatantly obvious with Zohran.
I'm not confident they will get it this time. Or care
I mean really they don't, I'm pretty sure 180 just voted against the impeachment of Trump. Literally just waiting to see which shill geriatric they'll put up for 2028 and pull the same "vote for us or suffer Republicans" bs for the next election.
I keep saying that if progressives in the DNC are being constantly blocked and cheated out of power, they need to split off and make their own party. They're afraid that if they do, they'll lose a majority against Republicans, but that's already true because even bargain basement protection laws barely pass when the Dems do have a majority in congress, and they actively support bs Republican bills when a minority like right now.
Splitting would render the DNC useless and simultaneously tap into the huge block of nonvoters that would turnout like how Mamdani's voter base was largely a grassroots campaign.
If Mamdani gets assassinated, it will cause people to intentionally vote for socialists.
Just a prediction.
Oh I agree completely. Just to clarify: The DNC absolutely will not get it or care. This is what I was describing as more "apparant" now.
Agreed. And why we need a new party. Organize and take back control of our country
I like this analogy.
The Democrats are playing the game.
The Republicans are playing the rules of the game.
It's funny. A lot on the right say the same thing about their representatives. They even call them RINOs (republican in name only). Funny how when republicans take control the spending goes up anyway.
It's almost like either party doesn't actually do what they say they do and have an entirely different agenda. It would be interesting to see on what issues congressional dems and republicans agree on that the public disagrees with them on. That might tell us what the actual agenda is.
There is something people are missing with Bernie. Bernie does happen to be Jewish, but he is not a Zionist, unlike for example Chuck Shumer. Then Hillary is not Jewish but she is a Zionist.
The control system prefers Zionists for legislative positions but they absolutely require Zionists for administrative positions. So much so they won't let someone escape a primary without the machine kicking into play. Even at the state level.
So funny to see in real time the difference between their phony outrage over Trump’s arguably monstrous policies, VS their genuine fear over a socialist winning a mayoral race.
This is why everyone who claims the way to fix Dems is via primaries is wrong. Dems will lie, cheat, or simply not hold primaries altogether, rather than risk an actual leftist winning the nomination.
Now watch as Dems throw their support behind the independent in order to undermine Zohran.
Andrew Cuomo running as an independent, and he was endorsed by many dem leaders already
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cuomo-stay-new-york-city-mayoral-ballot-november/story?id=123258468
Your source indicates he is still running, but unless I'm missing something makes no mention of endorsements. Do you have a source for that?
The endorsements were from before he was running during the primary.
I was being slightly fecesious
We do a little lying
That's not how you spell that.
Certainly a shitty way to spell it
I was curious when I heard he'd passed the deadline to remove his name from the ballot for the general (whether he runs or not), and it seems the Republicans are pissed he didn't because he's likely going to take their votes away from Adams. Probably a good thing for Mamdani.
Nice to see ranked choice voting working.
Not that it doesn't work, but just nice New York can actually fight over more valid candidates without spoiling the election (not that I care for Adam's or Coumo either).
Theres like 2 people in the DNC who have voiced dislike of Zohran, and they're getting fucking roasted on social media for it.
Zohran Mamdani is a Democrat. He is the DNC candidate. Vote for the DNC, vote for Zohran Mamdani.
I still think we should support those that do primary if just to show the flippant double standards.
Plus it’s good if some of them win and pull the party in a reasonable direction. And having decent people in government is always nice.
The structural flaws in our elections that force us into a two-party system are deeply entrenched and they aren’t going to change until this place burns down and starts over. If you aren’t willing to vote for a politician with good priorities because they were nominated by the democratic party, you can still be an influential voice but come election time the system is already designed to ignore your vote.
I've heard the "we should primary them and pull them in a direction"
And after a few cycles of this I realized why the Democratic icon is an ass: Because they're stubborn, ornery, and will refuse to understand.
We are entirely fucked.
I wonder what all the people who shamed 3rd party voters will say if establishment Democrats start throwing their support behind an independent Cuomo.
This one would say all the things Harris would have done wrong are still better than all the things Trump is doing wrong. I'm not and have not been a fan of Harris. She's still not Trump.
Edit: While I actually did not truly shame anyone for their vote (I hope) it was always true that third party vote was going to help Trump get in, and I do think folks shouldn’t pretend it wasn’t true. If you are going to make a principled vote in the name of sending a message, I think it’s only reasonable to be honest about the effects of that decision.
I'm not from US, but why not ask for something more than lesser of two evils?
Because that's what we were given to choose from.
Insert long, tired diatribe about FPTP voting and the US two party system here.
TL;DR: Third party votes were effectively a vote for Trump. And while I actually did not truly shame anyone for their vote (I hope) this was always true, and I do think folks shouldn't pretend it wasn't true. If you are going to make a principled vote in the name of sending a message, I think it's only reasonable to be honest about the effects of that decision.
Logically, third party votes were only "effectively a vote for Trump" if you assume that otherwise all of them would be votes for the Democrat Party AND that the Democrats could not possibly win without those people sacrificing their vote to a party that doesn't represent them (i.e. that it would be impossible for the Democrats to appeal to those voters the way politicians are supposed to, by supporting policies that those voters wanted).
As an outsider, it's painfully obvious that the Democrat Party establishment strategy was to try and get those votes without trying to appeal to those voters using the exactly Propaganda you're still now parroting, and it failed miserably.
They tried to cheat at representative politics (by wanting the votes without offering representation) and failed (worse, failed when their adversary was a loudmouth buffoon), but you're blaming those who wouldn't vote for those who did not at all want to represent them.
Interestingly, Zohran is starting to show that the strategy of appealing to such voters is a winning strategy (in other words that the Democrat Party establishment did not won because of their refusal to represent in any way left of center voters), a proof which will become undeniable if the NY Mayoral race ends up as a three horse race with him, Cuomo and a Republican and he wins.
I'm blaming nobody, I'm recognizing the circumstance. Whether they actually helped him win, or whether they just widened the gap, my one and only assertion is that there was an impact, and of the two viable candidates that impact, to whatever degree it existed, benefited Trump.
Now those fuckers who voted for Trump in 2024? Dead to me. Excommunicado.
If they aren't on the ballot nationally, its too late.
Because the system is specifically designed to prevent that from happening.
Because our elections system is fundamentally broken in such a way that creating or promoting something other than the existing two makes the side you like least more likely to win. As such, unless you can get literally the entire base of one of the major parties to switch to you in the span of a single election cycle, "asking for something more than the lesser of two evils" has mostly the same practical consequences as "asking for the greater evil".
This largely breaks the premise of democracy, of course, because the two main parties don't have to follow "the will of the people", they just have to look slightly better in the eyes of their base than the other party. The way to fix it would be to greatly reform our election system, but that's difficult to do (admittedly not entirely for bad reasons, it probably would not be ideal for authoritarians to make changes to that for example), and made worse by the fact that both parties benefit from the current system vs one where even more competition can exist.
That latter point means that what it would really take, is first usurping control of one of the existing parties from those that currently run it, and then getting those newcomers into enough power at a national level to get election reform done. That's not a terribly likely path to work out, I'm afraid, but it's probably all we've got short of an actual violent revolution (which have a high risk of failing or getting co-opted by authoritarians, and in any event are a lot harder to start than some people on the internet seem to think they are). This is probably why the establishment democrats hate this guy so much, despite him only running for mayor (of a large city admittedly, but still, not exactly president or anything). Popular candidates from outside their established group are exactly the kind of thing that you would need to start this process, and if successful that group would lose much of their power.
There are 3 years and 11 months many of us spend fighting for that. Then there’s one month where keeping the literal modern nazis out of power requires some unsavory choices.
Zohran won't have a platform to run on. Trump will just do a Slobodan Milosevic.
Because the Americans have an archaic form of democracy that was designed to keep the demos (people) away from the kratos (power) and they also have founding daddy issues keeping them from evolving their archaic system.
That only works when running for president. Running third party in every other election is what we should be doing. Bernie Sanders is a independent. He preached on that but nobody fucking listens. Instead they think we can fix the Democratic Party (we can't) Like police reform can't be done.
You have to build something NEW from the ground up. Why every local election we should be running candidates with a new party. One that actually stands for the people. Once we take over all the states. Then and only then do we run for president.
Never work.
Oh my god I feel this so much.
Did you take a stand and stick to principles? Yes! Congratulations. But if you cannot accept that in doing so, you effectively voted for whatever you felt the majority of votes would go to.
I am related to several people who voted 3rd party, are adamant they did nothing to assist Trump getting elected, but ALSO hold the opinion that congressional members who vote "present" instead of yes or no are cowards hiding behind a "no vote" because they want the majority to win but they don't want to be on record for it.
What is a 3rd party vote if not "present"?
Lol I say I agree and I get shit on
The problem is that by reinforcing the narrative you reinforce the two party system. Noone believes in a third party so a third party cannot gain critical momentum because of people saying not to believe in a third party.
Repeating this mantra at every point makes it dogmatic to ensure the Democrats not faving any accountability for being a far right party with some gay rights sprinkled in between (but only if these arent inconvenient to uphold).
We have the same issue in proportional systems with a minimum votr to enter parliament. The threshold is lower but the game is the same. The old parties will always band together to fight any new party that could emerge and require them to deal with people they havent brought in line of the donor class yet.
I say Democrats should be reformed in the primary, voted for in the election. The time to support Mamdani as a Democrat is now. (Billionaires like Ackman, Bloomberg aren't real Republicans or Democrats anyway, they just have a lot of money and they want to back a horse that will let them keep it). The time to bring about a change in Democratic candidates ahead of the midterms (if they happen) and next general is now. In 2~4 years, it will then be time to vote in whoever's been put forward as the best chance to stop fascism.
Schumer already did a kind of shy endorsement of Mamdani, after that the others politicians don't have much room to stab the party in the back. The problem here are the donors; oligarchs are pissed.
My current bet would be that Cuomo will leave his name in the ballot out of spite but not really campaign, and lots of right wing Democrats will stay silent, while the oligarchs will try to resurrect Adams' political career by throwing money at it (may all their donations burn into a pile of useless ash)
The same as before, that you made your choice to hand the White House to trump rather than a Democrat you didn't agree with. It's the same story down the ticket too. The Democrats may have run a lousy campaign, with poor candidates, but we all knew what the alternative was, and some ostensably left wing voters chose not to oppose that.
Let’s be real. Roe would not have fallen without Trump. And the erosion of the 3 branch system would not have gotten this far. With DEMs.
But that’s what they do. While eroding the working class through continued subsidies to the rich. It’s why the middle class is dead. Yea, Reagan started that death but the Dems just took their payments and quietly kept things moving, between every Repub term, bringing us to the present state of the billionaire class, lack of middle class, and a country where 60% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck.
The same story down the ticket is that Democrats feel entitled to progressives votes and conitnously adjust to be just slightly better than Republicans.
As you saw they rather handed the country to Trump than stop a genocide and aclnowledge the cost of living crisis.
You have no power to reward people that feel entitled to your vote. You only have the power to punish them.
You didn't "punish" them in the slightest, they're not the ones who will suffer, you punished everyone else instead by deliberately acting to boost the republicans.
To be clear, this is not a good, or even acceptable situation, but it is the reality. Each voter had the choice to accept that reality and work within it to seek out the least bad result or vote as if their fantasy was true, and aid the republucans.
The time for trying to change the Democrat positions is every other day, not on the day of a massively consequential election.
Leftists didn't lose Kamala the election. Leftists held their nose and voted for her haughty ass anyway. She was such an uninspiring candidate that less ideological voters, those that you have to actually try to come out, simply weren't energized by her.
She didn't lose because of Leftists staying home. She lost because she was uninspiring and didn't stand for anything. She simply didn't have the sauce.
We will say what we have always said: vote for the DNC candidate. Zohran Mamdani.
They'll say they're cool with rape. Isnt that what Cuomo is in trouble for?
They were cool with Biden sexually assaulting women, why wouldn't they be cool with Cuomo being a rapist?
I found one women and it seemed so fishy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_misconduct_allegation
Then you should look into the others, like the ones that Harris said she believed: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris-believe-biden-accusers/
Same people who cancelled Al Franken for much less than any of that.
It's funny how hot Gillibrand got over Zohran, but hasn't really said a peep in the last 5ish months of all... this.
It's certainly curious.
I like how she just invented her own hysterical interpretation of the interview where zohran wouldn't condemn people for saying globalize the intifada, and then when confronted with the actual quote from zohran, including the "I won't become mayor to be the word police," and she takes that and says "actually, you DO have to be word police, you have to tell people its unacceptable to say things that other people may interpret as calling for the slaughter of millions of jews, even if you know those phrases mean something completely different from how jews feel about it"
The interviewer at that point is like well he didn't say that and what he said doesn't imply the killing of jews but okay youre clearly just a violently racist woman so lets take a question from a caller and end the interview
I hope she resigns if he wins, if not then her next election should be her last. Disgusting, hateful, disqualifying behavior from this woman in that interview.
They are trying to act Trumpian without acting too Trumpian.
I love everything about this.
I am forced to vote for Democrats.
Bought and paid for and unwilling to lose their power at any cost it seems.
Most of the people we're talking about are either members of the house or senate in our federal government. And our current system makes it very difficult to win or keep those specific seats unless you're willing to be bought and paid for. Those who don't do as they're told will get primaried by an opponent who is much better funded. It is a system that is specifically set up to choose corrupt politicians.
We desperately need campaign finance reform, but none of those politicians who are bought and paid for are going to honestly support it. Realistically, I don't see any way that we'll see it unless there is an overwhelming popular sentiment in favor of it. Where everybody is truly upset about it and politicians' hands are forced out of fear. But I don't see that happening in America any time soon, when half the country is voting Republican.
For some of us, the 2016 Democratic primary was quite illuminating. I'm glad to see people are catching up finally.
sO yOu ArE sAyInG "bOtH sIDeS eQuAlLy BaD"?!?!?!
cOnGrAtULaTiOnS oN gEtTiNg TrUmP eLeCtEd!! :(
It's like the second you notice parallels in our two party system, they misrepresent you as saying they are EXACTLY the same in EVERY REGARD.
Meanwhile, we no longer question why we only have two parties to vote for in the first place. Hint: the two parties keep it that way.
💯
American Progressives party, anybody? Not sure how we get on ballots, though. Give me a game plan and I'll start working.
The Democratic Party are not friends to the people. They get rich being the opposition party and will only do the bare minimum necessary to get you to not vote the monsters back in, which is one of the reasons far-right parties are getting a draw world-wide when the alternative is neoliberalism.
We have to force radical change (the no brainer stuff like social safety nets, massive justice reform, and massive election reform).
The Sword of Damocles is twofold: the revolution of the people, and the wrath of rival dictators. And it's not to be blunted, but to keep our officials serving the public rather than their own private interests.
🧵⚔
It is so pleasant to see that people in the US understand that.
This is the extreme example, but if you look at Russia, that separation between the public and the politics had happened a long time ago. Now it is impossible to even convince people that politics has to serve their interests, and not the rich. And we see with the invasion how these lofeviews eventually unfolds.
Wish Americans to be strong in their transformation into the real civil society. And wish you luck and to have required support for this transformation.
It's fun watching you kids realize that the Democratic party isn't the place to go for real change. I was there after Kucinich lost the primary in 2000 and then when Gore gave up fighting for his votes.
Also: You have to vote for them no matter how much you hate them. If Fetterman wins his primary next time I MUST vote for him or I am letting Republicans win.
As opposed to Chuck Schumer who also lets Republicans win.
Me too grandpa.🙂
You kids and your Gores and Kuciniches. Pepperidge Farm remembers Mondale/Ferraro. Shit, we remember McGovern.
You got me on McGovern!
Helping a Fetterman win means not only does another republican win, but a republican now has power within the democratic party. Every Pelosi will have to lose an election, primary or general if we are to get a party that even desires to stop the Republicans.
Republicans have had power in the Democratic Party for decades. Lieberman, Manchin, Sinema, and probably more I don’t remember.
And everyone makes excuses for them rather than kicking them out.
Exactly, so when a Chuck Schumer wins a primary, feel no compulsion to vote for them in the general. Vote Blue No Matter Who folks were wrong the whole time.
Im working on it.
the Dems are in cahoots with the same elite that are in cahoots with the Reps. the dems and reps pretend to be on opposite ends of a spectrum, but they are both sucking up to capitalists and their corporations
By definition that makes them all rightwing authoritarians aka fascists, which checks out.
What it actually makes them is zionist controlled opposition. You don't get zionist occupied government without having zionist occupied parties. The US government does whatever is good for Israel even if it is bad for the American people, so yes, we have zionist occupied government.
So you shouldn't be surprised that the current in power dems have more loyalty to that than any ideology / policy take. It's a club and they have to maintain it by controlling who's in it.
The guy, unfortunately for him, has a very human and natural position on Gazan genicide. And that's just not permissible.
Crazy how much people at large have moved past the whole religious zealotry thing, but the people in charge are still having their holy wars and crusades, fulfilling their biblical prophecies and "divine right." I thought for those in charge this whole religion thing was just a mechanism for power, what's crazy to me is it actually looks like they believe that shit.
It's very simple. One of these people blindly supports Israel no matter what it does, up to and including genocide, and the other one doesn't.
Zohran's Win Exposes Dem Party's UGLY Islamophobia Problem (17mins)
Only one is an actual threat to how the Democrats do things.
But Republicans and Democrats are completely different parties.
/s
Don't worry, I'm sure that if moderate Democrats succeed in their rabid crusade against Zohran and he gets defeated then they'll turn around and say it was because we didn't back Cuomo 1000% and without criticism, going back through your comment history and quoting this comment back to you every time you share any political opinion whatsoever.
But they're super serious about opposing Trump, pinky promise.
They are, one is shit, the other is absolute shit.
I can assure you that the Democrat candidate Zohran Mamdani is going to be infinitely better than the Republican Sliwa.
It's basically a way for the ruling class to see whether they can be more blatant on their exploits.
Every republican win means the people can stomach more of the squeezes.
we shall destroy the democratic party and rebuild it in our image
And then we will get rid of the awful and outdated "First Past the Post" style of voting and the Electoral College. Maybe do some term limits for Supreme Court justices as well.
DNC=Divide N Conquer
The democrats have been like this since at least Clinton.
asdf
The people who would benefit the most from Democrat-championed social programs that they now label as "radical" and "socialist" you mean?*
*Which is not some blanket endorsement of Democrats. A lot of them are also out of touch, too conservative, and still trying to run the country like it's 1952. I'm eagerly awaiting the rise of a viable 3rd party (but after all these decades I'm not really holding my breath) or the implosion of the Democrats. I was aghast that Trump somehow pulled them right instead of left, but maybe it will result in an implosion from which Bernie, AOC, Jasmine Crockett and such can bring a phoenix out of the ashes.
asdf
Well, I didn't, but OK.
They weren't putting words in your mouth. They said:
"The people who would benefit the most from Democrat-championed social programs that they now label as "radical" and "socialist" you mean?"
They were talking about the poor and working class people who have been convinced by "Conservatives" that those programs are somehow radical and socialist.
Once someone's reading comprehension gate slams one direction in these conversations it's hard to get it to flip the other way sometimes. I also tried, but I expect he'll tell me to fuck off next or something.
Oh well. Thank you for also trying!
asdf
So you don't think those people would benefit the most from those programs?
Say what? I thought I understood and supported your original statement, but now I'm not sure.
Who were you referring to when you said "the poorest most easily manipulated people"?
Trump barely beat Harris.
Cuomo got crushed in this primary.
Trump by no means barely beat Harris, she and Clinton were both around 220 votes and Trump has an easy 300.
The electrical college will always look different ways because winner takes all voting. It's all that matters at the end, but a 1.5% change in the voters would have flipoed most of the battleground states. It was closer than many make it out to be
The fact that "closer" can be so diametrically opposed indicates a failure in the system.
If it was close we'd have gotten, I don't know, Mitt Romney or somebody.
But the winner-take-all aspect means we get the dumbest, ugliest fascists ever. Just for a 1.5% difference.
This is what a broken system looks like.
...........60 goddamn percent of the country either voted for Trump, or didn't vote at all, meaning they voted for Trump. Explain to me how she barely lost.
That's not even true. Less than 50% of the people who voted, voted for Trump.
He didn't do much better than 2020 when he lost. The U.S. population increased by 2.5% from 2020 to 2024.
Numerically with the population growing by the 2.5% we saw a 4.5% drop in voting in 2024.
Reasons are all speculation.
bro trump cheated the second time lmao.
I'm no fan of the guy but I haven't heard anything about him cheating. Are you referring to the voting machine controversy? I'm probably uninformed, just trying to understand where you're coming from
Just my opinion with no proof honestly.
Here's why. I live in WI, a super swing state that went Democrat for Biden. For Trump's second term A LOT of people voted, seemed like more than usual. I knew one person who voted for trump personally (she regrets it now but that's besides the point) but I mean. My work with around 5000 employees all bash trump on group chats whenever he can be used as a joke for something. And we got hit hard with tariffs (by we I mean our customers)
Ranting
To the point. So in Wisconsin trump won as president, but every other Democrat candidate on the ballot also won. Which for maga is unheard of. No one likes tony evers, even Dems don't like him that much. No one likes Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson is like the most Republican POS you can get, but yet Tammy still won that ballot. And I have only heard that maga "votes red the whole ballot"
And then there are also uncounted ballots here as well, which wouldn't have changed anything, but in my opinion with Elon being president for a few months might have been some kind of deal he had with trump to kind of sway the decision.
There's also trump early tweet about fraud in some states before the counting was even finished that he ended up winning anyways.
Um, "fighting" Donald Trump.
Its as if the oligarchs dont like it when a candidate that is not endorsed by them wins
Donald Trump is useful to the real power.
getting pretty close to time to just start referring to the DNC as fascist adjacent. playing lame duck to this particular psychopath is way too old and fucking irresponsible a decade later.
especially when they pull this crap at the same time
Nationalism ✔️ imperialism ✔️ mixed economy for the benefit of the bourgeoisie ✔️ labor suppression ✔️ caters to middle class&petty bourgeois ✔️
I hope you never thought these people were there for you. At least after the age of about 22, 23?
you're right, it was exactly 23 for me. how did you know? did we get the same radicalization update from the Clinton family trying to make the Whitehouse a family home like the Bush's did?
He does support Israel.
liberals, am I right? ☕
You are right.
"Politics is the entertainment branch of industry." - madlad with BDE
It's like how Disney makes a big deal about being progressive while making a movie about a space cop who uses her weapons to intimidate indigenous populations.
Follow the money, perhaps? Cui bono
Did the DNC say something about Mamdani?
Did hitler murder anybody?
An extreme example, sure, but if you control an apparatus, how much responsibility should you take for their actions?
I was just asking because I literally didn't know what this was referring to.
It's pretty much covered in these articles. There are more, but this should give you an overview.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/zohran-mamdani-democratic-party-establishment/
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/26/democrats-zohran-mamdani-meltdown-new-york
Well leading up to the election they surely had indicated their pick was Cuomo. I'm not sure if this is about policy as much as the leadership assumes brand recognition from a previously electable candidate is more important than anything else.
In the aftermath the only concrete information was the two representatives that said they still didn't like him. There's reports of some rich dudes thinking about throwing money behind Cuomo or even Adams, but I didn't see concrete outcomes on that.
It's clear they wanted a different outcome, but I'm not so sure I'm seeing this "party melting down" people are declaring. I'll agree when significant Democrats continue to undermine and go so far as to try to make Cuomo happen despite the results, but for now I'll reserve judgement.
What exactly do you think the DNC is doing to fight
*checks notes
A candidate for the generals put forth by the DNC?
It would be absolutely hilarious if Musk actually set up his own party, financed it all the way to the Congress, got offended because people didn't lick is arse deep enough, got kicked out for being annoying and accidentally created an actual pro-people alternative to all these corporate vampires.
Heh. Prior to this year I could not have believe such a thing was even possible. But this year...
Uh, what stops have they pulled out to fight Mamdani?
40% of the Democrats who endorsed thief and sexual predator Andrew Cuomo previously called for him to resign. The self-described party of women's rights was more willing to support a serial sexual molester than a leftist candidate. They even defrosted sex pest and arch pervert Bill Clinton and wheeled him out to endorse her.
"Some Dems endorsed his shitty opponent!" was not exactly what I was expecting for "The Dems are being way meaner to Mamdani than Trump!"
Well, you have your own ineffable standard of evidence that no human being can live up to. That's a character flaw of yours, and you'll need to solve your own demons.
For those with eyes that see and ears that hear, the actions of the dems in response to this race have been telling. Dems that have been silent and acquiescent to Trump have come out of the woodwork to not only endorse Cuomo, but to actively denounce Mamdani, their fellow Democrat. Many like Gillibrand have gone full Islamophobia in attacking Mamdani. The New York times made a big show of not endorsing candidate and then issuing a negative endorsement of Mamdani.
I'm sure this is not going to be enough proof for you. Because you're not arguing in good faith. You're just going to keep demanding higher levels of proof and sources, all without offering any of your own. But again, that is a character flaw that you're going to need to work with your therapist to resolve. I wish you luck on this. If you don't have one, I suggest you find one that specializes in helping people who suffer from obsessive compulsive sea lioning.
Lord.
Oh, thank you. But frankly I don't believe in titles of nobility.
Just answering your question, not here to debate you.
The only statement in this link about what the wider Dem establishment did is:
"Mainstream Dems endorse a mainstream ghoul" isn't really much of a surprise or an exceptional effort.
The other link offers, in addition
None of this reflects positively on mainstream Dems. But neither is it "The Dems are FIGHTING THE PROGRESSIVE WING HARDER THAN THEY FIGHT TRUMP".
We've had less of the mocking "bOth SIdeS aRE thE SamE!" recently. I think more people are starting to see what we meant.
Both sides are still not the same, IMO.
Dems suck, but not remotely to the same depth as Republicans.
I'd hold my nose and vote for Harris again if the election were tomorrow, and for the same reason as last time. (Gestures around)
Dems run the spectrum from conservative through milquetoast to leftist. The milquetoasts seem to win most of the time.
R is 100% bigot fascist authoritarians or people for whom those things are not a dealbreaker.
They keep us arguing over ¾ of shit that happens so that they can get the ¼ through they really car about 100% of the time.
Yeah absolutely, I think it’s also important to remember dems aren’t a monolith and many have their own takes and opinions despite often being influenced by the same harmful forces.
For example, Jerry Nadler had a pretty strong endorsement of Mamdani despite being what I would perceive as a pretty standard democrat. I am hopeful that more democrats can be forced to support him and we can avoid this dem civil war narrative but we’ll have to see.
lol
You think things would be exactly the same if Harris were president? That is a special kind of delusion you've built for yourself.
The point is…both sides are right wing, not to the same extent, but you’re arguing about shit versus shit like there’s some huge difference. It’s pathetic.
Because there is. Harris wouldn't be illegally deporting people with secret police to death camps, openly accepting bribes like a 747 from Qatar, trying to make the Ukraine surrender, shitting all over the epa, giving the reigns to Musk to gut the government, creating a meme coin and phone company to really show how little they respect the emoluments clause there are countless examples of "huge differences" that wouldn't fly under Democrats. Democrats suck, are extremely problematic, and need major reform/replacement but pretending they're as bad as Republicans is so wildly disingenuous I can't take people that say that shit seriously
Harris wouldn't do these things, but she would set the stage for fascists to do these things and more in 2029. Kicking the can down the road simply empowers fascists such that when (not if) they come to power they do more damage than if the bandaid had been ripped off in the first place. I mean, Biden won in 2020 and all America got was better-prepared fascists with a blueprint for how they'll take over the United States, and as halfhearted as his attempts were at least Biden tried; Harris was only shaping up to be worse. If the only thing y'all can do is kick the can down the road, you might as well rip off the bandaid.
You've missed the role of the Supreme Court in this. The Justices appointed by the Ds have been against the worst of it at pretty much every opportunity and they have lifetime appointments.
That was the real cost of Trump 1.0.
Yes, but Trump simply responded by de facto weakening the courts and ignoring their authority, and since he has the supreme court anyway they keep allowing him to do whatever he wants. I get what you're trying to say, but since there was zero chance America would get enough Democrats in a row for the Supreme Court to turn blue, D-appointed judges aren't going to make a difference in the big picture. On the other hand four years of Harris would've legitimized MAGA's ideas even further as the Democrats adopted more fascist and proto-fascist policies (hello border wall) while doing less and less to distinguish themselves from fascism, undermining the left and running the country to the ground. There was only ever ruin in the direction the DNC was headed, so what this argument really boils down to is whether you wanted four more years of proto-fascism before the real deal, and while we can argue about which one would've the better choice voting in Harris was still going to do exactly zilch to prevent fascism. You can't keep voting in Von Hindenburgs and think you'll avoid Hitler.
Nah, those idiots who argue for the lesser evil in a bid to push the troubles to a point they arent affected by them while millions suffer are still out in force.
Better than those idiots that thought voting for Trump, voting 3rd party, or not voting at all was somehow the better option and that less people would suffer than under Harris, or the lesser evil.
At least those who voted 3rd party or didn't vote at all due to shitty candidates recognize there's a problem and that it needs taken care of before it's too late.
Y'all would have us march along with "the lesser evil" to the point of no return.
Voting third party in the general election is nothing more than a performative action that directly benefits the worst candidate. Those of us that held our noses and voted for Kamala did so with the recognition that there is a problem, but we were also smart enough to know that the general is not where major changes happen.
I'd have everyone vote for their ideal candidate in the primaries, and then vote for the best viable candidate I'm the general.
Acting like you did something good by voting third party is akin to puffing up your chest and acting like tough shit, when all your doing is standing funny and looking like an idiot with a big chest.
Hi. I voted for Harris last year. I am also more mad at the Democrats than the Republicans. The Republicans are doing project 2025 and everything they ran on. The Democrats can't do shit. They suck at being opposition. They broke the filibuster record for NO REASON. Not to prevent a trump appointment. Just because they want theatre politics. They are still voting for them, so yeah I'm more mad at the controlled opposition because I thought they would be actual opposition.
NOW the DNC wants to form some unified front? NOW? Really after all of these people VOTED for him. They are clowns and need to be replaced. Making a third party might not be viable but taking over the DNC like trump did the rnc is.
"You must have not voted" is a liberal's equivalent of a Zionist's "you're an anti-Semite!"
Yes. A lost of people didn't vote in the US elections last year. The ones who don't live there make up the largest contingent. They're unlikely to blame themselves.
Two things can be true.
Democrats have let me down way more than Republicans. At least Republicans will do what they say they're gonna do.
What a bad faith comment.
I can't speak for the creator of the meme, but you have not described me.
So, an ML Leftist? Sounds about right. If we can't have the PERFECT candidate, it's best to just burn everything down in a fit of rage. Forward progress be damned, it's their way or it's a vinegary piss fit.
Observation: Democratic leaders are openly abandoning the "vote blue no matter who" standard when a leftist manages to win a major primary.
Your response: "when a centrist wins, remember to vote blue no matter who!'
In an ideal world, I would pick a progressive 10/10 times.
However we don't live in an ideal world. If your options are warm, stale beer or a steaming cup of shit, I'm going to pick the better option, every time. I'll push for more ideal options the next go around, but I won't sink the ship and damn me and everyone to having to deal with shit the next 4 years because I didn't get what I want.
I wish there was a warm, stale beer option. I saw a steaming cup of shit, and a steaming cup of piss with a pride-flag on the side. Is one better than the other? sure, but lets stop pretending either was a remotely acceptable option.
"I don't think we should bomb children", "I think medial-debt shouldn't be the largest cause of bankruptcy in our country", "People should be able to oppose genocide", "cops shouldn't be able to assault innocent people without consequence"
I think your definition of "perfect" might be a little off, as I think those are all fairly reasonable to ask for.
That position isn't specific to ML tendencies. I personally see more anti-electoralism rhetoric from anarchists, for obvious ideological reasons.
I bring it up here on Lemmy, because it was primarily the ML leftists (on Lemmy) that pushed the idea to skip voting as a way to protest Kamala as a choice....that it was better to permit an authoritarian to take office than allow a centrist democrat. I would 100% would have liked someone like Bernie taking office, but when I'm presented with 'kick in the nuts' vs being castrated as my only options, I'll take the 'kick in the nuts' everytime.
This bullshit take is old enough to drink. I know, I was there in the year 2000 when it was born.
It wasn't blue on blue. It was vested interests Vs a genuine candidate. The state of NY voted trump in, not because they like him, because they didn't want the democrat party. This party as a tool of the corporations is finished. You're watching its death throes.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/new-york-president-results
NY State voted for Kamala.
LOL I skipped right over that bit.
NY voted for Kamala?
This is the most optimistic take I've seen and I like it.