And getting stuff done implies in some part that it could have been done before. So why had it not?
He's the politician that didn't get the memo to try and look like you're doing something, but don't actually do it. As if we'll run out of problems to solve and campaign on. Maybe it's that simple - having to shift to new messages is hard vs. sticking with the old ones.
The entrenched establishment that still controls the DNC isn't interested in winning elections if it means offending AIPAC or their mega rich and corporate donors. They can't offer any meaningful change for the working class without risking their own paychecks, so they don't have any moves except "not Trump."
Excellent point. If the DNC was captured by AIPAC, then they wouldn't have primaries, and would instead figure out some way to nominate a pro-Israel candidate undemocratically.
The entrenched establishment that still controls the [Democratic National Committee] [is not] interested in winning elections if it means offending [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] or their mega rich and corporate donors. They [can not] offer any meaningful change for the working class without risking their own paychecks, so they [do not] have any moves except “not Trump.”
The problem is that most people know these organizations by their abbreviations rather than the whole title
Progressives showed up to the primary for New York mayor and the DNC responded with Islamophobia, an anti-socialist manifesto, and threats of splitting the party.
Hopefully a lot more to go. We even got a progressive who won the Democratic primary for Senate in Kentucky, Charles Booker. Though he hasn't called himself a socialist, he's running on the same social democratic platform as the DSA-aligned socialists have been.
We showed up for Bernie in droves that the DNC got so scared they conspired AGAINST him to prevent any chance of him being the nominee. I'm done with neo-liberals, they're as much contemptible as reactionaries, more so because they pretend to be on our side.
Where's the link where Bernie said he was cheated? Or maybe you can explain why Bernie advocated that everyone vote for the "evil neo-liberal" Harris? Funny how often THAT gets ignored.
Bernie lost BOTH times because he's not as popular in real life as he is in your bubble. I don't like that either but it's reality and you continuing to drive this wedge in the party when Trump is destroying country is NOT was Bernie wants you to do. Unlike you cultists, he has integrity and believes in his causes. YOU do not care about his causes because you help put in office people who set them back by decades.
The link you provided in NO WAY proves that the DNC somehow cheated in all the states Bernie lost. You have to give up this delusional nonsense and face reality. Yes, you have proven that SOME individuals in the DNC preferred Clinton. Guess what? That happens in every single fucking primary. There were people in the DNC who liked Sanders more - but you just discount them altogether because you agree with them. There is NO proof in your link that shows that Sanders would've won if those DNC members who didn't like him didn't exist. There is definitely no proof that there was voter fraud.
Brad Marshall suggested getting a reporter to question Sanders about whether he believed in God. There is no evidence the proposal was actually carried out.
Mark Paustenbach proposed promoting a story that Sanders’s campaign was disorganized. The suggestion was rejected.
-Schultz's insults were NOT public before or during the primary.
So several things that never happened and one that was unknown to the public is your apparent proof of nationwide election fraud. Did win Trump win in 2020 as well?
Clinton won approximately 2,205 pledged delegates to Sanders’s 1,846, about 54% to 46%. So superdelegates did not turn the tide in the election.
The lack of debates is also not proof in any way. He had six debates to make his case. He did his best. He lost.
The Bernie-supporter lawsuit was dismissed, so it was not determined if the case had any validity. Is merely bringing lawsuits enough to prove fraud? Because the Republicans tried that like 70 times in 2020 and lost every single one of them.
To be perfectly honest, what you've provided is even flimsier than what I expected. There is nothing even approaching solid enough evidence in here to claim he was cheated. You have evidence of bias among a few individuals, NONE of which had their bullshit acted upon. And that's proof that Clinton didn't win more elections? You want to pretend that it came down to ONE contest and the DNC cheated there? Her delegate total accumulated across dozens of states/primaries.
This is essentially the same as Trump's electoral denial. The only difference is that Bernie actually has integrity and Trump does not. Bernie doesn't claim to have been cheated, Bernie did NOT say to sit out the election in protest.
Every single "progressive" who did that either in 2016 or 2024 is a phoney cultist asshole. They want to pretend that they're acting in solidarity with Bernie but what they have done is set back the issues Bernie cares about for decades, at least. They'll be a stain on his legacy.
You're tilting at windmills, no one accused the DNC of engaging in election fraud (that's MAGA's ballpark). The person you replied to said DNC leadership "conspired against" Bernie, which is broad enough to mean a lot of things, including that they coordinated messaging to manufacture controversy around his campaign (as was proven true by the leaked emails).
This guy isn't worth arguing with, I've reviewed posts and its all harassment of left leaning people or straight up sealioning as well as just lumping every person left of their position into the same one they "debated" with before.
TLDR don't fucking care. Coming out in bad faith elsewhere while sea lioning you deserve absolutely no consideration. I would have thought it apparent but has to be spelled out.
Yes, well, let’s all remember one little thing that is separate from whatever legislative and social wins he’s getting:
The guy is good. Good at communicating, good at promotion, good at finding common ground. He’s not Che Guevara, he’s an upgraded Obama.
He’s never going to be left enough for .ml, you can see right here they can’t wait to shit on him. What he’s teaching the Democrats is they’re old and busted. A party designed for television and radio.
Plus, do you know how hard it is to be that kind of good at politics? It’s freakin rare. Sure if he could teach all the Dems how to be charming, persistent, kind, and knowledgable why won’t they listen? They’d love to listen but Joe Schmo in Topeka is basically an introvert who just wants to make his community happy.
Has anyone here, on Lemmy, tried to run for office? If so, you probably found it’s basically a lifestyle that takes over everything; work, family, hobbies, health. Pointing to Mamdani and saying “Joe why can’t you be like that” isn’t a matter of just political positions. You’ve got to sell. Sell sell sell.
And I hate selling. And salespeople (no offense). It’s . . . a problem for Dems. Republicans don’t have that problem. Any grifter or sleazeball can step right into a race in their sleep.
I've run for office, and yeah, the running is a job all on its own. That and everything takes money.
Campaign signs don't print themselves, canvassers need to be paid, handbills need printers, venues need to be booked, offices need to be rented and all of it, all of it takes money that the majority of candidates simply don't have on their own.
Once you experience that you realize why a lot of politicians become corrupt, or at least corrupted by the system.
That and his lesser touted positions are NOT popular outside deep blue NYC.
I love the guy but he isn't winning the Midwest with ALL his positions and it's stupid and basic to think that. No one in Wichita wants government run grocery stores for instance.
They certainly can take pointers from him but there's a full cemetery of progressive candidates who have crashed and burnt outside deep blue areas.
He's exactly what NYC wants and needs. He wouldn't be for every single place across the country.
Think about the reddest, most homophobic, bigoted, capitalist, Fox News brained person you can think of who thinks Black people are animals and Hispanic people are all drug smuggling cartel members and "illegals" "deserve" the camps. Now double the bigotry and then imagine a whole town full of that, and, like, one single scared gay kid. That's not every town, but it's a frighteningly large number, because America is a massive place and unfortunately with a continent this big you'll end up with clusters where the outlier becomes the norm.
This was probably almoat 20 years ago, in a small rural (like 5k people) Illinois town I used to love in. We were outside doing some yardwork, and this guy comes door to door selling some kind of cleaner.
Black guy. Which I mention because its relevant.
We chat for a bit, he demos the cleaner, at one point his friend calls so he takes the call.
The friend, also clearly a black guy, is basically saying he is done and ready to leave and basically half the houses threaten to shoot him and keep calling him n***er.
This is rural America, in general. This is MAGA.
Anyway, we bought some cleaner, it seemed to work on the outside mold spots on the house.
Except we basically already have that. Rural areas are littered with food pantries because rural people tend to be poor as fuck. Maybe they are run by voulonteers now, but why not cut out the hassle and add in some guaranteed funding and efficiency?
Isn't the midwest just saturated MAGA, white Christian nationalist and plain ol' white supremacist? People who vote for centrists but not progressives have long since devoted their lives to the Trump god-king. They don't care about anyone other than themselves, and may turn around because they're personally hurt by the economy. But in that case, they're voting against the incumbent, and don't care who the opposition is, even if it's a proverbial sack of potatoes.
At this point Trump is personally responsible for everyone losing money. At least everyone but the handful of guys getting pardons and government contracts out of him.
Harris lost by playing to the center, and an awful lot of polls are telling us that progressive platform ideas are popular.
Centrists voted for Trump in 2024, thinking egg prices would go down. (Or just terrified of immigrants and trans folks.)
I have little confidence in centrists. (Or what counts as centrist in the United States.)
But I do know that a lot of the progressive platform is popular:
~ Universal healthcare
~ A jobs guarantee
~ Higher education for all
~ National action on the climate crisis
~ Women's reproductive healthcare access (including abortion)
~ Housing as a human right
~ Abolishing ICE and police reform
...and so on
All that isn't centrist according to the Overton window. In fact, the far-right propaganda machine is asserting any one of those is a slippery slope to communism. So the majority of Americans who take polls are communist.
I think that running on an actual platform is a winning move. Doubly so if candidates present a blueprint on how to implement it.
I also think that none of this is enough. We're going to have to address the democracy crisis and capture of the federal court system. Ultimately, according to Nobel laureate economists, we're going to have to redistribute the immense wealth at the top. (That may be impossible, and if so, the entire industrial world may be doomed to capture and decline.)
Being a champion of establishment is the biggest self own in those states, both deep red and blue states.
Nobody want a status quo, when the status quo means everything is getting worse around them. Between status quo or a hail Mary, they choose a hail Mary as it's better than consistently downgrading
Nah. DNC leadership has been in Fear and Crisis mode for years. American politics is a horrible machine that eats goals and wishes and produces misery for the people. Trying to enact positive change is soul-crushingly hard in that environment, but grifting and ponzi schemes play on the fear and frustration of the people for some ephemeral succor who don't realize that toxicity is making them the ephemeral suckers; so those ponzi schemes are very good for the ciminals who run them, and very bad as usual for the victims.
Mayor Mamdani is upsetting that downward status quo with some rare performance art of improvement, and there's the small chance he could accidentally force the DNC to actually act on goals that it once held dear and promoted in its actions, when it had the power to do so. If the US survives the grifter convention that is the current kleptocratic administration with any of its tenets intact, and if the DNC remembers how to serve the wishes of the people in action as it does in talking points the public itself has begun to ignore in its own spiral of fear and worry, that's the best chance I think the US has.
I don't see a massive reformation of the political system, an upgrade to the voting system that allows for multiple parties, or a regime change in all three branches as being achievable nor helpful, unfortunately. I like to be optimistic, but one doesn't turn a seniors bus around in the taco bell drive-through lane.
Yeah, well said. I agree with you this, back then the Democrats had stood for something, in the 1940s, they created the new deal, and government programs and policies that benefited the average Joe and the American people
Democrats doing their centrist bullshit are captured by corporate lobbyists.
How Money Works explained the saturation of money in politics (here, on YouTube), and it runs effing deep.
Essentially anyone who gets elected at a federal or state level has to decide between two options. Do they:
a) Want to serve their constituency and fight for the common voter? Or...
b) Get really rich and join the ownership class (the 0.1% or higher)?
And during the 90s and Aughts it became normal in both parties to choose option b) Apparently, it's super humiliating, because the official no longer does any actual legislating. Instead, lobbyists come to them with premade bills (and promises of campaign contributions and dark money and stuff) and the lawmaker only gets the prize if the law gets passed verbatim. There is no doubt from the official that they're being played and owned, and that their constituents are going to suffer for their corruption. But then, the money is awesome, and so they get used to it.
We're actually seeing how removed some of our officials have become from the common American experience, with countless let them eat cake moments. We'll hear an official express in a soundbite that they don't understand or care about the concerns of the commoner.
And yes, we're seeing other signs of capture in the establishment Democratic party. News came out not long ago (here from Politico) that centrist Democrats are getting worried now that progressives and SDAs are winning elections and becoming a larger portion of the big tent. Evidently, it's a coalition party so long as the left side offers its votes but not its opinions.
I think Democratic voters are tepid about merely keeping the Republicans at bay (even though the consequences are awful when we fail) but actually get excited about voting in candidates when they have specific platforms they want to do while in office. Taking a page from Ross Perot in 1988, a lot of people got excited because he had a very specific plan. I think voters would like to see detailed plans rather than ambiguous objectives.
In the poem The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, an albatross follows a ship setting out to sea, which is considered a sign of good luck. However, the titular mariner shoots the albatross with a crossbow, an act that will curse the ship and cause it to suffer terrible mishaps.
Unable to speak due to lack of water, the ship's crew let the mariner know through their glances that they blame him for their plight and they tie the bird around his neck as a sign of his guilt. From this arose the image of an albatross around the neck as metaphor for a burden that is difficult to escape.
It's not "centrist". Mamdani is centrist. They're prioritising the interests of the owner class over those of the common people because they're in pockets of the oligarchy. Which also why they'd rather hand their country to the fascists than question the status quo.
Because political discourse on this platform is deeply unserious. Calling Mamdani centrist is bizarre. It's clear that to you and the members of certain instances everything that is not the complete people's ownership of the means of production constitutes a "centrist". There is absolutely no nuance and it's quite silly. Calling the guy that is running government run grocery stores "centrist" because he hasn't yet nationalized all private entities is really endemic of how this platform is unwilling to move the coalition forward because it is not interested in achieving the goals of socialism; it is only interested in idealizing it through abstract terms but never ever should we dare contend with the real world and how these ideas get implemented.
I don't claim to be the fountain of wisdom or savvy in terms of political theory. But I do recognize how asinine the discourse can be here. It's clear no socialist on Lemmy is invested in this ideology enough with regards to executing actionable change.
Because the Democratic Party serves the same masters as the GOP. They exist to make sure that a large enough majority maintains faith in the system to keep the populace from revolting. They serve a secondary purpose of capturing and neutering any social movements that might create a danger to the Wall St agenda.
Note that "governing" and "policy" are not part of their purpose.
A most erudite rebuttal. You've made a very convincing argument (that you don't know shit about politics except what you see on cable news and you think it's just another team sport).
Ah but they don't actually care if we are happy. They want the illusion of working for us while making their donors happy - the people they really serve.
Watch how real progressive candidates and actual normal human beings will get torn apart by the political machine. There is a huge industry in keeping the status quo and lots of money to be made ensuring progressive candidates don't get momentum. They weren't able to stop Mamdani, but billionaires can stamp out a lot of fires with hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into "centrist" politics.
Because the DNC isn't actually on the side of the working class. They aren't like us. No matter how much they say they are, actions speak louder than words. I just don't understand why others can't see the pattern that I do. I see Democrats tanking on purpose, accepting money from influences that don't have their voters best interest, and reaping the benefits of Republican decisions that they claim they are against....
I mean, the last few elections were proof enough. They put up safe (for them) candidates and barely even try to do anything more than be "not trump". Its infuriating when people preach at me about how great Kamala was going to be and that nobody voted for her out of sexism/racism. I voted for her, but the pre-election was handled like shit and the lack of a primary turned off WAY more voters than they want to admit. The right wingers are constantly calling the democrats communists, and then the democrats respond by selecting their candidate without anyone's input. They just play into the narrative and reap the rewards while trying to keep the illusion of a moral high ground.
A lot of people seem to think that Democrat means left, it doesn't. It means they are left of MAGA at this point. There is a whole lot of right left of MAGA. Why people assume that every Democrat is going to want the same thing is the crazy part to me.
A good example is Charlie Christ. He was a Republican. Won Florida governor as a Republican. Come 2022 Florida voters were so far right voting for Desantis Charlie Christ ran as a Democrat.
It isn't because Christ was suddenly further left.
Had he won he wouldn't have suddenly supported views like left leaning people... He would have been a conservative capitalist like he's always been.
NYC isn't the country. However, that being said, a few years of him being successful would go a long way to convince the centrists that it's the way to go.
I mean, most of us here know it is...but we need to get the rest of the country onboard, and showing success is the best way to do that...
I've been accused of being a centrist, despite basically being to the left of everyone in American politics, and I think it's because people tend to over-weight the economic left/right spectrum (or project other non-economic issues onto the left/right spectrum), and not place enough effort into thinking through:
Ideological purity versus pragmatic deal-making.
Actual governance skill, kinda a technocratic versus populist view.
When and where it's appropriate to break the law to accomplish goals, like the lawfu-to-chaotic alignment in the D&D memes.
None of that is left/right or centrist in itself, but my positions (pragmatic, technocratic, lawful) sometimes put me at odds with other voices on the left.
Other criteria that don't map onto left/right include authenticity, consistency/predictability, coherence across issues, and plain old network connections, and political effectiveness (influencing the public and other politicians to follow your lead on issues).
Mamdani is awesome because he exudes authenticity (like, I'm not a Knicks fan but he can give a great mayor's speech for his favorite team winning), gets things done (actual stuff around city governance, like snow shoveling), and seems to know how to get policy passed (working with Hochul to get some big ticket legislation on taxing the rich accomplished, even if it will contain some compromises). He is, in other words, an effective politician. We need more people like him scattered throughout different jurisdictions.
I will gladly support a coalition of centrists and leftists to move things to the left, especially if they can flank the current Republican party on plain old competence and honesty/fairness in governance.
I always say, if you vote for the left-most candidate in EVERY election, then that's how we move things to the left. If you stay home because the left-most candidate isn't left-enough for you, that's how the right wins.
Throughtout my life I've encountered the "X isn't Y" thought-terminating cliche anywhere I've ever tried to do any sort of activism or advocacy (When I was doing bike advocacy in NYC it was often "New York isn't Amsterdam" which was especially ironic considering that it once literally was). It's never once been a meaningful or persuasive point. Reality on the ground is always what we make it, and policy can be communicated through the right identity and strategies. New Yorkers really aren't at all that different from Americans anywhere else, the biggest differences are aesthetic.
His policies sure are popular, and definitely better for the people there. The 1%'ers don't like it, but I haven't heard of any big names leaving just yet. Definitely passed the test during the last big snowstorm.. had the roads and sidewalks cleared in record time.
No, Biden never did that. You posting this as proof of your assertion is absolutely absurd and really shows that deluded misinformation is as rife on the left as it is on the right.
Every fucking president has a readiness plan for Iran going back to 1979, at least. That was due to the geopolitical tensions involved. This guy never said Biden was planning on attacking Iran, he said it was considered.
And even more pathetically, you're trying to imply that this is the equivalent of Trump starting the current war to distract from Epstein, which is absolutely ridiculous and in NO WAY proven by your source.
It truly is sickening how intentionally dishonest people like you can be to push your "both sides" delusion.
That's not what I said. I still understand the source differently than you do. Neither did you provide any evidence that the war is in direct connection to the Epstein files (which btw also includes a number of Democrats) but we already derailed from the topic so let's get back.
your "both sides" delusion
"both sides" implies that there are only two. The post was about the relationship between Mamdani and the Democratic mainstream. Take the issues he's famous for and ask yourself what the mainstream position of the two big parties of the US is. Talking about tWo siDEs silences all the other possible positions (to be clear, I'm not saying you're doing it on purpose).
My comment was about why the Democratic Party as a whole will never adopt Mamdani's policies. Is that something we can agree on?
I would argue that Mamdani, AOC, Sanders, and any others who follow that same path are all parts of a different party that is simply forced to run on the Democrat ballot. Meanwhile the true Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same Corprocrat party who is there to progress the interests of corporations and the only divide is on what to do with the 'remaining' population.
As an outsider i think if the democratic party was functional Trump would never have gotten into the white house. Not blaming them (who am I to blame them anyway), but if one of the two parties in a two-party system was much more functional than the the other, it could quite easily convince a majority to not vote for the lunatic that is the other option. Feel free to downvote me, but the US imo has 2 shipwrecks 'leading' the country.
most of them wouldnt be electable if they were republicans anyways, thats why they have to be wolf in sheeps clothing. and AIPAC, the donors dont want someone too on the left.
Right now we're dealing with:
~ the war against Iran escalating ( Two blocked straits, ah...ah...ah...);
~the affordability crisis and oil-crisis level inflation. Half the country is going into debt affording rent food and fuel;
~ the corruption and self-dealing in Washington is out in the open
~ people can't survive in their own homes thanks to data centers
~ ICE is killing people and abducting them by the thousands, and ignoring due process
~ Private prisons are torturing people by the tens of thousands, including kids and pregnant mothers
I'm sure I'm missing some, but for the moment all this isn't enough to stop at least half the US from wanting to own the libs and keep trans folk out of women's sports. We haven't suffered enough to hand the Democrats the Senate yet, which means Social Security is going to die, and the Trump administration will be able to push through SCOTUS justices.
This might be because MAGA has a technological advantage. FOX News has gotten really good at propaganda, so its (massive) viewership is continuously stoked with rage and fear, is pumped with MAGA ideology and is encouraged to stop watching all other media. The right-wing propaganda machine makes sure that every white male has to vote red to reaffirm their masculinity.
And then the ultra-wealthy are vastly richer than any other point in history. After they bleed the US to collapse, they will have the capacity go on to do the same with the rest of the industrialized world. The EU has already been weakened by decades of neoliberal policymaking and now has strong far-right factions. And those same billionaires are consumed by greed, vindictiveness and disgust with the entire working class.
So yeah, we're going to have to get really lucky for the US not to collapse. The German Reich ran out of credit and was driven to get expansionist and annex other lands. The US is already lusting over Canada and Greenland, so it shouldn't be surprising if the devaluation of the petrodollar leads to US military adventurism. And then our fighting force and oil reserves are already depleted.
So... Chinese bombers blotting out the sun over Washington.
This is the current DNC chair talking about how Mamdani is the future of the party, from over a year ago.
Before Mamdani had even won his general election.
Well, first, it was a brilliant campaign. And there's a lot of lessons.
One is, he campaigned for something. And this is a critical piece. We can't just be in a perpetual state of resisting Donald Trump. Of course, we have to resist Donald Trump. There's no doubt about it for all the reasons we just talked about. But we also have to give people a sense of what we're for, what the Democratic Party is fighting for, and what we would do if they put us back in power.
And that's really critical. And I think that's one of the lessons from Mamdani's campaign, is that he focused on affordability. He focused on a message that was resonant with voters, and he campaigned for something, not against other people or against other things. He campaigned on a vision of how he was going to make New York City a better place to live.
I think that's one of the lessons. The other lessons, of course, is the tactics he used to get his message out, both a very aggressive in-person campaigning, meeting voters where they're at, and then also in those digital spaces, using very creative messaging to cut through the noise and to get to voters in an inexpensive but authentic way.
There's a lot to learn from that campaign, and I'm excited to learn more.
Of course you INSTANTLY downplay it. We both know there is no number that you would find acceptable because you're not being honest about this, you just want your specific "team" to win. Anything that doesn't fit your pre-determined, confirmation bias-based narrative "doesn't matter".
They could do more if people voted for them, but since you deliberately deprived them of that ability, they can only do so much. So many fucking idiots in this country thought they were "encouraging" Democrats to do what they wanted by taking away their ability to do anything.
I did vote for them. I've voted for them every election I've been able to participate in. I've been rewarded with jack shit for my efforts. Biden didn't root out the fascists when he had the chance and now we're fucked.
Good for you, NOT ENOUGH people did. That's why they're in this situation. You're mad at them for not doing the impossible because you personally voted for them. That is goddamn ridiculous. And now you're spreading misinformation and downplaying what they're trying to do in their limited capacity.
Biden didn’t root out the fascists when he had the chance and now we’re fucked.
What the fuck does that even mean? We're fucked because a huge portion of likely Democratic voters either were stupid enough to believe Trump's lies or stupid enough to think they can "punish" Democrats to get what they want.
Democrats beat Trump in 2020 and have won a number of lesser elections but we continue to lie about them "never winning". We can see them doing exactly what we say we want them to do (hold out in standoffs) and then we criticize them "doing nothing".
I'm not saying they're perfect or I have no criticisms. I'm saying this simplistic, low-information one-size-fits-all criticism is largely inaccurate and deserves as much scrutiny as anything else.
Biden should have prosecuted Trump and everyone else who was involved after the insurrection on Jan. 6th especially after the Supreme Court gave him a blank check. If he'd had the backbone to use the power we gave him Trump wouldn't have been an option in the next election.
Democrats winning doesn't mean shit if they don't achieve anything while in office. They keep playing nice when they should be using all the readily available dirt to bury their opponents (and anyone in their own party that doesn't tow the line). Having the moral high ground doesn't mean shit when people are having their lives ruined and dying.
Like, just for shits and giggles, tell me what you believe the DNC should be doing right now. And I'll probably take the two minute to explain why that has nothing to do with the DNC as an organization.
However there seems to be a lot of accounts that show in threads days later to try and pick fights.
Those accounts almost never seem interested in understanding. They're just running around trying to start as many arguments as they can hoping someone bites
Well, sort of. It's a giant ball of stupid to think what works in NYC will automatically work in any of the flyover states. If you come to the South and tell people you'll make their lives better, they'll hate you for it on principle. I do not think running a socialist ticket in Tennessee or Texas or even Iowa and Utah is going to work. We might find that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work, which is why the Republicans haven't been doing that in the decades they've been dominating and stealing.
That's true, but it's also slightly too specific. The point is that the right social programs matter. Create them and you can get votes, if you do it right... Or, do whatever Hillary was trying to do, and get nothing.
That particular pathway exists in some parts of the USA, such as NYC, but certainly does not work for many other parts. That said, I'd say nearly all voters are sick of status quo corporatism and "controlled opposition".
I suppose I am something of a centrist democrat. However I take that moniker in place of the aggressive Overton Window shifts that have occurred over the last decade. I do not find the Hyper Modernist shift acceptable as they are far more libertarian than they understand. I am more comfortable with Socialist policy, leadership, and approach. I like collectivist communal lifestyles but anything that divulges to communism has become a wearying conversation.
This is literally Chuck Schumer loser propaganda, stop repeating it. All it took to get conservative Maine to abandon Republicans was to put a rustic white male face on dem soc policy (Turned out the rustic white male was a rapist, so let's maybe be careful about future rustic white male selection). Talarico is wildly and authentically popular in Texas. Working class policy can win everywhere, so long as voters can see themselves in the candidate.
No, it's reality. Don't try to hit me with your dumbass boogeyman bullshit. My opinion doesn't come from Schumer, it comes from understanding the the heavily democratic, urban constituency of NYC is NOT THE FUCKING SAME as everywhere else in the country. Only an absolute moron could possibly believe that.
Also, it's pretty pathetic to see "progressives" give up on social issues altogether. You encouraging the abandonment of minorities, gay people, transgender people etc is sickening. Keep your phoney version of "morality" to yourself.
No, I wasn't talking to Mamdani on this message board. I was talking to the "progressive" who advocated we drop social issues and focus only on economic ones.
I never said anything about dropping social issues, you brought "giving up on social issues" as a separate complaint in your reply to me and I ignored it for being disingenuous bait. It's still disingenuous bait, nobody in US politics fights for social issues harder than a dem soc, because social issues are inseparable from economic issues.
Who do you think would fight harder for social issue? Kamala Harris or AOC? Karen Bass or Zohran Mamdani? Haley Stevens or Abdul El-Sayed?
You're full of shit if you think dem socs are weak on social issues.
Have you ever lived in NYC? It's not an outlier for US politics in any manner. The immigrants trend conservative, as immigrants in the US often do. There are many entire neighborhoods that are deep red enclaves (Orthodox, conservative immigrant communities, cop / firefighter communities like City Island / Seaside / Staten Island). Multiple NYC mayors have been Republicans, one of them was RUDOLF FUCKING GIULIANI. It's the beating heart of global capitalism. Mamdani came out of NYC's most progressive / leftist region of northeast Brooklyn and western Queens and would have never been elected mayor if he hadn't found a way to communicate working class values to the entire swath of US political identities.
You can repeat his success anywhere in the US if you combine his platform with a relatable local identity and a strong ground campaign. Sorry if that freaks you out, it really shouldn't.
Sorry if that freaks you out, it really shouldn’t.
Or we can stop pretending that what works on the NYC constituency will work on the entire country. We can ALSO stop pretending that Mamdani is the only type of Democrat to win an election - which again, he did in a race the Democrat candidate was heavily favored to win. NYC electing a Republican mayor in the Trump era is ridiculous. It just would not happen.
Giuliana back then was NOT the Trump-era dingbat he became.
I'm so tired of this "one-size-fits-all" lazy bullshit. Democrats are generally friendlier to workers' rights than Republicans, that's really not arguable. Yet, these people are voting against their own interests. Which means Republicans are gaining ground with their culture war bullshit. That's why Democrats have lost when they did because even if they do support collective bargaining, workers' rights or higher minimum wage people STILL vote for Republicans because of their culture war nonsense.
The economy was undoubtedly better under Biden than it was under Trump and we STILL have to hear this bullshit that about Democrats are the "real" enemy.
What "freaks me out" is losing control on this country entirely, which you is what will happen if we continue to be inflexible dumbasses who demand absolute purity "or else".
It's hard to follow the disperate threads of your rant here but your core argument seems to still be that a working class agenda can't win in the majority of the US, which is just wrong. And elsewhere in this thread you're associating dem soc working class politics with an abandonment of social issues, which is also just wrong.
If the rise of a cohesive left politics in this country truly worries you I wouldn't fret, I'm sure the DNC and Israel will still be generating corporatist ghouls for you to enthusiastically pull their lever, for many more years to come.
Abigail Spanberger won a tight race against an overt fascist without endorsements from any of the most powerful political blocs in virginia, like the UMWA, USW, UAW, or CWA. she also ran virtually unopposed in the democratic primary. she is not an example of someone who won because of the value of centrist politics. she's currently wildly unpopular for vetoing populist left wing bills from the long session (60 days) without providing input during the session about what she wanted. the next, and final session of this legislature is a short session (30 days) and none of the legislaters knew what she wants or needs to pass environmental protections, labor protections, or affordability measures as Virginia experiences a housing crisis.
so.
no.
this is not a good counter example to Mamdani, but instead a good example of exactly why no one trusts corporate dems or ex-CIA agents
Didn't seem to have much issues trusting them in 2020.
Oh I forgot, we're not supposed to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit the narrative. I guess 83 million people is "no one". The standard leftist excuse for a moderate winning is that "they didn't win by enough".
Anyone who thinks the NYC constituency is the same as the entire country is a delusional fucking moron. That's a completely indefensible argument that has no basis in reality. It's just stubborn hubris from people who think they can "punish" their way into geting what they want by actively harming the causes they pretend to care about.
Spanberger won a tight race.
She beat Earle-Sears 57% to 42%. Arguing that this was a "tight race" is disingenuous.
She lacked endorsements from UMWA, USW, UAW or CWA:
She was endorsed explicitly by the CWA. She was also supported explicitly by other unions: SEIU 32BJ, AFGE and LIUNA. The AFL-CIO didn't endorse her but that certainly does not mean they preferred her opponent.
She ran virtually unopposed in the Democratic primary
If she ran unopposed in the primary, why didn't Progressives put up a challenger? Is it HER fault she ran unopposed?
She isn’t evidence of the value of centrist politics
The primary was uncontested so among Democrats you really can't justify this statement. She then went on to convincingly win VA, which is not a certain blue state. It seems pretty clear to any honest person that her policies combined with Trump backlash are why she won the race.
She’s currently wildly unpopular.
Recent polling cannot possibly be interpreted as "wildly unpopular". The worst has at 44% approving/47% disapproving.
She vetoed populist left-wing bills.
Some argument here, granted, but it's still misleading. Some of the vetoed measures were bipartisan, rather than "left wing". The drug affordability bill passed the Senate 36–4 and House 95-4. She has also singed hundreds of positive bills, including regarding housing and the environment. Also brought the state back into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Acting like all she has done is oppose progressive policies is misleading.
She provided no input, and legislators didn’t know what she wanted
The Democrats who spoke out about not hearing opposition until the veto phase are your hated "centrists", by the way. Seems your happy to listen to them here. Also, her policy staff worked with legislators throughout the session; she submitted approximately 180 amendments, many of which lawmakers accepted. Yes, there were communication issues here but NO it wasn't some deliberate attempt to scuttle progressive policies.
The "session" shit is ridiculous to begin with. They only meet for 30 days on odd numbered years? That's supposed to be enough time to go from introducing a bill to passing it? In any event, as stated above, the administration did chime in on the considered legislation over 100 times.
Why am I not surprised to see such a misleading comment from a supposed "leftist"? You contribute to this "post fact" bullshit just as much as the right does.
She ran virtually unopposed in the Democratic primary
If she ran unopposed in the primary, why didn’t Progressives put up a challenger? Is it HER fault she ran unopposed?
Spanberger didn't run for Congress is 2024 because she intended to run for governor in 2025. The lack of other primary candidates is obvious evidence of a party clearing the path for their chosen candidate.
No, that's paranoid delusional bullshit based on nothing. That IS NOT "obvious" evidence that there was some official "clearing the path" the disincluded more Progressive options. The only thing it's evidence of is that no Progressive candidate stood up and tried to run.
The misinformation is fucking ENDLESS with you guys. It's like you don't even remotely care if what you say is true or not.
A lot of what you're arguing is tangential to what I was trying to say, but I'll still go through it.
We were glad in NoVA that Spanberger won in an extremely conservative district in Northern Virgina in 2018. It was a relief compared to what was there before. The follow up in 2020 was also nice.
I'm not trying to say that she didn't win by enough. I don't really care about vote margins in electoral politics, I care about what politicians do in office to shift how people perceive the political process. Spanberger has been a consistent corporate vote. Better than the overt fascists. Still complicit in the erosion of our environmental and labor protections. She's part of the false binary we find ourselves in in this country between overt hyperfascism and slow neoliberal fascism. We won't know until we try it if a populist left wing candidate like a Zohran Mamdani or a Bernie Sanders could win in a general. Virginia hasn't had an opportunity to do such a thing in my lifetime.
I also don't think that the NYC populace is the same as Virginia. I think our left wing populism would look different from their left wing populism. I know this because I've experienced it first hand. The center of left wing life in SWVA is the Grange, the Mutual Aid Hub, and the Water Defender. In the urban centers the focus is much more on economic unions and labor unions for the factory and office worker. I've lived both lives, and have seen that organization efforts need to fall along different lines and put different focuses on confronting poverty. In the countryside you need to empower people to support eachother through their access to clean drinking water and growable food. In the urban centers you need to empower people to organize their people power to demonstrate to their bosses the ability to say "No."
I missed my CWA chapter endorsing her. I didn't know that the CWA endorsed her. That's my mistake. Most unionists did tend to vote for her anyway because Winsome Earle-Sears was an overt fascist. You will receive no argument from me. But this was the first time in my life that the unions refused to endorse either candidate. That's HUGE
If she ran unopposed in the primary, why didn’t Progressives put up a challenger? Is it HER fault she ran unopposed?
That's EXACTLY the organization failure I was trying to point out. Democracy is not a single event that occurs at the ballot box in November. Even the bourgious electoral form of democracy practiced in the United states requires participation 2-3 times a year to get the best possible outcome, but moreover, it requires dedicating time to go door to door to talk to people about candidates. You get more enthusiasm to do that when people are enthusiastic about the candidates. I haven't seen that in Virginia in a decade. No one trusts any of our politicians and people dedicated to the value of democratic values have been much more focused on community organization with their neighbors. It's been a monumental shift, and one I've very much seen accelerate in the past 4 years since the western regions of the state were devestated by hurricane helene along with our North Carolinian and West Virginian brethren, with many people slowly viewing themselves less as residents of any of our states or border states, and more as being parts of the cultural communities we exist in. The people of Bluefield, Tazewell, and Boone have more in common that their political representation reflects. So why do we even pay attention to the state borders when our real connections are through our food and our water? More and more people want representation that reflects this, and if Democrats don't run a socialist who reflects this, they risk losing to a national-socialism who does
Definition of fascism by Seth Tobocman. If we are to resist fascism, we must acknowledge how it takes hold. The "Virginia wants corporate dems" narrative undermines our ability to assess and resist our standing when increasingly there is a boot on our nets.
Not being Winsome Earle-Sears is not clear policy value. Virginians like some of her policy positions, but some of her policy positions are WILDLY unpopular, and as a result she has become increasingly unpopular. We do need to acknowledge that there is an element of misogyny driving her unpopularity. I renounce anyone who roots their criticisms of the 67th governor in her gender. Fuck that and fuck off if that's you (not you who I'm replying to, obviously, but I know there's a chance someone's reading this hating her for her gender). I'll state my stance that our last good governor was Francis Harrison Pierpont. Spanberger is a better governor than Youngkin, McDonnel, or Warner up to this point, but we do have to acknowledge what the specific issues with her governorship have been
You think I don't know the short sessions and long sessions are completely insane!? THEY'RE COMPLETELY INSANE!! "Oh it's to avoid a permanent professional class of politicians from running the state" bull fucking shit, the result is representatives that spend somewhere between 1 and 3 months a year doing anything, and the rest of the year schmoozing. I fuckin' hate it. I'll have to take your word for it on that it was the centrist dems mainly saying she scuttled collective bargaining and environmental protections we'd been hopeful on. That was the feedback we got from our union endorsed representative and from multiple environmental groups in our valley who spend a lot of time talking to representatives, senators, and anyone else who will listen to that we're tired of the arsenic in the New River, so it was the understanding I had taken away from this past session.
Love Mamdani, but we can't pretend the things he campaigned on and is accomplishing in NYC would work everywhere, especially battleground states. Not saying the move is to pivot to the center/right, but we have to be realistic...
In a place where Harris posted lots of +80, +90 precincts (I think the closest on the actual island is +35 or so) and would've won in a landslide yes, we've found a way to barely win an election and keep us happy in our echo chambers.
The American left has a big problem with purity testing, and it's going to come for Mamdani soon. He's still in the honeymoon phase, it's been only 7 or so months since he took office. Give it another year or two, and this guy is going to be ripped to shreds by all the people praising him now. They'll hate him just like how all the left hate Obama now even though they loved him when he was still new.
The current career path of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shows there's another way. At worst, she had to knuckle under to Nancy Pelosi regarding a bill about Israel and change a no vote to present, but still seems to be walking the path.
At this point it looks like she's working to become presidential material. She's old enough to run for president now.
That is a different subject, but Harris is a woman and black which was an even harder sell.
Harris got about half the votes in 2024. It wasn't a MAGA mandate as Trump insists.
And her campaign missteps were Israel and courting the right while people were still hurting from the economy. She also was at a disadvantage due to Biden's resignation from the race and the lack of a primary.
The voters who don't like women and non-whites are already Trump loyalists, and will stay that way even as their kids starve.
From what I see here, it's folly to run a centrist neoliberal Democrat. Those who care about platform want something bold, progressive and public-serving. Those who don't care about platform vote Republican.
Then your intuition is just wrong. People seem to forget that Obama ran a very successful campaign in 2008 on being anti-war and making economic reforms. For the first 2-3 years he was everybody's darling, but then as time went on, he started having more and more establishment based positions and people started turning on him even though he still had a decent amount of good policies in his second term.
Mamdani is brand new to politics. This is his first public office and he's only held it for 7 months. Even though it's NYC, he's still only a mayor and he has no control over foreign policy. Regardless, the point I was making is that as time goes on, he's going to be like Obama in the sense that he'll become the new establishment and he's bound to have positions at some point that will contradict the mainstream progressive left and have the same people glazing him now turn on him and hate him like he's the anti-christ, even if a good amount of his policies remain progressive.
That's the way it's been for the left in this country. If you still think Obama is bad comparison for whatever reason, you can swap him out with AOC, and the point will still stand.
I hope people are reading the DSA manifesto because the principles in it are not American and Democrats are delusional if they think a majority of Americans will vote for this. The downsides of capitalism have been apparent for some time but this isn't the solution.
Second, neoliberalism demonstrably has already failed to work in middle America, yet the Democratic Party is too fucking cowardly and corrupt to even be willing to try the alternative.
Counterpoint: Americans are so fed up with neoliberalism and late-stage capitalism (whether they think of it in those terms or not) that they were willing to vote for Donald Trump, of all people! They are clearly desperate for something, anything different, which means even a scary boogeyman "socialist" has an infinitely better chance than an economic-status-quo Democrat.
Read about the tickets on which they ran. Blomberg ran on a ticket not dissimilar to Mandami, Giuliani was elected during a massive rise in crime (and watched it plummet) and Eric Adams won as a democrat.
You could also look at the city precinct votes in the election, huge swathes were Kamala +80 which is absurd. On the island itself, I can't find a district lower than Kamala at +35.
So yes, we've found the winning ticket in a place that would've elected Kamala by a landslide, why on Earth would we think that is an example for the country.
Mainly because he's doing something markedly different than the politics that lost the 2024 election for Harris. He's showed that politics isn't the simplistic, one-dimensional left-right spectrum that Democrats seem to cling to. Specifically, he's promised a government that works for people, and delivered. It's not hard to see why people will actually come out and vote for that over the "we can't do anything, but chip in some more" messaging.
He said he’d do X. People voted him to do X. He’s doing X.
What is your actual problem with the guy? “He might do Y”, where Y is what you would be getting with any other candidate anyway, seems like a weird thing to worry about.
This is the dumbest shit I've read all week. The bourgeoisie already had their game locked down. That's why they wanted Cuomo and after Mamdani beat him once the bourgeoisie still backed Cuomo in hopes of the second time going differently.
The bourgeoisie didn't need Mamdani to get what they want. Of they wanted to use Mamdani as an example that left populist policies don't work then Mamdani shouldn't be winning this much. If Mamdani does X and then in the future becomes Y then nobody is going to think socialism is a failure, they're going to view Mamdani as a traitor the same way they view Fetterman as a traitor.
You have to sniff some heavy duty conspiracy glue to believe Mamdani is some kind of a capitalist plant. It's far more likely you've been radicalized to a point where anything less than a full blown revolution is not a step in the right direction. That's not healthy.
also, ok, what happened to sinema, what's gonna happen to fetterman, etc. even in your made up hypothetical there's a very easy solution that everyone here except you can see because it is real and it happened
it isn't in state and revolution but it is in observable reality
To be fair, that was FDR's plan with the New Deal. During the Great Depression, despite all the red-scare propaganda that project over there in the east was starting to look really interesting to all the folks on the ground. Hoover had spent his presidency listening to his industrialist buddies telling him everything is fine.
The whole point of the New Deal was to introduce a whole bunch of socialism, a bunch of government projects that needed jobs, and a bunch of safety nets to keep people from starving dying of malnutrition eating flour paste. It was to stop a revolution and a rise into a communist state, because a lot of folk were very aware how capitalism wasn't doing it for them. FDR didn't want to create a state of actual equality and inclusion, but preserve the social contract a bit longer.
Hoover's industrialist buddies didn't take this lying down. Since then they've been upping their propaganda game, and then James W. Fifield Jr. provided a new version of Christianity that minimized all the enrich the poor, feed the hungry, heal the sick stuff that became the foundation of modern fundamentalism and white Christian nationalism.
We have old industrialists, new tech guys, but an awful lot of billionaires that made their ill gotten gains via MLMs, megachurches, government contracts, and big box markets using their capital advantage to price out competition (Amazon and Walmart. What they did is illegal, but no one is enforcing antitrust law.) So the nouveau riche of the 21st century produced less and cheated more to get to the top, and surpassed the old rich by orders of magnitude. And they have no conscience or morals to speak of.
Curiously, this is exactly what Marx said would happen in Das Kapital.
230 replies
Also, it’s incredibly simple. Mamdani is getting stuff done but even attempting to get stuff done makes people happy.
And getting stuff done implies in some part that it could have been done before. So why had it not?
He's the politician that didn't get the memo to try and look like you're doing something, but don't actually do it. As if we'll run out of problems to solve and campaign on. Maybe it's that simple - having to shift to new messages is hard vs. sticking with the old ones.
Turns out Mamdani many other people like him got the memo, it’s that the corporate centrists didn’t get it and have been ignoring for a long time
Meanwhile, mainstream Dems: "We can't do that. If we tried to do things, the Republicans would be mad at us."
The corporate donors would be mad
Yeah even good intentions are rare
The entrenched establishment that still controls the DNC isn't interested in winning elections if it means offending AIPAC or their mega rich and corporate donors. They can't offer any meaningful change for the working class without risking their own paychecks, so they don't have any moves except "not Trump."
This is why primaries exist if I'm not mistaken.
Excellent point. If the DNC was captured by AIPAC, then they wouldn't have primaries, and would instead figure out some way to nominate a pro-Israel candidate undemocratically.
These people who bitch and moan online never vote in primaries or actually participate.
I can think of one
Spill the beans
Over 100 Democrats are voting against funding Israel now. Are they not in the DNC?
Oh wait, yeah they are.
Are Americans going to pop a blood vessel in their eye if they don't use abrivations for everything?
The problem is that most people know these organizations by their abbreviations rather than the whole title
Holy shit AIPAC stands for that? No wonder about the last few years then
(yeah I'm not american, I also only knew these by their abbreviations)
They've been lobbying hard for like 30+ years afaik
They've successfully overthrown the government with bribes and blackmail, the upcoming military integration seals it.
Wait ‘til you learn that GOP stands for Republican.
Grand Old Pedophile Party
aka: Greed Over People party
Or, in reality, the progressive voters don't show up during Democratic primaries and the DNC responds to those who do.
Progressives showed up to the primary for New York mayor and the DNC responded with Islamophobia, an anti-socialist manifesto, and threats of splitting the party.
Among others: Over 30 socialists have won primaries this year, as of a month ago.
With hopefully a few more to go:
Hopefully a lot more to go. We even got a progressive who won the Democratic primary for Senate in Kentucky, Charles Booker. Though he hasn't called himself a socialist, he's running on the same social democratic platform as the DSA-aligned socialists have been.
Have a source on that?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/top-democrat-racist-tirade-zohran-mamdani_n_6861aab5e4b08e0b4a741231
https://www.jezebel.com/democratic-leaders-join-republicans-islamophobic-attacks-on-zohran-mamdani
https://newrepublic.com/article/199293/democratic-establishment-shunning-mamdani-disqualifying
https://newrepublic.com/post/196734/andrew-cuomo-ad-edited-photo-zohran-mamdani
We showed up for Bernie in droves that the DNC got so scared they conspired AGAINST him to prevent any chance of him being the nominee. I'm done with neo-liberals, they're as much contemptible as reactionaries, more so because they pretend to be on our side.
No, they didn't. You just believe what you want to believe because the person you like didn't win. Just like MAGA does. Good for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#Bernie_Sanders's_campaign But hey, pretend you're right like neo-liberals do.
Where's the link where Bernie said he was cheated? Or maybe you can explain why Bernie advocated that everyone vote for the "evil neo-liberal" Harris? Funny how often THAT gets ignored.
Bernie lost BOTH times because he's not as popular in real life as he is in your bubble. I don't like that either but it's reality and you continuing to drive this wedge in the party when Trump is destroying country is NOT was Bernie wants you to do. Unlike you cultists, he has integrity and believes in his causes. YOU do not care about his causes because you help put in office people who set them back by decades.
The link you provided in NO WAY proves that the DNC somehow cheated in all the states Bernie lost. You have to give up this delusional nonsense and face reality. Yes, you have proven that SOME individuals in the DNC preferred Clinton. Guess what? That happens in every single fucking primary. There were people in the DNC who liked Sanders more - but you just discount them altogether because you agree with them. There is NO proof in your link that shows that Sanders would've won if those DNC members who didn't like him didn't exist. There is definitely no proof that there was voter fraud.
-Schultz's insults were NOT public before or during the primary.
So several things that never happened and one that was unknown to the public is your apparent proof of nationwide election fraud. Did win Trump win in 2020 as well?
Clinton won approximately 2,205 pledged delegates to Sanders’s 1,846, about 54% to 46%. So superdelegates did not turn the tide in the election.
The lack of debates is also not proof in any way. He had six debates to make his case. He did his best. He lost.
The Bernie-supporter lawsuit was dismissed, so it was not determined if the case had any validity. Is merely bringing lawsuits enough to prove fraud? Because the Republicans tried that like 70 times in 2020 and lost every single one of them.
To be perfectly honest, what you've provided is even flimsier than what I expected. There is nothing even approaching solid enough evidence in here to claim he was cheated. You have evidence of bias among a few individuals, NONE of which had their bullshit acted upon. And that's proof that Clinton didn't win more elections? You want to pretend that it came down to ONE contest and the DNC cheated there? Her delegate total accumulated across dozens of states/primaries.
This is essentially the same as Trump's electoral denial. The only difference is that Bernie actually has integrity and Trump does not. Bernie doesn't claim to have been cheated, Bernie did NOT say to sit out the election in protest.
Every single "progressive" who did that either in 2016 or 2024 is a phoney cultist asshole. They want to pretend that they're acting in solidarity with Bernie but what they have done is set back the issues Bernie cares about for decades, at least. They'll be a stain on his legacy.
You're tilting at windmills, no one accused the DNC of engaging in election fraud (that's MAGA's ballpark). The person you replied to said DNC leadership "conspired against" Bernie, which is broad enough to mean a lot of things, including that they coordinated messaging to manufacture controversy around his campaign (as was proven true by the leaked emails).
This guy isn't worth arguing with, I've reviewed posts and its all harassment of left leaning people or straight up sealioning as well as just lumping every person left of their position into the same one they "debated" with before.
TLDR don't fucking care. Coming out in bad faith elsewhere while sea lioning you deserve absolutely no consideration. I would have thought it apparent but has to be spelled out.
The actual truth, not that Lemmy wants to hear it.
Yes, well, let’s all remember one little thing that is separate from whatever legislative and social wins he’s getting:
The guy is good. Good at communicating, good at promotion, good at finding common ground. He’s not Che Guevara, he’s an upgraded Obama.
He’s never going to be left enough for .ml, you can see right here they can’t wait to shit on him. What he’s teaching the Democrats is they’re old and busted. A party designed for television and radio.
Plus, do you know how hard it is to be that kind of good at politics? It’s freakin rare. Sure if he could teach all the Dems how to be charming, persistent, kind, and knowledgable why won’t they listen? They’d love to listen but Joe Schmo in Topeka is basically an introvert who just wants to make his community happy.
Has anyone here, on Lemmy, tried to run for office? If so, you probably found it’s basically a lifestyle that takes over everything; work, family, hobbies, health. Pointing to Mamdani and saying “Joe why can’t you be like that” isn’t a matter of just political positions. You’ve got to sell. Sell sell sell.
And I hate selling. And salespeople (no offense). It’s . . . a problem for Dems. Republicans don’t have that problem. Any grifter or sleazeball can step right into a race in their sleep.
I've run for office, and yeah, the running is a job all on its own. That and everything takes money.
Campaign signs don't print themselves, canvassers need to be paid, handbills need printers, venues need to be booked, offices need to be rented and all of it, all of it takes money that the majority of candidates simply don't have on their own.
Once you experience that you realize why a lot of politicians become corrupt, or at least corrupted by the system.
Making political election campaigns illegal to even the field (and use the money for something beneficial) is worth a thought.
No, I don't know either if it's even viable. But maybe someone smarter than me can make something out of that thought.
wanna add that he's young and grew up in the same situations that he's actively working to fix
Yea, I have tried to get involved. Not even run just involved with people running. That is even a lot.
That and his lesser touted positions are NOT popular outside deep blue NYC.
I love the guy but he isn't winning the Midwest with ALL his positions and it's stupid and basic to think that. No one in Wichita wants government run grocery stores for instance.
They certainly can take pointers from him but there's a full cemetery of progressive candidates who have crashed and burnt outside deep blue areas.
He's exactly what NYC wants and needs. He wouldn't be for every single place across the country.
Why wouldn't they want that? Why wouldn't anyone want that?!
Think about the reddest, most homophobic, bigoted, capitalist, Fox News brained person you can think of who thinks Black people are animals and Hispanic people are all drug smuggling cartel members and "illegals" "deserve" the camps. Now double the bigotry and then imagine a whole town full of that, and, like, one single scared gay kid. That's not every town, but it's a frighteningly large number, because America is a massive place and unfortunately with a continent this big you'll end up with clusters where the outlier becomes the norm.
Some towns need to be burned to the ground, is what I'm hearing.
I've lived in Missouri my whole life. MANY towns need to be burned to the ground out here.
This was probably almoat 20 years ago, in a small rural (like 5k people) Illinois town I used to love in. We were outside doing some yardwork, and this guy comes door to door selling some kind of cleaner.
Black guy. Which I mention because its relevant.
We chat for a bit, he demos the cleaner, at one point his friend calls so he takes the call.
The friend, also clearly a black guy, is basically saying he is done and ready to leave and basically half the houses threaten to shoot him and keep calling him n***er.
This is rural America, in general. This is MAGA.
Anyway, we bought some cleaner, it seemed to work on the outside mold spots on the house.
Cuz that's communism obviously. Generations of propaganda is a hell of a drug.
Except we basically already have that. Rural areas are littered with food pantries because rural people tend to be poor as fuck. Maybe they are run by voulonteers now, but why not cut out the hassle and add in some guaranteed funding and efficiency?
You don't have to convince me. You have to convince them.
Look at Oklahoma- they just voted down a minimum wage increase. You think they're on board with government run grocery stores?
"dying of whiteness" is a fascinating book about whites voting against their own interests so those people don't get anything nice
Isn't the midwest just saturated MAGA, white Christian nationalist and plain ol' white supremacist? People who vote for centrists but not progressives have long since devoted their lives to the Trump god-king. They don't care about anyone other than themselves, and may turn around because they're personally hurt by the economy. But in that case, they're voting against the incumbent, and don't care who the opposition is, even if it's a proverbial sack of potatoes.
At this point Trump is personally responsible for everyone losing money. At least everyone but the handful of guys getting pardons and government contracts out of him.
Harris lost by playing to the center, and an awful lot of polls are telling us that progressive platform ideas are popular.
If you think centrists are fans of trump I don't know what to tell you except that's so far off I can't believe it's a thought.
Centrists voted for Trump in 2024, thinking egg prices would go down. (Or just terrified of immigrants and trans folks.)
I have little confidence in centrists. (Or what counts as centrist in the United States.)
But I do know that a lot of the progressive platform is popular:
~ Universal healthcare
~ A jobs guarantee
~ Higher education for all
~ National action on the climate crisis
~ Women's reproductive healthcare access (including abortion)
~ Housing as a human right ~ Abolishing ICE and police reform
...and so on
All that isn't centrist according to the Overton window. In fact, the far-right propaganda machine is asserting any one of those is a slippery slope to communism. So the majority of Americans who take polls are communist.
I think that running on an actual platform is a winning move. Doubly so if candidates present a blueprint on how to implement it.
I also think that none of this is enough. We're going to have to address the democracy crisis and capture of the federal court system. Ultimately, according to Nobel laureate economists, we're going to have to redistribute the immense wealth at the top. (That may be impossible, and if so, the entire industrial world may be doomed to capture and decline.)
Also true yeah. But “leftists” on here can’t get to that.
The country is big. Big, big. Slogans only go so far.
Hey did Harris win on being Biden again? She won, right?
Yeah the midwest didn’t vote for a black woman because she was too much like Biden.
If only she had done more for the proletariat!
Hey did Harris win? I'm asking you a question.
What’s the question?
Being a champion of establishment is the biggest self own in those states, both deep red and blue states.
Nobody want a status quo, when the status quo means everything is getting worse around them. Between status quo or a hail Mary, they choose a hail Mary as it's better than consistently downgrading
The DNC leadership is controlled opposition, its no more complex that that
Nah. DNC leadership has been in Fear and Crisis mode for years. American politics is a horrible machine that eats goals and wishes and produces misery for the people. Trying to enact positive change is soul-crushingly hard in that environment, but grifting and ponzi schemes play on the fear and frustration of the people for some ephemeral succor who don't realize that toxicity is making them the ephemeral suckers; so those ponzi schemes are very good for the ciminals who run them, and very bad as usual for the victims.
Mayor Mamdani is upsetting that downward status quo with some rare performance art of improvement, and there's the small chance he could accidentally force the DNC to actually act on goals that it once held dear and promoted in its actions, when it had the power to do so. If the US survives the grifter convention that is the current kleptocratic administration with any of its tenets intact, and if the DNC remembers how to serve the wishes of the people in action as it does in talking points the public itself has begun to ignore in its own spiral of fear and worry, that's the best chance I think the US has.
I don't see a massive reformation of the political system, an upgrade to the voting system that allows for multiple parties, or a regime change in all three branches as being achievable nor helpful, unfortunately. I like to be optimistic, but one doesn't turn a seniors bus around in the taco bell drive-through lane.
Yeah, well said. I agree with you this, back then the Democrats had stood for something, in the 1940s, they created the new deal, and government programs and policies that benefited the average Joe and the American people
No more complex than that to lazy dumbasses who could possibly think such a thing is that simple.
Democrats doing their centrist bullshit are captured by corporate lobbyists.
How Money Works explained the saturation of money in politics (here, on YouTube), and it runs effing deep.
Essentially anyone who gets elected at a federal or state level has to decide between two options. Do they:
a) Want to serve their constituency and fight for the common voter? Or...
b) Get really rich and join the ownership class (the 0.1% or higher)?
And during the 90s and Aughts it became normal in both parties to choose option b) Apparently, it's super humiliating, because the official no longer does any actual legislating. Instead, lobbyists come to them with premade bills (and promises of campaign contributions and dark money and stuff) and the lawmaker only gets the prize if the law gets passed verbatim. There is no doubt from the official that they're being played and owned, and that their constituents are going to suffer for their corruption. But then, the money is awesome, and so they get used to it.
We're actually seeing how removed some of our officials have become from the common American experience, with countless let them eat cake moments. We'll hear an official express in a soundbite that they don't understand or care about the concerns of the commoner.
And yes, we're seeing other signs of capture in the establishment Democratic party. News came out not long ago (here from Politico) that centrist Democrats are getting worried now that progressives and SDAs are winning elections and becoming a larger portion of the big tent. Evidently, it's a coalition party so long as the left side offers its votes but not its opinions.
I think Democratic voters are tepid about merely keeping the Republicans at bay (even though the consequences are awful when we fail) but actually get excited about voting in candidates when they have specific platforms they want to do while in office. Taking a page from Ross Perot in 1988, a lot of people got excited because he had a very specific plan. I think voters would like to see detailed plans rather than ambiguous objectives.
It’s time to kick out all the corporate centrists and vote in pragmatic progressives who hate corporations and vote in new deal democrats
If we can, yes. That AIPAC money has become an albatross is definitely encouraging.
I thought albatross were good omens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatross_(metaphor)
It's time to hand the country to conservatives for good then.
It's not "centrist". Mamdani is centrist. They're prioritising the interests of the owner class over those of the common people because they're in pockets of the oligarchy. Which also why they'd rather hand their country to the fascists than question the status quo.
If Mamdani is centrist that means regular dems are quite far on the right
Yeah kinda. Establishment dems are neoliberals, an ideology popularized by Reagan.
Most certainly. In Germany the corporate Democrats would be considered far right on most issues.
Yes.
As a European, I absolutely agree
They are.
America has two parties: moderate right-wing and fascist.
I have some issues with the EU party mapping onto the PCM there...
Anarchists are not libright, for one...
Ancaps maybe... but anarchist?
To be honest, I'm not sure our conservatives are even in the bounds of that box anymore.
Yes, Dems are center-right
Regular Dems are pretty right. And I am not even one of those super hyoer communist lefties.
I'd say he's center left coz of policies like government run grocery stores.
No, don't you see, he hasn't yet seized the means of production, so he's an establishment democrat paid opposition. Vivre la revolucion!
Holy shit. Lemmy calling Mamdani centrist is... Chefs kiss just peak Lemmy
I'm not Lemmy. I'm just one guy. And I really don't know what you're trying to say here.
Because political discourse on this platform is deeply unserious. Calling Mamdani centrist is bizarre. It's clear that to you and the members of certain instances everything that is not the complete people's ownership of the means of production constitutes a "centrist". There is absolutely no nuance and it's quite silly. Calling the guy that is running government run grocery stores "centrist" because he hasn't yet nationalized all private entities is really endemic of how this platform is unwilling to move the coalition forward because it is not interested in achieving the goals of socialism; it is only interested in idealizing it through abstract terms but never ever should we dare contend with the real world and how these ideas get implemented.
Well I'm glad we have deeply serious people like you to explain it to us poor fools.
I don't claim to be the fountain of wisdom or savvy in terms of political theory. But I do recognize how asinine the discourse can be here. It's clear no socialist on Lemmy is invested in this ideology enough with regards to executing actionable change.
Because the Democratic Party serves the same masters as the GOP. They exist to make sure that a large enough majority maintains faith in the system to keep the populace from revolting. They serve a secondary purpose of capturing and neutering any social movements that might create a danger to the Wall St agenda.
Note that "governing" and "policy" are not part of their purpose.
Masters = voters?
Lol, what action taken by either party in the last thirty years gave you the impression either of them serve their voters?
Most of them? You can keep pretending otherwise, but they are where they are because people voted for them.
So nothing at all, but your fifth grade civics textbook said that's how it works, so there's obviously no need to interrogate that further?
Hurr Durr BoTh SiDes'
Fucking idiots in here desperate to pretend this utter bullshit, even with all we've seen.
A most erudite rebuttal. You've made a very convincing argument (that you don't know shit about politics except what you see on cable news and you think it's just another team sport).
Ah but they don't actually care if we are happy. They want the illusion of working for us while making their donors happy - the people they really serve.
DINOs doing their best to lose the game
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again!
By having deeply stupid voters that thought Trump would be better.
The dems "win" for their masters by losing.
Watch how real progressive candidates and actual normal human beings will get torn apart by the political machine. There is a huge industry in keeping the status quo and lots of money to be made ensuring progressive candidates don't get momentum. They weren't able to stop Mamdani, but billionaires can stamp out a lot of fires with hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into "centrist" politics.
Because the DNC isn't actually on the side of the working class. They aren't like us. No matter how much they say they are, actions speak louder than words. I just don't understand why others can't see the pattern that I do. I see Democrats tanking on purpose, accepting money from influences that don't have their voters best interest, and reaping the benefits of Republican decisions that they claim they are against....
I mean, the last few elections were proof enough. They put up safe (for them) candidates and barely even try to do anything more than be "not trump". Its infuriating when people preach at me about how great Kamala was going to be and that nobody voted for her out of sexism/racism. I voted for her, but the pre-election was handled like shit and the lack of a primary turned off WAY more voters than they want to admit. The right wingers are constantly calling the democrats communists, and then the democrats respond by selecting their candidate without anyone's input. They just play into the narrative and reap the rewards while trying to keep the illusion of a moral high ground.
Just follow the money.
Almost like they're controlled opposition
A lot of people seem to think that Democrat means left, it doesn't. It means they are left of MAGA at this point. There is a whole lot of right left of MAGA. Why people assume that every Democrat is going to want the same thing is the crazy part to me.
A good example is Charlie Christ. He was a Republican. Won Florida governor as a Republican. Come 2022 Florida voters were so far right voting for Desantis Charlie Christ ran as a Democrat.
It isn't because Christ was suddenly further left.
Had he won he wouldn't have suddenly supported views like left leaning people... He would have been a conservative capitalist like he's always been.
Because the centrists care about money, that's why they aren't doing the obvious.
NYC isn't the country. However, that being said, a few years of him being successful would go a long way to convince the centrists that it's the way to go.
I mean, most of us here know it is...but we need to get the rest of the country onboard, and showing success is the best way to do that...
I've been accused of being a centrist, despite basically being to the left of everyone in American politics, and I think it's because people tend to over-weight the economic left/right spectrum (or project other non-economic issues onto the left/right spectrum), and not place enough effort into thinking through:
None of that is left/right or centrist in itself, but my positions (pragmatic, technocratic, lawful) sometimes put me at odds with other voices on the left.
Other criteria that don't map onto left/right include authenticity, consistency/predictability, coherence across issues, and plain old network connections, and political effectiveness (influencing the public and other politicians to follow your lead on issues).
Mamdani is awesome because he exudes authenticity (like, I'm not a Knicks fan but he can give a great mayor's speech for his favorite team winning), gets things done (actual stuff around city governance, like snow shoveling), and seems to know how to get policy passed (working with Hochul to get some big ticket legislation on taxing the rich accomplished, even if it will contain some compromises). He is, in other words, an effective politician. We need more people like him scattered throughout different jurisdictions.
I will gladly support a coalition of centrists and leftists to move things to the left, especially if they can flank the current Republican party on plain old competence and honesty/fairness in governance.
I always say, if you vote for the left-most candidate in EVERY election, then that's how we move things to the left. If you stay home because the left-most candidate isn't left-enough for you, that's how the right wins.
Throughtout my life I've encountered the "X isn't Y" thought-terminating cliche anywhere I've ever tried to do any sort of activism or advocacy (When I was doing bike advocacy in NYC it was often "New York isn't Amsterdam" which was especially ironic considering that it once literally was). It's never once been a meaningful or persuasive point. Reality on the ground is always what we make it, and policy can be communicated through the right identity and strategies. New Yorkers really aren't at all that different from Americans anywhere else, the biggest differences are aesthetic.
I am not from US so I don't know how NYC is going? Is Mamdani really doing good there?
His policies sure are popular, and definitely better for the people there. The 1%'ers don't like it, but I haven't heard of any big names leaving just yet. Definitely passed the test during the last big snowstorm.. had the roads and sidewalks cleared in record time.
Hey! That's offensive to centrists! The dems actions are way to far right for that label.
If they win but give up all their values, did they really win? Democrats aren't on your side. They are just slidely less evil
"slidely"
A lot of people don't realize this. The neo-liberal is still a capitalist at best, less fascist at worst.
A lot of people don't realize this, Mamdani and all further left Democrats are capitalists.
"slightly" Jesus fucking christ, read the news.
Republicans are starting wars to cover up their president's involvement in a major child sex trafficiking ring.
Something Biden would never have done despite of what his former advisor said?
No, Biden never did that. You posting this as proof of your assertion is absolutely absurd and really shows that deluded misinformation is as rife on the left as it is on the right.
Every fucking president has a readiness plan for Iran going back to 1979, at least. That was due to the geopolitical tensions involved. This guy never said Biden was planning on attacking Iran, he said it was considered.
And even more pathetically, you're trying to imply that this is the equivalent of Trump starting the current war to distract from Epstein, which is absolutely ridiculous and in NO WAY proven by your source.
It truly is sickening how intentionally dishonest people like you can be to push your "both sides" delusion.
That's not what I said. I still understand the source differently than you do. Neither did you provide any evidence that the war is in direct connection to the Epstein files (which btw also includes a number of Democrats) but we already derailed from the topic so let's get back.
"both sides" implies that there are only two. The post was about the relationship between Mamdani and the Democratic mainstream. Take the issues he's famous for and ask yourself what the mainstream position of the two big parties of the US is. Talking about tWo siDEs silences all the other possible positions (to be clear, I'm not saying you're doing it on purpose).
My comment was about why the Democratic Party as a whole will never adopt Mamdani's policies. Is that something we can agree on?
He lost them with "don't take corpo checks"
"b-b-b-but how will I afford a gravy yacht?"
🥺👉👈
Hakeem should step down as minority leader and join the fascist regime with the human moldy tangerine.
I would argue that Mamdani, AOC, Sanders, and any others who follow that same path are all parts of a different party that is simply forced to run on the Democrat ballot. Meanwhile the true Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same Corprocrat party who is there to progress the interests of corporations and the only divide is on what to do with the 'remaining' population.
It's the billionaires that are pulling them to the right... The money... The greed... The power
As an outsider i think if the democratic party was functional Trump would never have gotten into the white house. Not blaming them (who am I to blame them anyway), but if one of the two parties in a two-party system was much more functional than the the other, it could quite easily convince a majority to not vote for the lunatic that is the other option. Feel free to downvote me, but the US imo has 2 shipwrecks 'leading' the country.
most of them wouldnt be electable if they were republicans anyways, thats why they have to be wolf in sheeps clothing. and AIPAC, the donors dont want someone too on the left.
The question is, if something will break.
Right now we're dealing with:
~ the war against Iran escalating ( Two blocked straits, ah...ah...ah...);
~the affordability crisis and oil-crisis level inflation. Half the country is going into debt affording rent food and fuel;
~ the corruption and self-dealing in Washington is out in the open
~ people can't survive in their own homes thanks to data centers
~ ICE is killing people and abducting them by the thousands, and ignoring due process
~ Private prisons are torturing people by the tens of thousands, including kids and pregnant mothers
I'm sure I'm missing some, but for the moment all this isn't enough to stop at least half the US from wanting to own the libs and keep trans folk out of women's sports. We haven't suffered enough to hand the Democrats the Senate yet, which means Social Security is going to die, and the Trump administration will be able to push through SCOTUS justices.
This might be because MAGA has a technological advantage. FOX News has gotten really good at propaganda, so its (massive) viewership is continuously stoked with rage and fear, is pumped with MAGA ideology and is encouraged to stop watching all other media. The right-wing propaganda machine makes sure that every white male has to vote red to reaffirm their masculinity.
And then the ultra-wealthy are vastly richer than any other point in history. After they bleed the US to collapse, they will have the capacity go on to do the same with the rest of the industrialized world. The EU has already been weakened by decades of neoliberal policymaking and now has strong far-right factions. And those same billionaires are consumed by greed, vindictiveness and disgust with the entire working class.
So yeah, we're going to have to get really lucky for the US not to collapse. The German Reich ran out of credit and was driven to get expansionist and annex other lands. The US is already lusting over Canada and Greenland, so it shouldn't be surprising if the devaluation of the petrodollar leads to US military adventurism. And then our fighting force and oil reserves are already depleted.
So... Chinese bombers blotting out the sun over Washington.
C'mon guys...
This is the current DNC chair talking about how Mamdani is the future of the party, from over a year ago.
Before Mamdani had even won his general election.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dnc-chair-on-the-path-to-winning-back-voters-and-lessons-democrats-can-learn-from-mamdani
It's over a year since the person with total and complete control over not just the party but the billions the neoliberals had hoarded...
And there's still ignorant ass memes about how "the party" hates Mamdani.
Oh, is that what they've been doing? Could have fooled me.
Democrats have won two standoffs in the current Congress, twice Republicans backs down.
But people like you will willingly ignore that because it doesn't fit your agenda.
Two entire ones! Out of how many?
Of course you INSTANTLY downplay it. We both know there is no number that you would find acceptable because you're not being honest about this, you just want your specific "team" to win. Anything that doesn't fit your pre-determined, confirmation bias-based narrative "doesn't matter".
They could do more if people voted for them, but since you deliberately deprived them of that ability, they can only do so much. So many fucking idiots in this country thought they were "encouraging" Democrats to do what they wanted by taking away their ability to do anything.
I did vote for them. I've voted for them every election I've been able to participate in. I've been rewarded with jack shit for my efforts. Biden didn't root out the fascists when he had the chance and now we're fucked.
Good for you, NOT ENOUGH people did. That's why they're in this situation. You're mad at them for not doing the impossible because you personally voted for them. That is goddamn ridiculous. And now you're spreading misinformation and downplaying what they're trying to do in their limited capacity.
What the fuck does that even mean? We're fucked because a huge portion of likely Democratic voters either were stupid enough to believe Trump's lies or stupid enough to think they can "punish" Democrats to get what they want.
Democrats beat Trump in 2020 and have won a number of lesser elections but we continue to lie about them "never winning". We can see them doing exactly what we say we want them to do (hold out in standoffs) and then we criticize them "doing nothing".
I'm not saying they're perfect or I have no criticisms. I'm saying this simplistic, low-information one-size-fits-all criticism is largely inaccurate and deserves as much scrutiny as anything else.
Biden should have prosecuted Trump and everyone else who was involved after the insurrection on Jan. 6th especially after the Supreme Court gave him a blank check. If he'd had the backbone to use the power we gave him Trump wouldn't have been an option in the next election.
Democrats winning doesn't mean shit if they don't achieve anything while in office. They keep playing nice when they should be using all the readily available dirt to bury their opponents (and anyone in their own party that doesn't tow the line). Having the moral high ground doesn't mean shit when people are having their lives ruined and dying.
I don't think you understand what the DNC is...
Like, just for shits and giggles, tell me what you believe the DNC should be doing right now. And I'll probably take the two minute to explain why that has nothing to do with the DNC as an organization.
What if we didn't do that and instead you just shut the fuck up
Then you wouldn't understand how our political system works...
And people not understanding how our political system works, is why shit is so fucked right now...
So...
Shit will continue to get worse and more people will literally die.
Because of your willfully ignorance and need for anyone that helps you to care more about your feelings than correcting your defiencies
And everyone else gets to see that you value personal pride more than the literal lives of other humans.
Especially since you just saw this exchange and kept at the chance to show the class...
Also, rational people are likely to just block you, and will never even attempt to explain anything to you ever again.
Up to you if that's a path you want to keep walking down with others.
tl;dr
Why would anyone care about the opinion of someone that can't read more than two sentences?
Anger and no understanding, how surprising.
This is Lemmy, the truth is as anathema here as it is in MAGA circles.
I've noticed there's a significant delay...
Browse by /new and it's pretty decent
However there seems to be a lot of accounts that show in threads days later to try and pick fights.
Those accounts almost never seem interested in understanding. They're just running around trying to start as many arguments as they can hoping someone bites
I'm not here often enough to have observed that. I am here often enough to see a lot of misleading comments pushing a predictable narrative.
Mandami's political positions are closer to the center than any of the Market liberal corpratists that run the Democratic party.
True, but only because the Democratic party is so far to the right.
Well, sort of. It's a giant ball of stupid to think what works in NYC will automatically work in any of the flyover states. If you come to the South and tell people you'll make their lives better, they'll hate you for it on principle. I do not think running a socialist ticket in Tennessee or Texas or even Iowa and Utah is going to work. We might find that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work, which is why the Republicans haven't been doing that in the decades they've been dominating and stealing.
That's true, but it's also slightly too specific. The point is that the right social programs matter. Create them and you can get votes, if you do it right... Or, do whatever Hillary was trying to do, and get nothing.
conservatives have always been on WELFARE programs, but they dont see it that way, thats the problem.
Is real.
Do you really think centrist folks exists??
Neo-libs unironically advocate for centrism like it's a tangible policy and not a cop out.
You don't know what "neo-lib" means. It's a buzzword.
Neo-lib means focusing on free trade and privatization under the guise of liberalism.
A kit of people are under the impression that the middle of fascism and not-fascism is a happy place
Who do you think Harris supporters are?
In Europe he'd be center left
Dems have to ditch their addiction to AIPAC and corpo money.
Otherwise their fucked.
That particular pathway exists in some parts of the USA, such as NYC, but certainly does not work for many other parts. That said, I'd say nearly all voters are sick of status quo corporatism and "controlled opposition".
I suppose I am something of a centrist democrat. However I take that moniker in place of the aggressive Overton Window shifts that have occurred over the last decade. I do not find the Hyper Modernist shift acceptable as they are far more libertarian than they understand. I am more comfortable with Socialist policy, leadership, and approach. I like collectivist communal lifestyles but anything that divulges to communism has become a wearying conversation.
So I feel rather centrist, almost grilling .
Yea, it's very comfortable shouting this from the bluest state in the country lol. NYC is not Iowa or Maine
Mamdani won in NYC. His experience cannot be directly applied to the entire country.
Governor of Virginia wouldn't have won on Mamdani's policies.
We really need to stop being such single-minded idiots.
This is literally Chuck Schumer loser propaganda, stop repeating it. All it took to get conservative Maine to abandon Republicans was to put a rustic white male face on dem soc policy (Turned out the rustic white male was a rapist, so let's maybe be careful about future rustic white male selection). Talarico is wildly and authentically popular in Texas. Working class policy can win everywhere, so long as voters can see themselves in the candidate.
No, it's reality. Don't try to hit me with your dumbass boogeyman bullshit. My opinion doesn't come from Schumer, it comes from understanding the the heavily democratic, urban constituency of NYC is NOT THE FUCKING SAME as everywhere else in the country. Only an absolute moron could possibly believe that.
Also, it's pretty pathetic to see "progressives" give up on social issues altogether. You encouraging the abandonment of minorities, gay people, transgender people etc is sickening. Keep your phoney version of "morality" to yourself.
Who? Mamdani marched in the pride parade last month
No, I wasn't talking to Mamdani on this message board. I was talking to the "progressive" who advocated we drop social issues and focus only on economic ones.
I never said anything about dropping social issues, you brought "giving up on social issues" as a separate complaint in your reply to me and I ignored it for being disingenuous bait. It's still disingenuous bait, nobody in US politics fights for social issues harder than a dem soc, because social issues are inseparable from economic issues.
Who do you think would fight harder for social issue? Kamala Harris or AOC? Karen Bass or Zohran Mamdani? Haley Stevens or Abdul El-Sayed?
You're full of shit if you think dem socs are weak on social issues.
Have you ever lived in NYC? It's not an outlier for US politics in any manner. The immigrants trend conservative, as immigrants in the US often do. There are many entire neighborhoods that are deep red enclaves (Orthodox, conservative immigrant communities, cop / firefighter communities like City Island / Seaside / Staten Island). Multiple NYC mayors have been Republicans, one of them was RUDOLF FUCKING GIULIANI. It's the beating heart of global capitalism. Mamdani came out of NYC's most progressive / leftist region of northeast Brooklyn and western Queens and would have never been elected mayor if he hadn't found a way to communicate working class values to the entire swath of US political identities.
You can repeat his success anywhere in the US if you combine his platform with a relatable local identity and a strong ground campaign. Sorry if that freaks you out, it really shouldn't.
Or we can stop pretending that what works on the NYC constituency will work on the entire country. We can ALSO stop pretending that Mamdani is the only type of Democrat to win an election - which again, he did in a race the Democrat candidate was heavily favored to win. NYC electing a Republican mayor in the Trump era is ridiculous. It just would not happen.
Giuliana back then was NOT the Trump-era dingbat he became.
I'm so tired of this "one-size-fits-all" lazy bullshit. Democrats are generally friendlier to workers' rights than Republicans, that's really not arguable. Yet, these people are voting against their own interests. Which means Republicans are gaining ground with their culture war bullshit. That's why Democrats have lost when they did because even if they do support collective bargaining, workers' rights or higher minimum wage people STILL vote for Republicans because of their culture war nonsense.
The economy was undoubtedly better under Biden than it was under Trump and we STILL have to hear this bullshit that about Democrats are the "real" enemy.
What "freaks me out" is losing control on this country entirely, which you is what will happen if we continue to be inflexible dumbasses who demand absolute purity "or else".
It's hard to follow the disperate threads of your rant here but your core argument seems to still be that a working class agenda can't win in the majority of the US, which is just wrong. And elsewhere in this thread you're associating dem soc working class politics with an abandonment of social issues, which is also just wrong.
If the rise of a cohesive left politics in this country truly worries you I wouldn't fret, I'm sure the DNC and Israel will still be generating corporatist ghouls for you to enthusiastically pull their lever, for many more years to come.
Abigail Spanberger won a tight race against an overt fascist without endorsements from any of the most powerful political blocs in virginia, like the UMWA, USW, UAW, or CWA. she also ran virtually unopposed in the democratic primary. she is not an example of someone who won because of the value of centrist politics. she's currently wildly unpopular for vetoing populist left wing bills from the long session (60 days) without providing input during the session about what she wanted. the next, and final session of this legislature is a short session (30 days) and none of the legislaters knew what she wants or needs to pass environmental protections, labor protections, or affordability measures as Virginia experiences a housing crisis.
so.
no.
this is not a good counter example to Mamdani, but instead a good example of exactly why no one trusts corporate dems or ex-CIA agents
Didn't seem to have much issues trusting them in 2020.
Oh I forgot, we're not supposed to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit the narrative. I guess 83 million people is "no one". The standard leftist excuse for a moderate winning is that "they didn't win by enough".
Anyone who thinks the NYC constituency is the same as the entire country is a delusional fucking moron. That's a completely indefensible argument that has no basis in reality. It's just stubborn hubris from people who think they can "punish" their way into geting what they want by actively harming the causes they pretend to care about.
Spanberger won a tight race.
She lacked endorsements from UMWA, USW, UAW or CWA:
She ran virtually unopposed in the Democratic primary
She isn’t evidence of the value of centrist politics
She’s currently wildly unpopular.
She vetoed populist left-wing bills.
She provided no input, and legislators didn’t know what she wanted
The "session" shit is ridiculous to begin with. They only meet for 30 days on odd numbered years? That's supposed to be enough time to go from introducing a bill to passing it? In any event, as stated above, the administration did chime in on the considered legislation over 100 times.
Why am I not surprised to see such a misleading comment from a supposed "leftist"? You contribute to this "post fact" bullshit just as much as the right does.
Spanberger didn't run for Congress is 2024 because she intended to run for governor in 2025. The lack of other primary candidates is obvious evidence of a party clearing the path for their chosen candidate.
No, that's paranoid delusional bullshit based on nothing. That IS NOT "obvious" evidence that there was some official "clearing the path" the disincluded more Progressive options. The only thing it's evidence of is that no Progressive candidate stood up and tried to run.
The misinformation is fucking ENDLESS with you guys. It's like you don't even remotely care if what you say is true or not.
A lot of what you're arguing is tangential to what I was trying to say, but I'll still go through it.
Love Mamdani, but we can't pretend the things he campaigned on and is accomplishing in NYC would work everywhere, especially battleground states. Not saying the move is to pivot to the center/right, but we have to be realistic...
FDR populism was supported by farmers. Just don't push social policies and stick with economics.
You heard it here first, "fuck minorites, gay people, transgendered people etc." is the new position of "progressives".
They have to maintain this delusion around here. They refuse to believe that their preferred policies aren't secretly loved by everyone.
For goodness sake, just look at how NYC precincts voted in 2024
In a place where Harris posted lots of +80, +90 precincts (I think the closest on the actual island is +35 or so) and would've won in a landslide yes, we've found a way to barely win an election and keep us happy in our echo chambers.
The American left has a big problem with purity testing, and it's going to come for Mamdani soon. He's still in the honeymoon phase, it's been only 7 or so months since he took office. Give it another year or two, and this guy is going to be ripped to shreds by all the people praising him now. They'll hate him just like how all the left hate Obama now even though they loved him when he was still new.
The current career path of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shows there's another way. At worst, she had to knuckle under to Nancy Pelosi regarding a bill about Israel and change a no vote to present, but still seems to be walking the path.
At this point it looks like she's working to become presidential material. She's old enough to run for president now.
America voting in a woman and a latina at the same time? That's the cope y'all need
That is a different subject, but Harris is a woman and black which was an even harder sell.
Harris got about half the votes in 2024. It wasn't a MAGA mandate as Trump insists.
And her campaign missteps were Israel and courting the right while people were still hurting from the economy. She also was at a disadvantage due to Biden's resignation from the race and the lack of a primary.
The voters who don't like women and non-whites are already Trump loyalists, and will stay that way even as their kids starve.
From what I see here, it's folly to run a centrist neoliberal Democrat. Those who care about platform want something bold, progressive and public-serving. Those who don't care about platform vote Republican.
Something tells me he won't be bailing out bankers and wallstreet with taxpayer money either.
Then your intuition is just wrong. People seem to forget that Obama ran a very successful campaign in 2008 on being anti-war and making economic reforms. For the first 2-3 years he was everybody's darling, but then as time went on, he started having more and more establishment based positions and people started turning on him even though he still had a decent amount of good policies in his second term.
Mamdani is brand new to politics. This is his first public office and he's only held it for 7 months. Even though it's NYC, he's still only a mayor and he has no control over foreign policy. Regardless, the point I was making is that as time goes on, he's going to be like Obama in the sense that he'll become the new establishment and he's bound to have positions at some point that will contradict the mainstream progressive left and have the same people glazing him now turn on him and hate him like he's the anti-christ, even if a good amount of his policies remain progressive.
That's the way it's been for the left in this country. If you still think Obama is bad comparison for whatever reason, you can swap him out with AOC, and the point will still stand.
Obama ran on being anti-war and broke that promise.
Mamdani is keeping his campaign promises, thus the article we are responding to.
The problem with politicians on the left is that they actually get called out for their lies by their constituents.
Excuse me sir, I've hated Obama since the first drone flew. There are dozens of us!
It's funny how people say democrats should copy his performative stuff. Any other Democrat, who isn't DSA adjacent, would get memed out of office.
Get a DSA candidate elected in a purple district and you can talk. This is so dumb.
I hope people are reading the DSA manifesto because the principles in it are not American and Democrats are delusional if they think a majority of Americans will vote for this. The downsides of capitalism have been apparent for some time but this isn't the solution.
What works in NYC against Andrew Cuomo isn’t going to work in middle America.
First of all, bullshit.
Second, neoliberalism demonstrably has already failed to work in middle America, yet the Democratic Party is too fucking cowardly and corrupt to even be willing to try the alternative.
Come on, Americans have been fed propaganda against communism and socialism for at least a hundred years now.
Counterpoint: Americans are so fed up with neoliberalism and late-stage capitalism (whether they think of it in those terms or not) that they were willing to vote for Donald Trump, of all people! They are clearly desperate for something, anything different, which means even a scary boogeyman "socialist" has an infinitely better chance than an economic-status-quo Democrat.
Call it the golden rule party and you have your first start.
Yeah, middle America hates it when things work.
Exactly. Mamdami pulled off a win in one of the more liberal cities in America.
It's like saying Ron DeSantis has given Republicane am exact pathway on how to win elections and keep voters happy.
New York is one of the more liberal cities? Three names: Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, and Eric Adams (has been a Republican).
Meanwhile, Houston has had a Democrat in office since 1982. Chicago? Since 1931. Milwaukee's most popular mayor (Daniel Hoan) was a socialist.
Read about the tickets on which they ran. Blomberg ran on a ticket not dissimilar to Mandami, Giuliani was elected during a massive rise in crime (and watched it plummet) and Eric Adams won as a democrat.
You could also look at the city precinct votes in the election, huge swathes were Kamala +80 which is absurd. On the island itself, I can't find a district lower than Kamala at +35.
So yes, we've found the winning ticket in a place that would've elected Kamala by a landslide, why on Earth would we think that is an example for the country.
Those are pretty typical numbers for cities. That doesn't indicate that NYC is unusually liberal.
... And yet trump won the popular vote.
So why on Earth can anyone say with a straight face "Mamdani has given an exact pathway on how to win elections."
Unless they only mean municipal elections, which is not at all what OP is implying.
Mainly because he's doing something markedly different than the politics that lost the 2024 election for Harris. He's showed that politics isn't the simplistic, one-dimensional left-right spectrum that Democrats seem to cling to. Specifically, he's promised a government that works for people, and delivered. It's not hard to see why people will actually come out and vote for that over the "we can't do anything, but chip in some more" messaging.
You liking what Mamdani is doing does not mean it is a path to electoral victory.
Mamdani's margin was much smaller than Harris's, what is the evidence that he's suddenly significantly more popular than when he barely won?
Edit: rephrased from count to margin (pres election should have a higher turnout)
"keep voters happy" aka being part of the plan, mamdani is a plant to stop an actual leftist revo
I mean, if Mandani is a centrist plant, then I welcome our centrist good government overlords.
not good, he'll return to the center eventually to restore todays status quo. he's just wearing a mask for now
He said he’d do X. People voted him to do X. He’s doing X.
What is your actual problem with the guy? “He might do Y”, where Y is what you would be getting with any other candidate anyway, seems like a weird thing to worry about.
But but everyone else said X can't be done, and he did X, what kind of monster is he?
hes only doin x for now. the bourgeoisie are playing the long game here man, nothing short of a full communist revo will stop capitalist pigs
Do you have a rifle ready to fight that fight? Do you even live here? Or is it just fun to wish for blood in someone else's streets?
This is the dumbest shit I've read all week. The bourgeoisie already had their game locked down. That's why they wanted Cuomo and after Mamdani beat him once the bourgeoisie still backed Cuomo in hopes of the second time going differently.
The bourgeoisie didn't need Mamdani to get what they want. Of they wanted to use Mamdani as an example that left populist policies don't work then Mamdani shouldn't be winning this much. If Mamdani does X and then in the future becomes Y then nobody is going to think socialism is a failure, they're going to view Mamdani as a traitor the same way they view Fetterman as a traitor.
You have to sniff some heavy duty conspiracy glue to believe Mamdani is some kind of a capitalist plant. It's far more likely you've been radicalized to a point where anything less than a full blown revolution is not a step in the right direction. That's not healthy.
.ml
also, ok, what happened to sinema, what's gonna happen to fetterman, etc. even in your made up hypothetical there's a very easy solution that everyone here except you can see because it is real and it happened
it isn't in state and revolution but it is in observable reality
Proof?
have ya heard of cointelpro out of the cia? do you think they stopped?
COINTELPRO was an FBI operation. If you’re going to spout conspiracy theory bullshit at least get the actual facts correct.
so i mistyped, its still far from a "conspiracy"
God damnit! Listen you little punk, I’ve done way cooler shit then that wack ass FBI shit. Don’t fucking put that lame shit on me.
To be fair, that was FDR's plan with the New Deal. During the Great Depression, despite all the red-scare propaganda that project over there in the east was starting to look really interesting to all the folks on the ground. Hoover had spent his presidency listening to his industrialist buddies telling him everything is fine.
The whole point of the New Deal was to introduce a whole bunch of socialism, a bunch of government projects that needed jobs, and a bunch of safety nets to keep people from
starvingdying of malnutrition eating flour paste. It was to stop a revolution and a rise into a communist state, because a lot of folk were very aware how capitalism wasn't doing it for them. FDR didn't want to create a state of actual equality and inclusion, but preserve the social contract a bit longer.Hoover's industrialist buddies didn't take this lying down. Since then they've been upping their propaganda game, and then James W. Fifield Jr. provided a new version of Christianity that minimized all the enrich the poor, feed the hungry, heal the sick stuff that became the foundation of modern fundamentalism and white Christian nationalism.
We have old industrialists, new tech guys, but an awful lot of billionaires that made their ill gotten gains via MLMs, megachurches, government contracts, and big box markets using their capital advantage to price out competition (Amazon and Walmart. What they did is illegal, but no one is enforcing antitrust law.) So the nouveau riche of the 21st century produced less and cheated more to get to the top, and surpassed the old rich by orders of magnitude. And they have no conscience or morals to speak of.
Curiously, this is exactly what Marx said would happen in Das Kapital.