Politico reports that at a Hamptons fundraiser last Saturday, Cuomo told his well-heeled supporters that, contrary to all available evidence, he could win the New York mayoral race as an independent—because he was likely to have the implicit support of President Donald Trump.
The imperative of defeating Mamdani justified the new coalition Cuomo is trying to create of his die-hard loyalists (who are Democrats) with Trump Republicans.
Some of that latter group might be tempted to back Curtis Sliwa, the actual GOP nominee in the race. Cuomo told these donors, “We can minimize [the Sliwa] vote, because he’ll never be a serious candidate. And Trump himself, as well as top Republicans, will say the goal is to stop Mamdani. And you’ll be wasting your vote on Sliwa.” Cuomo went on to emphasize that he’d be a mayor who could find common ground with Trump:
This is why the Democratic party stinks. Just cynical assholes only loyal to power.
You think Gavan Newsom is different?
No wonder you Americans are fucked, you demand that democrats step up and hit back at trump and the moment one does, you guys shit on him and tear him down. Enjoy more trump i guess, since you clearly think he’s better than Newson
They’re raised on a steady diet of propaganda that says that they’re the Greatest Country in the World, with a perfect democracy created by visionary prophets who understood the whole of human history back in the late 18th century. Therefore, whenever they’re forced to confront the fact that that isn’t the case, they rationalize things by assuming that the present state of affairs is just an anomaly and that the perfect candidate is just around the corner who’ll win universal support and usher in a new golden age.
They’re incapable of understanding the idea that, when things are fucked, you’re going to have to go through a long path consisting of several stages of not-quite-as-fucked before things become good.
You should really research Newsom some more. One example is that he hangs out with, and a gives a platform to, Charlie Kirk on his podcast but there are far worse things, too.
Newsom is not the guy.
Why research when you can just vote blue no matter who, as they platform fascists and treat the poor like dirt?
Always glad to see Eugene Debbs still haunting the fascists and its enablers.
The critical failure of “vote blue no matter who” is that many of those who run under the blue banner are actually just opportunistic Republicans who happen to live in blue states or districts. They’re Republicans who can’t get elected running as their true selves, so they lie and pretend to be Democrats. And then you do vote for them, because “blue no matter who.” And then they corrupt the party from the inside, and deliberately make it harder for Democrats to win in the future. Remember, these people aren’t actually Democrats. They don’t want the Democratic Party or Democratic values or goals to succeed. They’re just a bunch of cynical Republicans pulling one over on the Democratic base.
The problem with “blue no matter who” is that it has no way to address outright fraudsters. You’re electing ‘Democrats’ who literally want the Democratic party to fail.
“Blue no matter who” is a response to the republicans who just fall in line and vote for any ®. This is a way to suggest that anyone running as a democrat is better than someone running as a republican. Sure, a “DINO” or closet fascist is not a great option, but an out fascist is likely worse.
‘Blue no matter who’ is also an easy way to guide less-informed voters: fill in the circle, check the box, etc, next to the (D).
The real work, though, needs to happen earlier. This is where we address fraudsters. Be involved in primaries and kick these assholes out of office if they don’t live up. Find candidates who will actually work for us and get them on the ballot – and then the ‘blue no matter who’ will get them votes from the people who are not paying as much attention.
Diminishing the impact of the phrase only hurts our cause. If you see democratic politicians who are not living up, then find people to replace them.
You’re missing the point I think. People want better politicians, Democrats are better than Republicans meaningfully but not so meaningfully that they could fix the issues we’re seeing in society. People like Cuomo and Newson are just power hungry people, who may be better than Trump but the people won’t be satisfied with replacing their turd sandwich with ultra processed fast food, they want a healthy nutritious meal. Newson is fast food, it’s a meaningful step up from turd sandwich but it won’t fix the American diet.
It’s Germany being upset at the traffic light coalition and then electing Merz. They went from one back stabbing party to unhealthy and destructive fast food. This will only upset people enough to eventually elect their version of a turd sandwich - the AFD.
You’re missing the point. If we don’t back the imperfection in this FPTP system and then pass meaningful reforms the which we haven’t had enough senators to do in over 10 years, we’re going to end up in a racist theocratic dictatorship which will make even something as horrible as China or Russia blush. The world will devolve into war which will leave hundreds of millions in perpetual suffering. The rich elite are the only people benefiting from this downfall.
People want something better than Democrats? Then we’re all going to fucking die.
deleted by creator
You’re missing the point. If we don’t back the imperfection in this FPTP system and then pass meaningful reforms the which we haven’t had enough senators to do in over 10 years, we’re going to end up in a racist theocratic dictatorship which will make even something as horrible as China or Russia blush.
Well, we can pre-blame the voters for not liking what Democrats continue to sell, just like we blame the left for Kamala’s decision to court Republican voters instead of Democrat voters, or we could recognize that I guess Newsom’s got a very generous four years ahead to make himself an attractive choice on the basis of being something more than just not Trump and yet more warnings about the end of the world as we know it. (Which, by the way, I completely agree is happening-edit:the end of the world, not Newsom making himself attractive in more ways than that)
Maybe modified maga AI memes will be all it takes for enough people. I’m not that enthused by just aping what maga does, but it seems like a lot of people are. The gerrymandering thing is good, but it’s also a slam dunk because he’s fucking with Abbot and Trump, so let’s see if he abandons less safe positions or shows he’ll fight for any of them.
I do blame people who chose not to vote for Kamala. I really do. Blood on their hands.
This should have been the easiest fucking choice and they blew it.
This should have been the easiest fucking choice and they blew it.
Totally agreed. But do I blame them? No, I fucking get it. They need to own that they contributed in some way to what’s going on, but that doesn’t mean I don’t get it.
So do you want to blame them again next time, or would you rather kick D in the ass so they stop running the 2016 and earlier playbook?
I’m not voting for R-lite again, and for whatever small degree of difference there is between the two, I’m not voting 2016-era-D again either.
It’s their job to show me they support my values, not my job to convince myself they do, then hope I’m right. I’ve been voting that way for decades and I’m done with it.
Conservatives and centrists already elected modern Hitler. There’s no bigger bogeyman to hang in front of us next time. It’s time for D to be actual opposition. Time to stop ignoring progressives except to blame them for their own failure to evolve. Time to admit they’ve got a lot of people still in power who haven’t been able to relate to most of the electorate for thirty years, and many of them are in those positions because of nothing but internal power brokerage and politicking. Otherwise D better hope there’s enough non-crazy R and conservative D left to keep them in power on their own, if they still plan on winning elections fair and square. The pool of people who are about done with the old ways and the oligarchs isn’t shrinking, it’s getting bigger.
I blame them. Blood on their hands. I don’t pretend to understand any reasoning behind it besides pure ignorance.
I think the people you are talking to do understand this point, they just want to have a tantrum about it, and someone to blame.
you’re fucked too to suggest people should vote non-republican, and then bitch when people vote for a true progressive.
I think you’re confused and lost
you’re the one who is confused and lost here. I don’t have a skin in the game. It’s quite clear to me what liberals are doing and it’s neither honest or decent.
Loyalty to the “lesser of two-evils” is worthless if one of the evils defers to the other.
You’re hysterical
Nope just explaining why you are wrong.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How.much has changed from doing something?
deleted by creator
Idk what you mean by “you people”. I’m pointing out that doing the same thing that’s repeatedly failed and expecting it to not fail is really stupid.
deleted by creator
Harris won my state. I could have voted dozens of times and it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
deleted by creator
You’re part of the problem.
It’s a two-pronged strategy.
deleted by creator
The fuck… the two-pronged strategy is to funnel as much as wealth possible to the those who already have it.
That’s better than… no strategy to funnel as much wealth as possible to those who already have it?
Like I said, I used to think useful idiots were rare.
deleted by creator
Nope, Newsom vetoes progressive voter referendums all the time in deference to established power and corporations. Just look at what happens in Cali when power companies are at fault for massive wildfires due to negligent equipment/line upkeep…
The state has the 4th largest economy in the world, and yet simultaneously has incredible wealth disparity, a crisis of unhoused people and untreated mental health issues with no affordable/free housing in sight, and crumbling roads/infrastructure everywhere. It is not well run.
So yeah, Newsom wouldn’t be my first pick based on substance. But on style, yes, he’s fighting fire with fire. Hell, he’s simply just doing something to fight, and myself and many others love to see it. More of this from all Dems please, especially those who aren’t full on corporate shills. AOC - now is your time to step up, let’s go!
Im glad somebody is fighting trump, but good lord i do not want California to become the blueprint for America. Driving along the PCH from avocado farms in Oxnard to Malibu and seeing the sick fucking filth that is the California wealthy right next to the migrant workers they exploit is in my top 5 “most disturbing things ive ever experienced.” That is taking into account that I used to work on strategic bombers and I know in gruesome detail what a 2000 lb bomb does to a human body. Newsom is a bitter poison pill whose voting record shows that he basically agrees with Trump across the board, and his imitation of trump is barely even ironic. He’s always imitated trump in terms of policy.
You need to visit South Africa to see the wealthy and poor.
It being further away from the source doesn’t make other states less exploitative.
Well said.
Just adding my 2c - in my top 3 most disturbing was a work trip to San Francisco, and witnessing the mega wealthy tech moguls juxtaposed with the poor destitute souls begging on the street. It’s just wrong, and something about how it works in Cali is just so in your face. Made me sick and never wanted to visit there again.
seeing the sick fucking filth that is the California wealthy right next to the migrant workers they exploit is in my top 5 “most disturbing things ive ever experienced.”
I traveled to Thailand once for a work related meeting in the oughts.
I stayed in a pretty nice hotel that they booked for me. Nicer than anything I’d have paid for with my own money, or probably ever have.
From the window of my room I could see that at the edge of the parking lot for the hotel was the tallish wall I’d seen, and then (if memory serves) there wasn’t even a single row of transition. It was straight to shanties with roofs that looked put together with scrap, etc etc etc.
Maybe it wasn’t quite District 9 / Elysium over there, but the contrast was like that.
I came away from that moment looking out the window with some very similar feelings. (Then of course shrugged it off and went about doing what I had to do in fear of having to live like that myself…)
TBF if I were homeless I could live in cali, I would be left to die in most other states.
Well yeah, you ever had to sleep outside in a Midwestern winter? I was lucky I had a car to sleep in, but if it was going to be a regular thing I mightve up and went to cali myself.
Depends on the part of California we’re talking about. Not all of it is LA weather
would be left to die in most other states.
Yeah you sure about that? Gavin been on a crusade to do exactly that in California.
https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/aclu-report-californias-war-unhoused-people
That article says like 28 times that these actions are by communities and innercity municipalities yet somehow your reaction is “tHe GuVneR DeeD THIs”
Because he’s continuously attacking them…
And directing the communities to do exactly that.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/07/23/governor-newsom-announces-local-progress-in-reducing-homelessness/
And he fucking ran on getting rid of the homeless
Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco, made tackling homelessness a priority of his administration when he took office in 2019 and since then, Democratic leaders in the state have also moved toward cracking down on encampments.
And surprise surprise, he escalated after courts said it was okay to do.
His declaration comes a year after the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for officials to ban homeless people from camping outside. It was a ruling welcomed by many Democratic leaders, including Newsom, despite pushback from advocates for homeless people who objected to the decision by the conservative court as cruel.
The only Legislation Newsom has signed involving homelessness is expanding the number of shelter beds available.
He ran on getting rid of them and does the trump thing of just suggesting they do the dirty work for him.
Gov. Gavin Newsom told California cities this week that there “were no more excuses” for homeless encampments, a message he has repeated often over the years with little success.
who will rid me of these terrible homeless people, I will surely do more if no one rids me of them
But since he’s a dem you’re perfectly fine with anything awful he does or campaigns on
Amazing how he can just selectively read and then just be wrong even about the stuff he “read”.
Our representatives don’t represent us.
Those people that you get up in arms in online arguments defending? They’re put there by the ruling class to take advantage of your ignorance.
The people who actually want to solve these problems are people we’ve never heard of because the ruling class makes sure they get no recognition.
I’d say about 1-2% of votes go towards politicians that fight for the working class.
Newsom is only different in the sense his constituents won’t stand for this sort of thing.
I hope New York proves they won’t, either.
New Yorkers love robber barons and maximizing profit at every turn.
Why would we expect them to get angry at businesspeople enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else if that’s what they all want to do?
trying to hitch a ride on the bandwagon
Hey, scratch a liberal and all…
Cuomo’s career peaked in the 90s, started way back when Dems were conservative. He has never been a liberal.
Hey, that’s when Democrats only started nominating the Clinton-crew for presidencies!
Via democratic primary election.
Whose outcome cannot be manipulated at all.
And yet somehow any such manipulation aside from “guy in the party said he doesn’t like option B” goes completely unrevealed for decades.
I can tell your brain is fried from social media.
Wow what a thorough deepdive into the hidden events of the 2016 election. You clearly knew what you were talking about aside from tribalistic emotions.
“Cuomo went on to emphasize that he’d be a mayor who could find common ground with Trump.”
No. You can’t. Unless your lips become orange, you can’t. So stop trying.
What a terrible way to campaign lol.
People across the political spectrum can’t conceive of such a corrupt demented sociopath having any sway at all much less leading the country so their brains default to him being sort of normal just so they can process the world.
The democratic party, where fascism is better than welfare and empathy.
DeMoCraTz LoVe tRuMp!!1
More like they prefer Trump who shares their class interests to someone who may not even if they do have disagreements with Trump.
How many Democratic voters do you know? Are they all billionaires?
deleted by creator
Not voters but the politicians and their donors and lobbyists who drive and shape policy yes. Your statement could apply equally to Republicans for example to show how irrelevant it is.
It’s not my statement, it’s your statement, so if it’s irrelevant then you fucked up.
What are you on about here? It’s clear they talked about the Democratic Party (not the voters) the entire time
Democrats?
deleted by creator
They don’t seem to try that hard to win.
They really hate trying
Cuomo is third party / independent.
After failing in the Democratic primary. New York is one of only two states where politicians who lose in a primary are able to immediately run in the same election under a different party.
Yes, but the point is that the party’s official candidate is not Cuomo. Some hypocritical Democrats have gone for Cuomo, but by definition they are backing an independent against the Democrat candidate.
If you back Mamdani, his primary win and hypothetical mayoral win can be seen as the majority of the party getting what they want and shifting the party against the preference of some others. It exhibits the possibility that the people can, in fact, drive change in the party. Just like Trump pushed the republican party in a particularly way.
After the Democrats (voters) specifically said no to Cuomo.
deleted by creator
Have fun in your feelings I guess, but that doesn’t change that Trump still would have won if everyone voted. There isn’t some group of people that could have turned the tide but withheld their vote to punish you, specifically. More people wanted Trump and that’s why he won.
Come to terms with the fact this isn’t a problem you can solve by berating and screaming at the people who already know Trump sucks. American society needs to do the long, hard work of actually confronting racism and fascism on the personal as well as the societal level.
Or do what makes you feel good regardless of what the facts show, I’m not a cop.
deleted by creator
ninety one MILLION people
All adults eligible for voting, right?
deleted by creator
I’ll be happy to continue the conversation when you read the article.
If you have data better than Pew’s post election analysis, present it.
deleted by creator
Articles come with dates. You’ll notice that 2025 is after 2024.
A CBS poll also isn’t as thorough as Pew.
deleted by creator
Have you kept up with the times? Republicans perform better with low-information and low-engagement voters. In elections with lower turnouts, Democrats do better.
This may seem shocking if you’re used to politics of earlier decades. It wasn’t long ago that Democrats did better in higher turnout elections. But that was when Democrats had more working-class appeal. Now Democrats focus on winning the suburban professional classes and simply hope that turnout is low enough among working class voters that they’ll be able to inch over the finish line on the college-educated vote.
So really, if Democrats do better the lower the turnout is, why in the Hell would you expect them to win an election with a 100% voter turnout? If anything that would trigger a Republican landslide.
You are saying all those 90 million would have voted Kamala? Dude you are delulu
deleted by creator
You are saying all those 90 million would have voted Kamala?
Y’all need to learn how to read.
What are you on about? You want us to vote Cuomo? He isn’t even running as Democrat.
And people are voting for Zohran, who is a Democrat. Is that not what you want? Are you alright?
I would think it’s about the broader sentiment.
Even when the party formally accepts a progressive candidate as the primary victor and some folks go independent, they still blame the Democrat party for Cuomo’s sore losing.
The NCY dems may have nominated him, but the national party has been absolutely lothe to accept him.
Instead of backing their candidate, democrats have been undermining Mamdani with accusations of antisemitism.
Hell, because of the success of Mamdani, the Minneapolis dems just rescinded their nomination for Fateh over some bullshit procedural objections and now they dont even have a candidate on the ticket.
Their fingerprints are all over this.
Keep in mind that the DFL that withdrew their endorsement hadn’t previously endorsed a Minneapolis mayor in 16 years. Again, maybe not great, but it’s an endorsement that hasn’t been a part of that race for 16 years.
More evidence that the Democrats exist specifically to defeat any actual progressive candidates.
The fact that he’d rather side with fascists than democratic socialists tells you all you need to know about where he stands politically.
Everyone who voted: ???
If they could read they’d be very upset
username checks out
deleted by creator
Hello? This actually is great news! Due to the first past the post voting system, now the fascists will be split in two and have no chance of winning!!
~~https://www.vote.nyc/RankedChoiceVoting~~
NYC uses RCV for mayoral elections. he just doesn’t know how it works, or he’s intentionally being misleading to get fundraisingas @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone has rightly corrected me:
NYC only uses ranked choice for primaries and special elections.
https://www.vote.nyc/RankedChoiceVoting
New York City will use ranked choice voting for Primary and Special Elections for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President and City Council, due to an amendment in the City Charter approved by voters in 2019.
(and the actual mayoral election is a general election, so not a primary or a special election)
NYC only uses ranked choice for primaries and special elections.
you’re totally right! editing my comments :) thanks for correcting me!
Libs will suck off fascists at the drop of a hat if they think it’ll benefit them, what’s new?
damn libtards! They’re a bunch of queers!
You didn’t put the /s
Yeah, i considered an edit but it kinda took off on its own thing there.
I don’t understand why you’re downvoted. Do people completely ignore context?
They forgot the /s
Sarcasm here is too obvious to be pointed out.
I’ve met plenty of tankies who believe Librulz bad and also that lgbt dont get human rights.
It’s actually a pretty basic stance for them.
Sure, but they wouldn’t have worded it like that.
I don’t pretend they all have some minimal level of tact or subtlety, after all we ourselves certainly don’t: that dude forgot the /s.
Cause people need to stop using that term full stop. It’s not 2006 any more
It was ironically used as a means to make fun of people who use the term…
Just curious, the word you guys are fighting over us “libtards” or “queers” ?
The
priorformerEdit: am dumbass
We all are sometimes, its enough to simply admit it sometimes. Cheers 🥂🍷
I thought it was the former because the person they replied to used “suck off” as a pejorative.
Better a Liberal than a whiny, non voting tankie. Cuomo is about as liberal as John Fetterman.
No, you’re right, he is - and that’s the problem
Yeah, he is. Also you’re kind of admitting you’re cool with fascism. And I voted for your piece of shit libs that continue to do fuck all.
But because of sentiments like this millions of former DNC voters stayed home. That’s how we got here.
There is no evidence to support your shitty claim. As usual libs bitching about imaginary democratic non-voters.
Oh sorry for being such a liberal. I’m sure all my human rights advocating is such a pain for you.
deleted by creator
Why should we support a candidate who has agreed with far right people like Charlie Kirk, and has made homelessness illegal?
deleted by creator
To the surprise of no one. Did people really think this suit was a liberal? Lmao. I never saw it.
Lol. He’s as “Liberal” as most elected Democrats… That is to say that he’s a greedy, neoliberal, corporate whore; without any conviction, morals or ethics.
See like this
Where’s the lie?
What lie
To a lot of people on here “liberal” is the worst insult possible, and not in the Rush Limbaugh kind of way although that’s exactly how they use it so maybe it is.
Liberals are just right wingers who like gay rights. You’re still going to get billionaires with outsized power over society that way.
In America, all news media jams down your throat that “the left” is the liberal position; when yeah it’s left of fascism but it’s still right-of-center
In America
Where do you live?
I don’t know where they live but in my country the liberal party is one of the most right wing parties that ever got into the parliament.
That’s what I was thinking too
In America
Where do you live?
In America
And they only like gay rights if it’s “non-confrontational” “conformist” “reformist” and doesn’t bring up stuff like lgbt poverty and homelessness.
Good! That’s EXACTLY the Type of Person the Democrats need to WIN! BLUE NO MATTER WHO (UNLESS the Blue DOESNT support Trump!)!
DeMocRATs LoVe tRuMp aNd dEmeNtEd rApiNg!!1/
… He’s running independent.
Mamdani is on the democratic ticket.
And yet Democratic leaders like Hakeem Jeffries and Corey Booker won’t support or endorse Mamdani over Cuomo.
That’s the whole point of OP’s comment. We were told “vote blue no matter who” but as soon as a Muslim wins the primary then suddenly that doesn’t apply. Look at Omar Fateh, who won the primary for Minneapolis mayor and suddenly the DNC withdrew their endorsement.
A recent comment along similar lines was complaining about liberals saying primary them and then vote blue, which this is the exact case of.
So unless they want to clarify their position, I’m going to go ahead and take it as read with zero expectation of sarcasm being present. Too many are posting comments along the same lines with absolutely zero sarcasm for me to safely assume that to be the case here.
Today, so-called Lemmy “users” (or, as I am known to call them, LOSERS), very BAD PEOPLE, all of them, voted down an account which, in my estimation, may be one of the GREATEST posters on the platform. Almost, and it’s rare that I say this, better than me? Who knows, it’s possible, he’s that good. Totally UNFAIR and UNJUST, and not even the weak and powerless moderators will step in. WHO WILL END THE MADNESS? Very sad, very unfair and very RIDICULOUS situation!
SAD!
EDIT:THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER
Almost down voted you. That was subtle
Shocked
Are we all going to sing kumbaya my lord around the legacy of Bush, and how he is just a sweet old grandpa, and run a campaign with Cheneys again? No? Just full on Trumpism this round, eh?
I don’t really understand what you’re saying, are you implying the DNC Candidate Mamdani should try to capture the moderates away from Cuomo? That’s really stupid, the DNC are absolutely mopping the floor with independent Cuomo with the current strategy, we shouldn’t change course.
My criticisms are of Cuomo. I feel that’s rather clear. The Democratic Party did a whole song and dance and was in an absolute negative uproar over Mamdani defeating their establishment candidates. Not sure where you’ve been? You can consider the DNC acceptance of Mamdani reluctant at best. Lending the DNC credit for his success is wild imo.
Bill Clinton himself publicly congratulated Mamdani for winning the DNC candidacy. Cuomo is NOT a part of the DNC.
Tbh the lefties seem to be unreachable intractable lazy fuckwits who would rather scratch their ass and type insults on a tiny phone keyboard than be part of a national party that actually wins offices sometimes.
I disagree completely with ‘reaching out’ to moderates, but it’s obvious why the algorithm keeps spitting that out as a viable strategy.
Do you value "your party " “winning” or do you have actual policies you want enacted?
Well the latter isn’t going to happen without the former, right? I mean that seems pretty obvious, but I’m starting to think maybe it’s not.
If the assumption is you want policies enacted; who’s “your party”? Is it not the Democrats? Who, then?
No definitely not a pro capitalist imperialist party that represents the bourgeois. No that is not my party. If you support them despite not following “policies” you claim to support you aren’t going to "move them ".
I couldn’t disagree more, but more to the point what party do you support?
Or if you don’t support a party, what’s the big idea to get progressive policies enacted?
Please explain your strategy to address your party repeatedly blocking popular candidates, such as their massive campaign against Bernie in 2016 (who was beloved by moderates and middle classers who ultimately voted Trump) and their tireless work to block candidates like the mayoral candidate for Minneapolis or the mass attack on Mamdani in NYC (just to mention some fresh wounds)?
Not to mention using donations to vehemently block left-leaning parties with all kinds of legal action and disruptive moles while squashing any entry into their own ranks? They spend their time attacking greens and social democrats, meanwhile they break bread with racists and bigots.
If you’ve ever done any activist or grassroot work for labor, direct democracy or mutual aid/community initiatives you know democrats smile to your face and twist a dagger into your back. Trust me. I used to think it was the party of the little guy until I started brushing elbow with the big boys (and gals) at conferences and luncheons. They’re squirmy af and they will lie right to your face.
If you’re not openly advocating for change within your national party you can kindly sit tf down and let those of us who have worked directly with elected officials and their offices to talk. I’m sick of this assumption that leftists only exist online and I hate this categorization. You might as well call anyone who values their community a libtard and an “academic” when you use leftist as a slur. Some of us come right out of trade union labor frontlines and leftist is way too broad a brushstroke to slap on the dynamics of people working to better their communities.
Also, if you’ve never worked in those spaces you have no idea how complicated it is to organize people and how often they’re infiltrated by hostile parties. Dems will also siphon off people on false pretenses and try to absorb them. It’s not just a flat out failure by the left- the hurdles are massive and well funded.
I am SO OVER IT
Sounds like you already know what the strategy is.
What I’m SO OVER is dipshits who think calling a Democrat a libtard is super aware and oh so class-conscious. We get a lot of people from around the world (yay) who want to weigh in on American politics (okay) and come in swinging about “liberals” as if that isn’t what every person to the left of fucking Eisenhower was called their whole lives. (Oh you live in the PNW? Okay, not you.)
Then we get to being bourgeoise and comrade and I gotta say if you’re talking about American politics like that and you don’t understand why you can’t even get enough signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states maybe you should shut the fuck up because you’re sure as shit not helping anyone but yourself.
You wanna talk about raising the minimum wage? Cutting military spending? Restoring green energy investment? Restoring education, science, and public media funding? Great! We already agree so why are you wasting your goddamned genius PoliSci insights bitching about corrupt Democrats by lambasting them all? Fucking morons. Get your ism out of our face, we’re trying to fix what you refused to prevent last November.
Actually, the NYT published the results of an investigation last week, and it showed that in the states that track voter registration by party affiliation, democrats lost 2m voters and republicans gained 2.4m. taking into account the states that don’t track voter registration by party, that means the 6m people who didn’t vote for Kamala last fall were democrats that switched party because there isn’t a real difference between the two parties on most things, and they wanted something new.
So maybe if the democrats want to win, they can stop jumping ship and voting for fascists.
So if that’s to be believed (which, to me it looks like an enormous red flag of vote manipulation, but okay) - then 6m registered democrats decided to vote for trump instead of Kamala. And your take is if they want to run someone more progressive than Kamala those voters will vote Democrat again?
Given that progressives made a huge garment-rending show of NOT voting for Kamala, and apparently the trump-loving people registered as Democrats, who did in fact actually vote, went the other way, you’re suggesting the Dems could win by moving left, and I’m saying why would they not think the opposite?
The numbers show they can win if they move more right. The numbers are bullshit, but that’s what we’re working with. And what the DNC is working with. Run a candidate that will lose in Iowa and win in California, and will lose nationally by a lot or have a close race nationally.
Non-voting progressives are up a creek. With only a year to go til midterms.
And your take is if they want to run someone more progressive than Kamala those voters will vote Democrat again?
No, my take is that they stop trying to appeal to the fascists in their party and start adopting populist policies. Which, as the name implies, are popular. Things like universal healthcare and a bump to the minimum wage.
The democrats lost the election because their conservative members fled to the republicans. They’ll lose the next election too if they continue trying to appeal to republicans. Bitch about it all they want, nobody is responsible for that except the party and their stubborn refusal to be anything more than “republicans, but sometimes with gays”.
The democrats lost the election because their conservative members fled to the republicans.
So if they run someone more conservative, they’ll win the election. You see that, right?
Like, I’m not hoping they do that - very much the opposite - but that’s what they’re getting told by shithead consultants and that’s the “smart” play if they want to win elections.
If they run more progressive candidates, they’ll lose more voters. Because the left has just proven in the most disastrous election in anyone’s lifetime that they can not be swayed to vote Democrat no matter how dire the circumstances - in fact, the more dire, the more they dig in that they will not not help republiQans destroy everything.
Then we get to being bourgeoise and comrade and I gotta say if you’re talking about American politics like that and you don’t understand why you can’t even get enough signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states maybe you should shut the fuck up because you’re sure as shit not helping anyone but yourself.
Dude, exactly… I’d love to have a viable leftist party in this country, but that doesn’t just magically materialize.
I feel so happy to not live in the US where apparently the only choices are between a guy who wants to put me in a concentration camp and a guy that has no qualms about putting me in a concentration camp if it got him a few additional percents of votes.
Not sure what your source is for that, but no.
The guy that currently gets hyped up as a possible next democratic presidential candidate, Gavin Newsom, is a transphobic neoliberal that would gladly sell queer people out if he thought that this would help him at the polls.
Did you not vote for Harris for the same reason?
And he will put trans people in concentration camps? Really?
Why make shit up? Newsom is bad enough already.
I disagree completely with ‘reaching out’ to moderates, but it’s obvious why the algorithm keeps spitting that out as a viable strategy.
And equally obvious that it’s a strategy that has outlived its usefulness for Dems.
The more I think about this it’s increasingly clear that D is at a threeway crossroads.
A: Continue to blame voters for not buying what they are selling, and for wanting more than “Not Trump, sorry Gaza.” This is the “Let’s become the party for the Republicans that still like to use nice language for their policies of oppression, like the Cheneys and the Romneys” choice. (This is where I fully expect them to head, because it’s clearly what Kamala was told she would be ushering in, and it’s clearly why they have worked so hard against Bernie, Mamdani, AOC, etc.)
If they hold out long enough, this will probably work to buy them votes since the non-maga Republicans are going to want someplace to go eventually, and maga isn’t letting go of R. Non-maga R will see progressives becoming increasingly alienated from establishment D, listen to Cuomo (and plenty of others) talking like a Republican with D behind his name, and it will be an obvious destination for them.
We can go back to 1980 or earlier with regard to social issues and civil rights, and conservatives can declare victory.
B: Realize that anyone who could have brought themselves to vote Trump in 2024 (and frankly, in late 2020) and decided to pull the lever for him was never ever ever going to vote Kamala, no matter what she did, and for the love of god stop trying to win those voters, and instead integrate some progressive platform positions into core D principles, then fight for them instead of always falling back on the pearl-clutching about moderates who might go vote for Goebbels if we let kids get free lunches or give serious effort to police reform, or whatever badly needed improvement we’re being told has to be thrown on the altar of appeasement this week.
edit - and on the topic of appeasement, police reform seems to be the first thing a Democrat is pressured to abandon. Next will probably be Trans rights.
C: Keep doing what they are doing, be useless to everyone but centrists, and watch R dominate and destroy and tear down everything we as a nation have always claimed we believe in and replace it with what it turns out we actually believe in, which is apparently profits above all, self above others, and oppression before charity based on what I’ve seen in recent decades. We can all get tossed in a mass grave in a few decades when we can no longer do something that helps the oligarchs obtain more wealth, but that’s OK because we’ll be in production mode with no abortions and a compliant, uneducated, working class.
Edit: I realized that arguably C is potentially a fork of A, not a separate choice, but I’m leaving it anyway. It will remain true that there’s only one choice where I will vote D in the future, and also true that A and/or C are the only plausible future destinations for the country if they don’t choose B, IMO.
My Kamala vote was my last R-lite vote after far too many in my life.
deleted by creator
How can the Democrats be the chemo when they enabled Trump and Republicans?
deleted by creator
The real world example is how Democrats voted against Bernie twice.
It shows where their priorities lie, and it’s not with the working class.
To think otherwise is to be a useful idiot.
I think that your point has gotten a bit lost in the analogy for me. Like if we’re saying that the Democrats are like chemotherapy — unpleasant but necessary — in your view, what does this mean for the potential split caused by Mamdani winning the nomination and many establishment Dems seeming to have a problem with this? You seem frustrated at some of the comments in this thread, but it’s not clear to me what your issue is in particular, or what you think is the best course of action with respect to the upcoming mayoral election.
For what it’s worth, I like your analogy, and how you frame it; I think that with some refinement or clarification, it could be an effective way to deliver your point
deleted by creator
Trump is already president. Your example us flawed
Continuing your metaphor…
You have to survive chemo in order for it to kill the cancer. It’s equally killing you, you’re just hoping it kills the cancer before you die and then you’re praying you’re still strong enough to recover. Many people don’t, especially if they start from a compromised position, which we are.
I think relying on chemo alone here will ultimately end poorly. People need to be looking for other solutions and advocating LOUDLY about the negative effects that chemo is having if they hope to survive it.
And certainly ignoring the dangers of chemo and not trying to care for the damages it’s causing, is a sure fire way to die. You’re just speeding up the process of death, which I think is exactly what we’ve been watching with the Democratic Party since the end of Trump’s last term and even before.
We need alternative therapies, you can advocate for conjunctive therapies but arguing to just rely on chemo at this stage is political suicide. We’re not going to make it. And those stuck in their traditional, conservative and tribalism thinking are only speeding up the process of organ failure.
We need to be proactively looking for solutions, not relying on “it’s the best we’ve got”. We have to fight cancer. And that requires a whole approach not a single, potentially lethal, method road-blocking all others.
(PS— if anything the Dems should be learning that if they refuse to accept a shift to the left in candidates and policy (Bernie, Mamdani and socialist democrats etc.) they’re done. Not that voters have to turn into republicans because we’re too stupid to do anything else.)
no, you are wrong because you are looking at this problem using the wrong framework. no, MAGA is not cancer. MAGA is a symptom of cancer, but it’s not cancer itself. Democrats aren’t chemotherapy, in fact I would argue they are a symptom of cancer too. maybe not as pronounced, not as painful, but a symptom nonetheless.
what’s the cancer then? well, it’s the broken electoral system, it’s the two-party system that forces people to vote for the lesser of two evils. but most importantly, it’s the late stage capitalism. if we don’t get that sorted, America is facing an eventual collapse. whether Trump had won 2024 or not, that only changes how fast the cancer progresses. you are too short-sighted - 4 years don’t really matter! if we don’t actually start fighting the real cancer, in 50 years, or maybe 100, the United State of America will collapse.
deleted by creator
I think you are missing the forest for the trees here. Had we elected Kamala, we would have thwarted MAGA, there is no doubt about that. But the MAGA voter base still exists, the socio-economic circumstances that allowed Trump to be elected in our timeline would still exist. Things like that don’t just pop up overnight, it takes decades and generations, and they sure as hell won’t go away easily. Do you think if Democrats were elected, they will correctly recognize the problem and try to solve it?
(Also, to leave no doubt, personally I vote blue no matter who. But I also at the same time think that won’t really matter in the end.)
deleted by creator
Money is the cancer. Full stop
It’s really consumerism.
This person and his rhetoric are why we only get to choose politicians that fight for the ruling class.
He’s part of the two-pronged strategy, and the disparity in wealth will not decrease until there are fewer people like him.
deleted by creator
What you’re missing is that the drug you’re injecting that’s labeled “chemotherapy” might actually be a mislabeled carcinogen that will accelerate the cancer.
Politicians lie. They even lie about what party they belong to. What’s a power-hungry Republican to do if they happen to live in a solidly blue state? You can’t get elected being yourself. So instead you lie. You pretend to be a Democrat and actively lie to the voters. You join a party that you share few values with.
Once elected, you do everything possible to destroy the party from within. After all, you would prefer to be able to run openly as a Republican. You want Democrats to be electorally unpopular. So you do everything you can to make the Democratic brand as toxic as possible.
The critical failure of “blue no matter who” is that labels often lie. You may think you’re voting for a Democrat, but you’re actually voting for a Republican. And once that fake Democrat has been elected to a safe blue seat, they’ll be nearly impossible to remove due to incumbency advantage. If a fake Democrat gets the presidential nomination and wins in 2028, we’re guaranteed Republican rule until at least 2036. The 2032 election will be a contest between that fake Democrat and an open Republican; one of the two will win. By voting for the fake Democrat, you guarantee 8 years of Republican rule. If the base stayed home and refused to vote for the fake, at least there would be some nonzero chance of a non-Republican winning in 2032.
The fatal flaw of your strategy is that you assume labels mean anything. There is in fact nothing preventing people from simply lying about which party they most strongly identify with. And your voting strategy leaves you completely at the mercy of these fraudsters.
Back to your chemo example, you would be like a desperate patient randomly injecting any drug that someone told you was chemotherapy or a cure for cancer. You would be spending thousands on bogus homeopathic treatments, because, “has to be better than cancer, pick the lesser of two evils.” In the end, you actually end up dramatically shortening your life because you injected yourself with bleach, thinking that it had to be the lesser evil to the cancer.
“Vote blue no matter who” is to politics as the Steve Jobs strategy is to medicine.
deleted by creator
In your analogy, what is the treatment for blue Maga?
There isn’t one. Because the cancer is Capitalism and it is malignant. Dems are simply a different mutation of that cancer.
deleted by creator
So the people that are liking Newsom’s Trump Tweets and will vote for him regardless of his actual history as a politician aren’t real?
deleted by creator
keep fucking that chicken. I’m sure this time blue no matter who will stop capitalism. Enjoy voting Trump (D).
Removed by mod
If you think Newsom is “fighting trump” and you will vote for him no matter what, I’ve got bad news for you re: being cringe.
