Thanks for nothing Harris.
I’m a actually not that cynical of it. In her book she was critical of who the establishment in the Biden administration treated her.
Worse case is she’s endorsing him to make her self look good. But honestly I think it’s great she did endorse him. It will go a long way with causal/centrist democrats and centerist independents.
It’s kinda how I feel about corporations supporting good things. People will point out that they’re only doing it for money or whatever, but I don’t care. If they all start supporting and normalizing good things, I don’t care that it started for dumb reasons.
I studied environmental sciences in school, so the metaphor I think of is that of indicator species, which provide information about the state of an ecosystem. For example, the presence of mayflies indicates good water quality, since poor water quality disrupts part of their lifecycle. Similarly, corporations supporting good things indicates that they feel it is profitable to do so. It indicates the state of public sentiment, and I don’t see how that’s anything but good news.
Same with Harris (indirectly) endorsing Mamdani: Maybe she’s just bending with the wind, but it’s good news because of the way the wind is blowing.
good business just backs both sides, hence why media like Time will release editions with “conservative”/democrat leaning cover-arts, for specific parts of the country.
anything and everything to keep people inside their bubbles
Depends on the company, for the most part i’m with you, but if say Monsanto and Phillip Moris are backing things, it makes you ponder what you don’t know and if it’s a bad thing.
I disagree. Does only the end goal matter? Or does intention also matter?
I would argue that intent is actually more important in the long run. I could perform an act today that helps people, but if my intent wasn’t to help people, then the act will be singular. There will be no “drive” toward greater acts that help even more people. No continuous improvement. No learning from mistakes and growing. Why? Because if I don’t actually care about helping people, none of that background stuff is happening which actually moves you toward your goals in the long run
I would rather you do one act today that helps people for completely selfish reasons and never again, than have you do zero acts that help people.
What is the intent in each case? I perform one act today with selfish intent that happens to help someone, but what about tomorrow? Or the next day? Am I improving on the act to see if I can help more people tomorrow? Not with selfish intent I’m not.
Today I tried with good intention to help someone. It doesn’t work. But, my true intent is to help- so I learn from my mistake today because I genuinely care, and tomorrow I now help one person with my act. I continue to improve and grow as a person, and over the next few years, I am helping out many others and bringing joy into the lives of those around me, inspiring others to also live their lives with good intention, creating a ripple effect.
I believe that is much more important than any kind of selfish intent, no matter how much the selfish act happened to help today.
Intent matters but it’s not more important than the act itself.
Person A does a helpful act today for selfish reasons. Person B wants to help people but wants to make sure they are helping in the right way, so they don’t do anything today while they try to figure out the best way to do it. Tomorrow they both get hit by a bus.
What’s more important? That Person B had good intentions, or that Person A actually fucking helped someone?
Long term growth vs short term gain. Person B reflects and realizes they spent the day trying to be perfect, since they have good intention, and thus will reflect on their actions in an effort to improve. Next day they stop trying to be perfect and instead act.
Of course, both getting hit by a bus tomorrow makes my argument null, since it’s predicated on long term growth over short term gain. But most people aren’t getting hit by a bus tomorrow.
Person B reflects and realizes they spent the day trying to be perfect, since they have good intention, and thus will reflect on their actions in an effort to improve.
Do they? You invented a lot there about someone you don’t know.
Person B continues to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. They keep getting overwhelmed by options and never end up helping anybody.
Person A helped in order to get recognition at work. It worked and helped give that extra push that got them promoted. They continue to do this on a yearly basis despite not liking it because it makes them look good to their employer.
It can go either way, someone helping for selfish reasons might be the start of them helping for genuine reasons or might be the last time they help at all. You can’t know. I’ll still gladly take someone helping for selfish reasons than them not helping at all.
Would it be better if they had good intentions? Of course! But it would also be worse if they didn’t act at all.
Worse case is she’s going to insincerely try to take on the appearance of a progressive
But she’s just one of many figures being groomed to do this, so hopefully it just helps cement Mumdani as the spiritual leader of the party
Nobody believes her, just like nobody believes Hilary. The constant fence-hopping goes beyond someone learning new information and switching stances, its pure opportunism, and thus not genuine.
And honestly, her endorsing him is more a disservice in my eyes than helping him. She’s performed poorly and make others think that Mumdani is not genuine by association.
The difference between her and Hilary is that Harris is an avatar of the party, Hilary was (and still is to a lesser extent) a major player in the party
Harris is just like Biden… Her position is the party line. So if Harris is endorsing Mumdani, that signals some faction of the party might be finally waking up and realizing progressives are going to sweep the next election
As for the endorsement itself…I don’t think it dings Mumdani in any way. If anything, I think it just makes him look stronger, because he hasn’t budged an inch and the Democratic establishment is slowly coming to him
she and hochul are probably supporting him, to prevent too much support, takeover of the party from more progressive candidates, basically placating progressive to not do anything drastic.
With what leverage? Mumdani wins with zero support, a pattern that is repeating across the country with every new election
I’m sure they have the worst of intentions, but reality favors us. When they capitulate to our boy, they flirt with reality. And reality is left leaning
Worst case is he made a bunch of centrist concessions to get her on board, leaving him as just another establishment dem.
No shot…He has nothing to gain there, he’s leading by massive numbers and his eyes aren’t empty and soulless
But that would put out the last spark of hope within me if it did happen
shes probably still looking for political career somewhere in the future, just not now.
I’m taking the broad position that last-minute endorsements of Mamdani are just saving face for the establishment. That window closes in mid-October or so.
Want change in the party This is how it happens. Purity tests leave you a political outsider. Welcome each endorsement and they can be reminded later.
Yeah but it’s still just PR to save face. Zohran can use all the endorsements he can get but let’s make sure these ghouls are replaced ASAP.
Nope. I’d rather have any Democrat in office than more Republicans. Your logic is how Gore lost the 2000 election. The Green votes for Nader were the decider. Gore wanted to address climate change 25 years ago.
idk, Trump has done more to mobilize the left these last couple cycles than the last…30 years.
He mobilized the right more.
idk about that, made them more confident…sure. but look at all these local/state elections, flipping seats that have been solidly/establishment-D for decades to independents/progressives.
people are turning out in record numbers to vote for independents/progs would suggest that the “Left” in america isnt dead…maybe they’ve just been demoralized from decades of disappointment and Trump and Co. was the wakeup call they needed
not trying to dismiss your concern, things are bad and they are probably only going to get worse for the forseeable furure…but…giving up is exactly is the first/biggest move these psychopaths have, it’s a truly insidious system we’ve managed to imprison ourselves in…
I don’t think you understood my point. Your comment about preferring a Democrat over a Republican in office doesn’t make any sense.
Instead of actually giving voters what they want, Democrats made being “the lesser of two evils” their main campaign strategy and it could only work for so long until people got numb to it which is happening.
It’s about damn time.
I’m sure it was based on her deep beliefs, and not a decision made by strategists for her. We are so fucked…
Don’t look a gift horse on the mouth
When you kick that horse in front of the gift when it is trying to drink you do.
Why would she care. She could likely apply for political asylum in say France and leave the country and never have to work another day in her life. She’s 60, she doesn’t owe anyone anything. She won’t run for president, and I doubt she wants to enter another 4 years of VP from 64-68 years old.
Doesn’t owe anyone anything? She kept prisoners in jail past their sentences to use them as slave labor. She literally owes reparations.
I love how what would have been mundane and not news worthy with any other candidates (democratic politicians endorsing a democratic candidate for mayoral office) now makes headlines with Mamdani. And by love I mean hate.
deleted by creator
I think I’m stupid because I thought the race was already over.
The primary is over. The general election is in November.
So far, Mamdani is out in front by a wide margin, though. I don’t want to count any chickens before they hatch, but it’d take a lot for anyone else to beat him.
People who have lost to donald trump need to be permanently benched.
The DNC:✍️Women✍️and✍️POC✍️need✍️to✍️be✍️permanently✍️benched✍️
If they’re middle of the road/both sides can work together democrats fuck em and pull them out the game
The DNC:✍️Middle✍️of✍️road✍️is✍️too✍️far✍️left✍️need✍️to✍️appeal✍️to✍️moderate✍️nazis✍️
It’s a sad reality, but it’s true that there are a lot of racists and sexists in the US, so nominating a person of colour or a woman as your candidate really does damage your electoral chances.
I mean, a candidate as horrible as Donald Trump has a 100% win rate against women and 0% win rate against men.
It damages your electoral chances if you are trying to appeal to republicans.
But republicans do not vote democrat.
some dont even vote at all surprising enough, at least the ones pretend like they support more left leaning views, only use it as a veneer.
The republicans who don’t vote at all, but pretend to be moderate can’t be won by a Democrat either.
Triangulation is bullshit, moving to the middle doesn’t win you a big contigent of moderates who like social democratic policy, but only if its complicated and means-tested, who want to starve Cuba and Venezuela, but thinks shooting their fishermen is too much, who want ICE rounding up immigrants into “migrant overflow facilities”, but not concentration camps.
there are some i witnessed on Yt, BAD example. the people had a veneer of “progressivism” but then thier minds broke during covid/ trumps 1/6 inssurection.
Based on a false premise, Harris was universally unpopular with women and minorities and everyone else. Maybe that should just tell you that universally unpopular candidates are unpopular candidates and not their characteristics?
Being a poor candidate who is merely tolerated and not appreciated does not automatically cause you to lose. Most people also merely tolerated Biden and many swing voters in 2024 thought they would tolerate Trump despite his fascist tendencies.
It is the combination of being both a poor candidate and being a woman and being a minority that is lethal to a presidential campaign.
Quite off base. It is running as the status quo that was the deciding factor, the fact that you don’t know that yet does not speak well to your understanding.
This comment does not speak well to your reading comprehension.
Hey remember when Obama won with the biggest modern landslide and came in with a supermajority in the senate?
The “aw shucks there are too many racists we need to be more racist” line is for racists who want racism.
It is spoon-fed to the Sheep as if that would justify keeping the same people in charge of the party that Force unwinnable candidates on us.
Racism is not the reason in the first place, but if it was it would not justify keeping the establishment in there.
The logic is too stupid to refute line by line. Somehow though that is what we are doing. The same people that chose Hillary and then Biden and then Kamala are going to choose the next one, and do everything they can to favor their choice. Including these super delegates which they still have.
Allow me to add some more nuance to this point:
I never said that skin colour or gender prevents someone from winning. What I am saying is that it is a disadvantage compared to running a white male candidate with the same views. Obama did not win because he was black, he won in spite of him being black (and given the Republican reaction to his campaign I think this is broadly agreeable). He won because he had a great platform, was inspiring, and the Republicans had just crashed the economy.
Nobody will refuse to vote for a white male candidate because of their gender or race. If he has good policy positions then he will receive support. White candidates get judged on policy, non-white candidates get judged on both policy and their skin colour. It’s less pronounced on the left because there are fewer racists and sexists here, but it still exists. We need to acknowledge and confront the fact that discriminatory attitudes force minority and female candidates to be better than comparable white male candidates in order to garner the same level of support.
I don’t make excuses for Kamala Harris’s positions. She was a bad candidate. But being a bad candidate doesn’t automatically cause you to lose, as Biden and Trump have proven. It is the combination of being both a bad candidate and a minority and a woman that is lethal to a presidential campaign in America.
Your comment espouses something that is fun to say and makes you feel righteous and correct when saying it but ignores reality. In particular, I point to Hispanic and Asian populations, which make up a large portion of the Democratic voting bloc, and of which a very large number are openly sexist. I am the son of Chinese immigrants, all of whom either vote Democratic or not at all. While my generation is notably far less sexist than my parents’ generation, my parents and grandparents still think that whether a woman is “biologically suited” to be president is worth discussing. It’s not just my family being an outlier either, since this way of thinking is actually pretty pervasive in the Chinese community where I live (Portland, Oregon).
Just because someone is a woman or minority does not mean that women or minorities will support them. Frankly it is rather insulting that you think it would.
That’s not what I am saying at all. I am saying instead of looking at the deeply unpopular messaging and policy of “secure the border”, “most lethal military” and “part of a down-payment for first-generation homebuyers who have gone 5 years without a late rent payment and submit whole positive values for X, Y, and Z where X/(Y+Z)+Y/(X+Z)+Z/(X+Y) is equal to your SSN” that lost the election, the DNC will conclude the problem was Kamala’s gender and race, and then proceed to ratfuck progressives under the delusion that republican-lite is more electable than improving the material conditions of the people who you want to vote for you.
That is what I was trying to say as well I wholeheartedly agree.
Please don’t. Just go away
Isn’t there overwhelming polling saying he is likely to win? Harris hitches herself to whoever is likely to win. That is her entire career.
Alternately, her endorsement is another way the Democratic establishment is trying to make him lose. 😉
How? The on the fence centrist democrats that Zorhan needs to win would be very liked to switch their support form Cumo of they knew some major establisment figures supported him.
The joke is that Harris is bad at winning elections, so anyone who associates with her also loses.
On a side note, strangely enough, with Trump this is a global effect; anyone who associates themselves with Trump too much will lose their election. It happened in Australia and Canada.
Except Trump himself, somehow, unfortunately, does not suffer from his own stench.
Cynical posturing, same as hochul, but hochul’s endorsement actually meams something as governor.
We should not talk about kamala or biden or anyone that forced them or hillary on us unless is to demand their ousters.
i find hochul kinda of 2 faced, she was publically against him from the start, only changing once she realized she could be replaced in the next election.
Oh totally she is cynical and chosen by the establishment to oversee the plutocratic takeover, r or d means little, she opposes a new deal and frankly is the enemy All the D establishment is the enemy, there is no getting rid of r fascists with this controlled opposition.
Mamdami is a good start, we need different flavours if populists to challenge everywhere. Moderates are not the safe choice, reformers are.
Will anyone be pursued to vote for him because of Harris’s endorsement?
No, but it demonstrates once again that all your “lesser evil” dems will burn the party down before they allow a real alternative to fascism.
Harris is the lesser evil politician. And she’s endorsed him.
She said essentially “He is the democrat, and I support the democrat, but what about these other mayoral candidates?”
In the most unenthusiastic way possible. But it’s better than an outright rejection.
“I support the Democrat in the race,” Talk about a backhanded compliment.
Why is this news? She is not an elected official. She never breached 30% approval rating as vice president before her anointation.
deleted by creator
She never was the dogshit that people made her out to be, it’s not really that surprising in a way it would be for people like Pelosi or Chuck Shumer.
I mean it is the normal thing to endorse your party’s person who won the primary, it is only a handful of real pieces of shit that are holding back on it. The problem is that those pieces of shit are highly placed in the Democratic party sadly enough.
Edit: Oof… I hadn’t watched the actual video. Yeah, it’s at least 30% dogshit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwt7hMaNaBQ
Do you actually see that as an endorsement do you?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, so I’ll just answer it straight: There is basically nothing that any establishment Democrat could say about Mamdani that would make me think any different about him. It’s a little bit relevant for his prospects whether they officially endorse him, because it means money and institutional support and it probably will sway a decent number of establishment-Democrat voters. But mostly I’m speaking about it as a way to test the people doing the endorsing or not endorsing. Harris doing right by endorsing him doesn’t really surprise me, because I already thought she was basically okay, but some of the others it would. It wouldn’t really make me think positive about them, more than anything I would take it meaning the DNC consultant narrative and awareness of where people are at is catching up to reality which would be a good thing. Does that answer?
She didn’t endorse HIM.
She endorsed the Democrat.
Huge difference!
Oh… huh, yeah, I see your point. I hadn’t watched the actual video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwt7hMaNaBQ
You can see how bothered she is by the question and how careful about endorsing him. Yeah, that’s kind of bullshit.
“Please, mum, may I have another serving of gruel?”
More? MORE?!
