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:
A democrat who was a trumper the whole time? So surprised.
The only reason Trump would support Cuomo is if Cuomo had already pledged to allow ICE free reign. He’s already selling out NYC, and he’s not even the Mayor yet.
The " dems are different from repubs" crew is eating a shit sandwich now.
Its RICH VS POOR YA GOONS
But the Dems didn’t elect this guy. He lost the Dem vote.
But yes, it is Have vs Have Nots
There’s a difference between voters and the party establishment
No, your superiors are still right about that.
Not sure what you’re on about, but I don’t have Superiors
They’re both owned by the rich and most of the same SuperPACs. If anyone thinks they both didn’t support what Trump wanted, they’ve been fooled by the propaganda of those SuperPACs.
Establishment democrats have way more in common with the current administration than leftists and they know it.
Why do people in major cities like New York and Las Vegas love getting conned?
Because establishment candidates have big money and the media like New York Times behind them.
What happened in las Vegas?
What didn’t happen in Las Vegas?
But I’m specifically thinking about the hyperloop.
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.
Democrats voted. So I’d say that the numbers prove- that it’s the stay at home non-voting idiots and Third Party voters that seem to prefer Trump.
I’m mean. Look around.
They’re all already shitting on what should be the best chance to win against MAGA. Good is the enemy of perfect to them. We have d a chance to have good. Good was not having concentration camps. Good was not having our military turned against us. Good was having our family and friends in the LGBTQ* safe and respected.
They chose to bring Trump to the doorsteps of everyone by doing nothing at all and expecting change.
This is NOT the democrats fault. As bad as that are, they will NEVER be as bad as MAGA.
How many Democratic voters do you know? Are they all billionaires?
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?
These people think change comes from doing nothing. I don’t think logic is going to help your argument with them.
They don’t seem to try that hard to win.
They really hate trying
Keep waiting for perfect. Meanwhile, I hope you get super comfortable with Trump. Because until you are willing to accept less than, you’re never going to deserve more than.
Kamala would have been good. But because she wasn’t perfect- you all cried and pouted.
This is your doing. You can marinate in it with the rest of us.
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.
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.
No, he didn’t.
Some ninety one MILLION people didn’t vote. How many of those idiots do you think we’re in protest of bOtH siDeS?
And for the record,
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5w9w160xdo.amp
Trump is ahead by just over 230,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the latest numbers from CBS. All three states were the focus of intensive campaigning by both parties ahead of the 5 November vote. If just over 115,000 voters in that group had instead picked Harris, she would have won those Rust Belt swing states, giving her enough votes in the electoral college to win the presidency.
You are saying all those 90 million would have voted Kamala? Dude you are delulu
You are saying all those 90 million would have voted Kamala?
Y’all need to learn how to read.
Point out where I said that.
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.
ninety one MILLION people
All adults eligible for voting, right?
Apologies. It was just under ninety million.
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.
Trump is ahead by just over 230,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the latest numbers from CBS. All three states were the focus of intensive campaigning by both parties ahead of the 5 November vote. If just over 115,000 voters in that group had instead picked Harris, she would have won those Rust Belt swing states, giving her enough votes in the electoral college to win the presidency.
Articles come with dates. You’ll notice that 2025 is after 2024.
A CBS poll also isn’t as thorough as Pew.
Ninety one million people didn’t vote. Among them, were protestors, conservatives and democrats, had the democrats and the protestors voted, even counting the republicans, she still would have won. A post-election survey doesn’t tell you shit aside from how many people want to have it known that they would have won if they bothered to bet.
End of story.
This is why the Democratic party stinks. Just cynical assholes only loyal to power.
You think Gavan Newsom is different?
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!
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.
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.
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…)
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.
You need to visit South Africa to see the wealthy and poor.
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?
You think Gavan Newsom is different?
Yes, but you go ahead and be sure to vote for “More of the Same” on the ballot if we’re lucky enough to have an election in 2028.
See how much changes from doing nothing.
How.much has changed from doing something?
You people have had since this time last year to understand how all of this works. If I have to explain how the concept of voting works to you, our problem is FAR greater than I ever thought possible.
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.
So not voting is stupid and bound to fail. You’re right.
Harris won my state. I could have voted dozens of times and it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
Imagine what would happen if tens of millions of people felt the same way…
Oh, wait! We don’t have to.
You’re part of the problem.
It’s a two-pronged strategy.
Following me around are you?
A two pronged strategy beats no strategy- any day of the week. At least I’m not left to let others decide for me.
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.
Your unwilling to contribute the bare minimum to stop a fascist is why we are here.
You did nothing and let others make the decision for you. In your protest of chemo, you allowed the cancer to thrive.
Take a bow. This is all on you.
Libs will suck off fascists at the drop of a hat if they think it’ll benefit them, what’s new?
Better a Liberal than a whiny, non voting tankie. Cuomo is about as liberal as John Fetterman.
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.
No, you’re right, he is - and that’s the problem
lol…. We’re barreling towards having another Trump in 2028.
damn libtards! They’re a bunch of queers!
I don’t understand why you’re downvoted. Do people completely ignore context?
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.
“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.
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.
What a terrible way to campaign lol.
Given how NYC elections and sentiment around Trump even before he ran for president, it seems an interesting strategy to think affinity with Trump would be an asset with that crowd.
Even in many areas where Trump is actually popular, candidates that received an explicit endorsement from Trump still failed. It’s not even much of an asset there. In NYC one would think it’s pretty much poison to a campaign.
Shocked
Man, the comments here leave me with no hope that any lesson was learned at all this past election. It seems as if many here are positioned to do the exact same thing in 2028 as they did in 2024:
Which was nothing.
Let’s maybe break this down in a way it may be more easily digested by those that seem to still not understand how it works:
Let’s say MAGA is a cancer. I’m certain very few would argue about this (I’m not thrilled by the idea of likening it to such a disease, but bear with me- it works). And we all know that the more aggressive the cancer, the more aggressive the treatments are needed to be to overcome it.
Democrats are chemotherapy. Yes it sucks. They suck. But as it is a proven treatment in the battle against cancer, they are proven capable of defeating the cancer that is MAGA. Hell… they did it with Biden, and that dude’s bones are at times, barely enough to prop himself up on.
To add- Do we see many people choosing to undergo a rigorous chemo therapy session if they don’t have cancer? No? But what if they enjoy it? Still no?
Yeah, no. And that’s because no one wants chemo if they don’t have to have it- but until a more successful treatment for the disease is readily available- we have to go with chemo. No one is happy with how the democrats handle things, but right now, it’s what we have- no, it’s ALL we have. So we go with that. Because there is no other viable option- regardless of your wishful thinking, in reality- no, THERE IS NO VIABLE THIRD OPTION. understand this.
Back to the cancerous stain on America that is the Trump administration-
Note how we also don’t ever have oncologists suggest that with an aggressive cancer such as MAGA- doing nothing at all is the best course of action. EVER. Not do we have them suggest that we should use antibiotics (the equivalent of third part voting).
Once the cancer is on its way out and kicking rocks, we can then stop the chemo and work towards the necessary steps to a healthy and cancer free body.
NOT BEFORE.
Now, I’m full well prepared to have this analogy torn apart and rewritten to make some bizarro-world version of a point in argument against it, but at the end of the day, no matter how you look at it-
this cancer was assisted by those that chose to not aggressively go after it when they had the chance.
(Disclaimer: my apologies if this example strikes a nerve with anyone. I too have also lost many family members to this disease. Colon cancer, breast cancer, skin cancer and lung cancer. It in no way is being made light of- but instead, being used as a placeholder to illustrate that the one thing that can win against the one thing we all hate, is also something we all hate- but the casualties in the end will be exponentially less)
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.)
How can the Democrats be the chemo when they enabled Trump and Republicans?
Because I’m using what’s called real-world examples. Not made up horse shit that’s shared with abandon amongst wannabe socialists.
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.
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.
Here’s that rewriting the analogy that I was talking about. The goalposts have now been moved to paint the picture in more pleasant and acceptable colors for those that shoulder the blame.
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.
In my analogy bLuE MaGa is a cringy thing thought up by a bunch of angry people that exist solely in a tiny little backwoods and irrelevant world called .ml.
It and they, not something that anyone of value takes seriously.
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?
I get that you like to argue. That .ml after your name illustrates this. And while I often find manufactured outrage an absolute hoot- I’m going to go ahead and dismiss you.
You see, I have this policy where I will entertain the whole bLuEmAgA cringe for only so long before I just start feeling second-hand embarrassment for the person I’m talking with. And generally, I don’t like feeling anything at all for the type of people who think that doing nothing at all is the best course of action to stop a fascist.
Especially when they have the audacity to blame all the people to tried so hard to saver their asses so that they can just annoy everyone by crying victim of their own actions.
I hope you have the day that you voted for.
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.
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
In my view and my analogy, what is happening with Mamdani really helps to exemplify my point:
Chemo is the essentially the carpet-bombing of cancer treatment. Unfortunately it’s going to take out some of the good guys also. Not unlike how antibiotics work. There’s no discrimination. It takes out ALL bacteria. This is to say that in the analogy, Mamdani represents the good bacteria.
Essentially, it’s collateral damage. Would you prefer Trump as president while someone like Mamdani gets their seat at the table, or Trump doesn’t get elected and Mamdani has to wait a while?
Trump is already president. Your example us flawed
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.
Money is the cancer. Full stop
It’s really consumerism.
You’re not wrong, but unfortunately- you’re working within an ideology that can’t exist.
The electoral system is not now or ever will be changed from what it is. Period. It favors them, and the them are the only ones with the authority to change it. A complete reform of our electoral system is out of the question.
And while it’s a fun thought experiment to imagine how cool it would be if we could change it- sooner or later we’re going to have to come back to reality and accept things as they really are and work within the confines of what is actually possible.
And right now, the immediate threat is the cancer that is MAGA. We had the chance to rid ourselves of it- and too many chose to do nothing in protest of chemo.
And now, after reading the comments here, I’ve no doubt anymore that the cancer is going to spread and we will succumb to it.
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.)
The MAGA voter base would still exist, sure. But FAR less people would have been hurt or suffered as a result of it at this point- and I can only imagine the suffering that has yet to come.
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.
This person and their rhetoric are why we got Trump.
They are part of the ignorant ideology that it you want something hard enough, it magically happens without ent effort on their part.
Hey, scratch a liberal and all…
The guy with a HATE BONER for the dude who likes HELPING people (eww helping) is GOOD FRIENDS with the NAZIS? He’s sucking cheeto too? WOW! SAD!, even!
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?
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.
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.
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?
