Mamdani, a proudly socialist 33-year-old, holds a 44-36 percent lead over over former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo – who was hoping that New Yorkers had short memories, and were ready to re-elect the textbook centrist Democrat.
However, after the disaster of Trump’s first year back in the White House – with everyday American life interrupted by protests, immigration raids, corruption allegations and the unshakebale feeling that the nation is about to enter World War 3… It seems the pendulum is swinging back towards left-wing politics.
It appears that the success of Mamdani isn’t so much a vote against Trumpian politics, but more a vote against the stale nothingness of the Democrats top brass – who, while pitching themselves as the progressive option in America’s political system, very seldom action – or even – offer – left-wing policies.
Center right cumuo who is also a sex pest
Paint me bemused
Any politician criticizing Mamdani receives money from AIPAC…
Wow what a coincidence,
Free Palestine from the apartheid genocidal colonizers, the fascist Israeli regime!
Shocker progressives are popular because checks notes … they fight for everyone not just the rich
Posting this to offend the white supremacist mods in the politics forum
without looking at the name, it’s impossible to tell which party he’s from.
Republican: I can’t tell a socialist from a communist but I can be racist at the same time.
They knew, that’s why they threw Bernie Sanders under the bus over and over. The ones controlling the DNC do not want to lose their corporate backers if they allow true social equality.
Vote with your feet. Leave the country!
The funny thing is that The Betoota Advocate is a satirical newspaper - but this is not satire
I think it might be, the fact that so many people are talking about these nonexistent democrats that the article gives no examples of might be the punchline.
Did you… open the news article?
After months of being rubbished by the American media and the Democrat establishment…
Like, yeah they don’t name a bunch of names, but it’s based in Australia, and examples aren’t hard to find.
Mr. Suozzi, whose district covers a sliver of Queens and who endorsed Mr. Cuomo during the primary, said he still had “serious concerns” about Mr. Mamdani, while Ms. Gillen — citing defund the police rhetoric he has since disavowed and his unflinching critiques of Israel — called him “the absolute wrong choice” for New York City.
Source: New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/25/nyregion/mamdani-democrats-schumer-jeffries.html
You’re quoting a separate article in this discussion about this article, kind of misleading to future commenters imo.
Here is Bill Clinton, who also endorsed Cuomo who worked as HUD secretary in the Clinton Admin, congratulating Mamdani:
“Congratulations @ZohranKMamdani on your victory in yesterday’s primary election and a well-run campaign. I’m wishing you much success in November and beyond as you work to bring New Yorkers together to tackle the city’s challenges and shape a stronger, fairer future”
~Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States of America
So, now that cuomo, sex pest darling of the centrist establishment, is running as an independent, will you vote blue no matter who?
deleted by creator
I guess. I would hope that future commentors can read the first quote from the article and notice I provided a different source to support my point that criticism from other Democrats isn’t hard to find.
Well well well, looks like not being republican lite does the trick
Don’t worry guys. I’m sure the democrats will learn this this time around…
Susan collins is that you?
I think the only option is to not vote for them if they don’t.
Thats what you have to do. If they get voted out when they choose not to follow these policies then maybe they’ll learn it is a problem. “Vote blue no matter who” is extremely damaging
The opposition doesn’t believe in elections, so I don’t think that’s a viable plan.
The opposition doesn’t believe in elections
And centrists don’t believe in primaries.
Just like the dems who constantly sue the greens to be off ballots?
TBF the RNC, such as The Badger Values PAC, did actively promote the Greens before the 2024 election, so yeah. Even David Duke supported Jill Stein while the European Greens publicly asked her to step down. She called both the DNC and GOP fascists, and if you believe that then idk if I can convince you otherwise because clearly factual evidence won’t change your opinions.
If you want fair election reform then vote blue, you’ll never get it with more than 40 Republicans in the senate.
If you want fair election reform then vote blue, you’ll never get it with more than 40 Republicans in the senate.
This is inaccurate. We need 50 democrats to do away with the filibuster for good.
But even if we had 100 Democrats, they would find the no votes and you would make excuses.
My expectation is that this will motivate them to pull another Ross Perot. They will spend all of their time working with Republicans between this election and the next dreaming up institutional hurdles to a socialist making headway in a political campaign, just like they made it institutionally impossible for third parties to sniff a presidency.
If Mamdani actually does try to do the things he says he will (which I doubt) those efforts to institutionally hamper non-conservative candidacies will be doubled.
That’s pretty positive honestly, my bet is they try to imprison or kill him like every other popular socialist in modern history.
I think it will depend on Cuomo and the polling. It might be that Cuomo’s presence is enough to dilute Mamdani’s advantage in the election and I have no doubt the billionaires don’t care if it’s Adams or Cuomo sending public money their way.
But they’re definitely doubling down on gatekeeping political candidacy.
Dems continue to be baffled by the popularity of progressive politicians. They can’t fathom Americans wanting less & less to do with their moderate-right-wing bullshit, while the far-right moves farther & farther right.
It’s the foreign influence within the DNC brought in after private money flooded US politics. Get rid of Citizens United and the system will do a lot to correct itself.
It’s always foreigners, isn’t it? What about the domestic private money flooding US politics? What, because they’re American billionaires, it’s fine?
Lol, no it really isn’t. Citizens vs United was the culmination of decades of the DNC constantly bending over backwards to compromise with conservatives.
Basically in the late 80’s and early 90’s the legislative grid lock we all know and love today was becoming the status quo. So a strategy of compromising with “moderate” conservatives over policy that benefited aspects of both parties was popularized by the Clinton’s.
This “Thirdway politics” led to short term benefits, and allowed the Clintons to get a death grip over the DNC. After a short period conservatives took advantage of this tactic of compromise to drag the DNC further and further to the right. Basically every sitting senator and most of the politicians in the house made their political careers by being the best at compromising with the right.
I was under the impression moderate compromise was code for working to satisfy donor demands. Which wouldn’t be so pressing with meaningful campaign finance reform.
I was under the impression moderate compromise was code for working to satisfy donor demands.
At best. Usually it just means rank capitulation to fascists.
It was definitely touted as one of the benefits of Thirdway politics. However, the real imperative was ending gridlock in Congress. Back in the late 80s and early 90s gridlock was new and actually seen as a big problem, especially after it caused a gov shut down under newt. Bill Clinton basically swept the presidential race for his second term for “solving it”.
While you’re not wrong, I don’t know how we can possibly put that genie back in the bottle.
-
Stack the court then sue Elon or any PAC.
-
Cling to power for 40ish years and realign the court as the conservatives die.
-
Impeachment and removal of corrupt justices, then sue.
1 and 3 are the only remotely realistic but I’m not that optimistic right now.
-
Vote DNC, it’s one of their primary stances. It requires either enough Republicans to cross the aisle to defeat filibuster (never happened never will) or a DNC house majority and senate supermajority to amend the constitution.
Or a simple majority of democrats willing to do away with the filibuster. Won’t happen. They like being able to use the filibuster for its only purpose: blocking progressive legislation.
There has been only one filibuster since trump took office for a second time. It wasn’t against anything.
I am a democrat, I’ve been called a centrist by many a Tankie scum, but I’m not baffled at all and going by the evidence in this article neither is anybody else.
You call everyone to your left tankie scum.
Not moderate, not center, firmly not-openly-sociopathic-yet right.
Jesus fucking christ, where my crew at?
This is our moment to fucking run it in the faces of the idiots telling us we needed to have candidates with barely left of center politics in this country.
People who have told you you need to accept less from candidates because abwd are the toxic bane that handed us Trump. You can’t win elections on being a diet piece of shit; you actually have to stand for some thing.
what does abwd mean?
ABWD refers to “Any Blue Will Do”, which is a slogan, ideology, and voting strategy associated with what is now collectively known as “Blue MAGA”.
The charitable version of their argument is that we need to just support every D, no matter what. The problem that ABWD creates is two fold. The first problem, is that in effect, the policy works against its self as electoral strategy. It second problem is that it also works against itself as governing strategy. I’m going to refer to these as “anti-strategies” because I think its important to point out that they are thought about and employed as if they are in-fact strategies that could win an election. They make you feel like a smart person, and are regularly used as a cudgel against other approaches, but they are self-defeating: an anti-strategy hurts you, not helps you.
This clip of Whoopi Goldberg saying she would vote for Joe Biden even if he was pooping his pants on stage highlights:
So the issue that ABWD creates in this context is that, even though Whoopi here is clear that she would vote for a candidate so aged that they shit themselves on stage, American voters wont. And this problem is rampant across Democratic primaries. We’re constantly getting candidates forced into elections through AIPAC, the DCCC, directly from the DNC, who aren’t electable within the Democratic base, for whatever reason. Here, Whoopi has effectively lowered the bar to the floor. And the problem is, that while a pants-shitter might be fine for Whoopi, its not fine for literally everyone else. By insisting on this anti-strategy, that we had to support Biden as the candidate when it was clear he was completely incapable of governing, let alone winning the election (even when Trump was as unpopular as he was), this insistence was basically an instance we lose the election. Its an important historical footnote that Blue MAGA/ ABWD did win the ideological fight that summer. And we lost the 2024 election as a result.
So the second issue with ABWD/ Blue MAGA is that we end up with Blue Dogs, or Democrats that are basically worthless for progressing any Democratic legislative or governance priorities. Effectively, ABWD is used to put conservative, basically Republican Democrats into safe blue districts, which they might hold for decades. A classic example of this was AOC versus Crowley, where Crowley held the house seat responsible for Queens, NY, one of the most progressive house district populations there is. And he REGULARLY defeated, shut down any kind of progressive legislation. There are many, many others, for example, Ed Case, House District 1, Honolulu HI, who voted to censure Al Greene. ABWD/ Blue MAGA results in bad Democrats getting into office and holding space which would otherwise be occupied by more reliable, more progressive Democrats. When you go to actually get get anything done, ABWD defeats your ability to govern.
Do you really think that Biden’s “non governing” was worse than Drumphs autocratic “governing”? I think that if the stakes were less, then your approach may have merit. But right now, we’re talking Drumph, and literally anything is better than what he offers.
See what you are doing there? How you are trying to reframe the point into something it isn’t?
The question if djt or Joe Biden being better is a non issue, because the election wasn’t actually between two deeply unpopular candidates: it was between voting and not voting, and not voting won by a landslide.
If you don’t change your understanding into these terms you’ll never actually be able to push down facsism, because, as demonstrated, being a lessor evil simply isn’t good enough. It’s not a negotiation. There is no wiggle room. You fail to present a better option, and you are intentionally trying to lose.
I’ll try to work it out, as people are currently dying in El Salvadorean concentration camps, of pregancy difficulties, and due to measles and any other medical denialism. As allies are betrayed to generational enemies, and Drumpf flirts with WW3. As the world, but especially the US economy crashes. As millions of people lose their jobs. I’ll say it again for those who have their heads up their own asses. Drumpf must lose FIRST to potentially save the world. It’s possible that it’s already too late and that there will not be another election. The stakes can’t be much higher. THEN fix your stupid electoral system.
Look, the average American is not the most well-reasoned individual. Not always their fault due to the situations we are all in over here. The main cultural systems are primarily focused on punishment, not reward. The average American isn’t well-educated, because again, why would they when there isn’t a tangible, understandable reward?
This means that getting people to do what you want is like herding cats. If you have a group of cats and bring them two food choices, and a large portion of the cats hate both, they will display protest behaviour and pout while the food is picked at by the other cats.
You mentioned in another comment about not living in the past. I had to vent about the protest voters too, but I also understand it is a core, unshakable value for them. The past is important to learn from, and the Dem party needs to do so, or people like Trump will never face actual opposition in the polls.
The main problem with ignoring the past is repeating mistakes. The main frustration with learning from the past is to watch others make those mistakes while they ignore your warnings.
I know it’s rough-and-tumble and this was a long message. Hope you find peace where you can and support from those around you. ❤️
the electoral system is working as designed so there’s nothing to fix.
the way it works against the will of the people was its main goal as it was designed to prevent other very popular social movements (eg anti-slavery) from gaining popular approval.
You want the electorate to be different than it is. You want them to have seen the existential threat which Trump was and is. You want them to be engaged and committed to showing up even when there is nothing on the ballot for them. I wish that voters were better than they are too.
But this is reality and we don’t get to base our strategies on how we wish things are. We have to base them on how they actually are. We can’t run campaigns for the voters we wished we have access to, we have to base the campaigns on the voters we actually have access to.
You want the electorate to be different than it is; but it isn’t. If you approach predicates the electorate be different than they are, you will lose.
You either meet the voters where they are at or you are making a conscious choice to lose.
Great explanation.
The point is that ultra zionist neocon warmonger that is most Republican of anyone in DNC, while successful in replacing Trump in 2020, also kept him out of jail so he could run again, as the best candidate the DNC could hope for, until Oct 7th, when Israel first rule over America made DNC intentionally elect Trump as best Israel friend to “finish the job”. The only important election platform of “defeat Trump” even if it motivates us to vote that way, is a very low bar, that doesn’t turn into any progress or change.
I agree that not jailing Drumpf for life was a major failure. I do blame Merrick Garland for that, primarily, and Biden by extension as his boss. But that doesn’t change a thing about TODAY’S situation, nor the importance of removing him again.
Stop living in the past. It’s not really relevant, especially for those that don’t learn.Stop living in the past. It’s not really relevant, especially for those that don’t learn.
Don’t examine history, I want to repeat it!
Theoretically not facing Trump in 2028. DNC could nominate John Fetterman if pattern continues. AOC if she disavows Israel first rule, and proxy war on Russia could result in Mitt Romney as GOP candidate. instead of Rubio or Vance.
Whataboutism.
Well, I’d differentiate between primary and general election. It’s definitely time to overthrow the democratic establishment, and do the same as AOC or now Mamdani. Third parties won’t have a chance, but overtaking the Democrats (like the tea party) is possible.
Nevertheless, in the general election, you should definitely vote against fascism, even if the Democratic candidate is awful as well.This is myopia. Every election is the most important election of your lifetime. But it’s suicidal to only consider one election at time. Consider two different options:
Option 1: Vote blue no matter who
Election 1: establishment pushes a corporatist through the primary, Dem voters reluctantly vote blue no matter who, corporatist loses by small margin to the Republican candidate.
Election 2: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Election 3: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Election 4: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Election 5: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Option 2: Demand better from Democratic candidates.
Election 1: establishment pushes a corporatist through the primary, Dem voters refuse to vote blue no matter who, corporatist loses in a blow out election.
Election 2: corporatist candidate gets no traction. Dems vote in a decent candidate that can inspire people. Dems win general election.
Election 3: decent candidate has edge from the beginning. Dems win general election.
Election 4: decent candidate has edge from the beginning. Dems win general election.
Election 5: decent candidate has edge from the beginning. Dems win general election.
Nevertheless, in the general election, you should definitely vote against fascism, even if the Democratic candidate is awful as well.
So, like, you have to start hearing this: If you (or any Democrats) continue to approach elections with this mental framework, you will lose elections. What you are saying; what you are thinking: it directly contributed to Democrats losing in 2024. Not adjacently, not tangentially: directly.
What you are engaging in is an anti-strategy. You feel like you are doing the smart thing by expressing it, but actually, this tactic when applied at scale, gives candidates the permission structure to be worse. It gives them the space to hold onto policies that preclude them from being electable. What you are doing is the exact point I’m railing against, because its been demonstrated now, over and over again, to lose elections.
The election isn’t about you or me: its about the candidate and the electorate. And the only force we wield in that dynamic is our vote. We need candidates to understand that they do NOT have our votes, not in a primary, not in a general, if they don’t move to our policy positions. If they think that they’ve got your vote and don’t need to work for it, they won’t and don’t.
And we don’t need to argue about this. We’ve run both the positive and negative sides of this experiment so many times, its basically solved. Every election since 1996, on both the left and the right, has been won by the candidate who moves to where their side of the electorate is at. When you give your leverage away for free, you give the candidate permission to not change their position and this loses the election.
ABWD is what you are expressing, and by doing so, you are setting things up for failure.
The massive problem a lot of Americans are struggling with is that they only have two choices, and one vote. I think there would be massive pressure on terrible Democrat candidates if voters felt like they could vote for who they really want to and keep these terrible candidates as a reluctant backup. We have the system we have now and have to work within it, but God damn I am so hungry for a instant runoff voting system.
Part of working with the system we have now is to not myopically focusing on just the election in front of you. Short term thinking and voting blue no matter who is what got us to where we are today.
They have two choices in each election, but if they look at mid and long term, they have more than two choices because how they vote (or refuse to) today influences who gets put forward next time around.
The US Elections aren’t a Trolley Problem from Philosophy (because: most effects of the choice can be undone, they’re a cyclical choice rather than one-off, you don’t really know for sure what each choice gets you because politicians lie, they’re not an individual choice) they’re more like a Cyclical Ultimatum Game from Game Theory between the party of the political side of a voter and the voter, and the party puts forward a candidate with a certain mix of policies and the voter can Accept - and then both the party and the voter get a little closer to getting that mix of policies - or the voter can Reject - and then the party and the voter get a little further from getting that mix of policies.
This being the cyclical version is what matters most here: both sides get to do another run of the game in 4 years time, which is why a Reject on the side which can chose “yay or nay” can make sense as a way of inducing the other size to put forward a candidate with a different mix of policies on the next round.
(The main difference from the actual cyclical Ultimatum Game is that the actual Accept or Reject is the sum of many votes, and both Parties in the US use the inherent difficulty of people in working as a group to get Accepts when they should be getting Rejects)
The American Voting System is fucked up and not really Democratic, yet unlike and actual Power Monopoly, there are still ways to influence the Power Duopoly in the US but they require voters to be Strategical in how they vote rather than only Tactical.
Narrative not allowed. You’ll now be inundated with text explaining how just letting the Republicans win is better.
Bruh what do you think the guard dogging of Harris resulted in?
Anyone blue will do…maybe?
Correct.
Blue MAGA is such a stupid fucking term. Anyone who uses it should likely be disregarded.
If Blue MAGA doesn’t want to be referred to as such they can change their behavior any time.
It is however extraordinarily fitting:
And that one is from the early days of the use of the term.
tl;dr your image is as bullshit as anyone who says “Blue MAGA”. It’s a thing you and others are trying to invent. Fuck off with your both sides bullshit.
In this essay, I will discuss why most of the points in that image are bullshit.
First line is tenuous at best. There wasn’t outright cheating like ballot stuffing, but there was an absolute brick on the scales. The media calling all the superdelegates before anyone actually voted was bullshit. Nuance is a thing.
You’d be hard pressed to find anyone saying Bernie is a DINO.
Nobody on the left says “fuck democracy”. And if they do, they’re not neolibs.
Absolutely nobody says only corporate votes should count.
In the end, if you don’t ally with most Democrats, our country is doomed. You can turn them more progressive, especially in primaries. But if you abandon the Dems, you might as well be one of those right wing podcaster being paid by Russia.
I get that some people want to threaten them. But threaten them from the left, not from the fucking stupid.
Your “most Democrats” just handed the country to fascists because rather than be critical and demand better than a pants shitting, geriatric, defender of genocide, they decided any blue would do.
And what we just showed you: Your approach to politics doesn’t work and ours does. You want to win? Follow us. Stop pretending that forcing through shitty candidates does any other than hand governance to Republicans.
“Join us”, like I wasn’t out there knocking on doors for Bernie.
Genocide Joe has got to g…
Wait what are we doing again
We’re taking a victory lap.
Mamdani is a Democrat party candidate, you’re bashing his party and claiming to celebrate his victory? I doubt it.
you can’t tell the difference between the party establishment and the electorate they obstinately refuse to represent.
This ain’t your party.
Earlier today this same article was crossposted from ML to Not The Onion, where many people pointed out it’s an opinion hit piece that makes the claim that Democrats reacted with shock or disbelief with the following citations and evidence: their feelings. It’s less than a nothing burger, the article genuinely lies to your face. You’re not going to make friends doing that.
The article is clearly satire. What it is satirizing, however, is very real. I’m pretty sure I actually told you specifically that Democrats could win if they ran on progressive policies and you insisted they had to moderate themselves instead.
You must be shocked. If not, you’re in denial. As Mamdani-style campaigns continue to sweep primaries you can either continue to cope and seethe or admit you were wrong.
What I’m not shocked about is that they’re so out of touch with what we want.
They’re not though. Every time Democrats have “voted blue no matter who” they’ve told their leaders that the party is on the right path.
they’re aware of what we need; they’re just placing their desire to become richer ahead of it.
Pelosian ethics is a discussion of competing conceptions of the good for Pelosi.
I haven’t thought about her in a while but I kind of assumed she just turned to dust and blew away at some point.
Afaik she had a house dropped on her. Not sure who got the slippers.
Steven crowder is probably wearing them with a dress as we speak.
Crowder is busy sexually harassing guys
I still bet they’re gonna find a way to ignore the results and give us status cuomo.
Presumably Cuomo will run ‘independent’ with the full support of the DNC, then when they split the vote and a Republican wins, they’ll balme progressives for voting wrong in the primary
Subversion is the name of their game. They’d rather lose than put a Progressive in power.
Who is they? The article doesn’t mention anybody specific, just make shit up as you go?
The. Democrats. It’s literally in the title, pal.
So nobody specific, got it.
