There’s a weird dead ender energy here that keeps asserting as common wisdom that the Democratic Party as an institution, and its leaders, are monolithically aligning against Mamdani. It’s genuinely destabilizing to see people living in what feels like an alternate reality.
It’s bizarre given that Democratic politicians keep endorsing him. It feels like a rerun of Bernie DNC conspiracy theories
Part of the problem imo is that Congressional Dem leadership are currently almost all from NYS, & Mamdani is obviously not the NYS machine’s first choice.
Also, shit like this doesn’t help lol: bsky.app/profile/hunt...
It fits their false narrative. Lying is very popular on the internets….
I find that as well, I thought I was coming down with bipolar disorder, no joke its that bad.
Progressives have lost so many times that they’ve forgotten how to win
It's MAGA-like behavior.
Ok but the NY Governor did just say very Weird things that she should ostensibly be smart enough to not believe
Yeah, but she’s Like That. This is the same gov who flip-flops like a stranded fish on every single thing (like look how she handled congestion pricing)
1) Genuinely astonishing (albeit not shocking), bringing back memories of how the party sabotaged Lamont after he defeated Lieberman in the Senatorial primary in 2006, the House minority leader and the Senate minority leader have refused to endorse the winner of the Dem primary
2) Jeffries very public refusal to endorse, plus his offering really weak reasons coupled with a soto voce ultimatum Mamdani has to explain himself to NYC Jews reflects the voice of the Dem establishment, along with all the $ the AIPAC donates to NY Democrats. Schumer, for whatever
3) reasons, is nowhere to be found. Jeffries and Schumer are the voices of the party as an institution. That there are individual Democrats endorsing and supporting has nothing to do with where the Dem establishment and its various leaders are.
4) So, I don't think it's "common wisdom" so much as an accurate reflection of where the party stands. Happy to be wrong. I guess we'll find out shortly.
Good summary. Thank you.
What you are saying is the imagined aspect of their roles. Those are legislative positions. They are not party leaders. They are caucus leaders in a legislative body. I don't like it but we don't have a president.
1) They are the visible leaders of the party. Yes, they're the caucus leaders, but the party is made up, for the most part, of its incumbents. Who do you think the party is, after all? Jeffries is not making his response up. It's a party position
2) he's restating. Do you think he just created it on the spot? Where do you think he discovered that position? Clearly, the NY State Dem organization has a bunch of concerns about Mamdani. Those concerns are reflected nationally, too. AIPAC is a big deal. The national party is concerned about
3) the effect of visible Muslim candidates on swing states electoral outcomes.
Jeffries' role is exactly what it is on paper. You can look up the description of the job of speaker of the house. Everything else is psychological projection and wish casting.
Minority leader, not speaker. Not yet, not until early 2027 at least.
The Dem bashing left just want something to complain about
If they have anything that is blatantly horrific they should just TELL US. Instead they are doing their stupid tap dancing. They aren’t good dancers so stop playing the coy card.
There seems to be two seperate groups. The establishment that represents the minority and is against him and everyone else...being the majority, that do Yet which group is getting the most attention?
Bribed politicians dont want true people policy politicians !
what
I'm concerned that anyone thinks we have the luxury of rejecting a democrat because they don't meet our standards. Hillary lost because she failed the purity test of the Bernie Bros. Kamala lost because Joe didn't know when to quit. We can't keep handing the oligarchy easy victories.
www.newsweek.com/bernie-sande...
This is mostly a consequence of "Jeffries, specifically, keeps refusing to endorse Mamdani" and "national media outlets give huge amounts of coverage to any Democrat attacking Mamdani"
Wheeling out the ex president sex pest to endorse the Cuomo sex pest doesn’t help either. Or Richie Torres dismissing the Mamdani win as a “Mickey Mouse” challenger. But what the DNC does from now on won’t matter much when they can lay back and let the NYTimes do their dirty work.
what do you believe the dnc to be
Well Jeffries, Gillibrand and Schumer - three major Democratic politicians who have not endorsed the Democratic candidate for the largest city in NY.
But the dems on bluesky say you’ve imagined all of this, so…
But how can they be heroic beleaguered victims, if the (((shadowy forces that control the world))) aren’t fully aligned against them?
Everyone loves him. Every actual living person I know adores him. Breath of fresh air.
Were people always living off in their own imaginary world and we're just realizing it because they can post about it online, or is this something that's gotten worse because you can find niches online to reinforce your false beliefs? Or is it a little of column A and column B?
But shit it pisses me off when people think they're all superior to MAGA when they engage in the same behaviors.
At least MAGA are motivated enough to get out and vote. They've completely reshaped the GOP into some fucked abomination. These people just cower in the corner begging 'pro-genocide, baby killing, fascist enabling, racist' Democrats to please give them an ounce of power. It's only fair!
Or maybe stop killing babies and enabling fascists and you’ll get the votes you want
Who can I vote for that isn't killing babies?
You cannot vote for anyone to create your perfect world. It's shades of grey and compromises all the way down. I'm so sorry.
Why are you even participating in a system where that’s the bar lol
What if you want to fix said system?
I’d consider any system with that baseline unworthy of reform outside of rebuilding from the ground up
Sorry you're not allowed to. Fixing it means participating. And participating means you're a baby murderer. Just watch the babies die and post about it on blue sky, that's the morally superior position to have
Or uh demolish it, rebuild it, and place smug self styled “realists” in reeducation camps to teach them what empathy is.
I’d rather hang myself than sit through a semester being browbeaten by someone who thinks Don’t Look Up is a masterpiece
Cool, let me know when you all get around to doing that :)
Damn nobody on your side of the aisle wants to stop genocide either? That's depressing :(
Nobody running for president, no
I truly think the detached-from-reality-online-leftists ABSOLUTELY are a result of how you can zone yourself online. Like it's actually possible to talk Communism online, you basically can't do that offline cause no one really cares, and if they care it's gonna be bad.
That’s because media is heavily skewed to New York City and they think he’s God, meanwhile, the rest of the country doesn’t give a shit about a mayoral candidate winning a primary. It’s stupid and a waste of time when we have a country to try to save. There may not even be fair elections next year.
It's somewhat ironic that at a certain point this sort of doomerism/self-victimization/martyr fixation/whatever you want to call it, on some level just serves as manufactured consent for apathy.
It probably wouldnt move the needle with Mamdani, but leftists spending a bunch of time telling anyone who will listen that everyone hates leftists, probably isnt very productive, and likely counterproductive to a slight degree, in getting people to vote for leftists.
I acknowledge "It's us against the World" narratives can be very motivational, but I think that's mainly for small or at least very tight knit ingroups, I very much doubt it works with broad electorates.
The only thing, and I mean the only thing, that keeps me from voting for leftists is my entire life experience of trying to do politics with leftists.
Right! They don't want to get offline and deal with reality, that's very uncomfortable, so just stay home a shriek about this and that, don't vote and then complain about what happens with no threat of actually committing and engaging. Fun!
I don't think it's that big of deal though. If anything, the notion that it's him against the establishment only helps him.
To the extent that the Democratic Party is even a (single) institution, an idea which many of its critics have always wildly overblown.
b b but the ~D*N*C~!!!
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, it does, but there are also a lot of bad actors in the mix too. It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes.
How many of those same people would refuse to align around - or vote for - Cuomo if he had won the primary?
A lot, because they are voting for someone to represent them and Cuomo doesn't. That how voting in a representative democracy works.
People have every right to feel the same way about Mamdani if he doesn't represent them.
Ok. What was your point then?
This apparent obligation that all Democrats seem to have to endorse Mamdani just because he won the primary. Populist hypocrisy is the point...as usual.
“Fall in love during the primary, fall in line during the general” is literally how it works. Mamdani won, time to fall in line.
And if Cuomo had won the primary 😗 Also, where was that in 2024...and 2016...and 2000?
We’d be having the same conversation we have every time some centrist piece of shit wins the primary, but we’re not this time because they didn’t. So is it VBNMW or isn’t it? 🤔
This post and your last one literally demonstrate that VBNMW is expected only when a populist wins a primary. We're the ones that deserve to ask that question, not you 😗
I *have* held my nose and voted for the dogshit centrists tho. It’s them who want to pull a bait and switch now that they’re the ones who are expected to hold their nose.
I'd say the obligation is because Mamdani's policies and direction are exactly what Democrats need to win elections while Gillibrand/Cuomo's racism amd business friendly policies are sure losers.
Selling out one's values is too high a price to pay to win elections. You taught us that 😗
Yoy have a weird spite based politics that seems unhealthy.
Again...I'll point you to 2024, 2016 and 2000 😗
I guess they have no problem with antisemitism though. But we already knew that. They’ve proven it over & over to us.
So do you think the Black voters in Jeffries' district voted for Cuomo because they support racism and big business?
Is Zohran black?
Are you refusing to answer my question?
Lol.
Are you one of those people screeching for Schumer and Jeffries to be primaried even though they're not among their constituents?
Yeah, it's ok to have opinions about people you don't get to vote for. It's ok to have opinions about how other people to vote. You kinda got to in a democratic republic.
So you think that YOU get to decide who represents people in a district you don't live in?
Of course not, everyone has free will. I just get to say what I think the right thing to do would be, same as you.
TBF Reddit is also doing this
That’s cause there’s maybe like, four political subs where “fuck the Democratic Party/fuck liberals” isn’t a free karma source.
Okay
I've really limited how much I talk politics cause the online leftists who want to have this non-argument has just been the second-worst thing I've had to deal with, conversation wise, with supposed allies. Like they literally can't just take the fucking W, it's FREE!
if you win then you are responsible for governing and exercising power. so you can see how that's an issue for these people.
Exactly. Plus, how can you “critique power” and play the victim when you’re the one in power?
Just those real or fake anti-liberal, anti-Democratic "leftists" joining as usual conservatives, right wingers, Republicans, fascists in attacking the Democratic Party, here by ignoring its liberal / progressive / democratic left wing, calling the conservative / "neoliberal" wing as "liberal."
You know a lot of those anti-liberal, anti-Democratic "leftists" are conservative, right wing, Republican, fascist trolls. And many of them who aren't actually trolls are happy to work as their tools. I've noticed they do false flag more here than at the other site because of the prevailing culture.
The democratic party has always been at war with left asia.
Really doesn't matter. Mamdani is the future.
I think it's kind of downstream of the fact that "the Democratic Party as an institution" does not exist and is not a thing that can exist. Like people *expect* that there is some kind of party apparatus with levers of power that aren't just 'idk, money', and there isn't.
So as a result, party members supporting Mamdani or not doesn't matter nearly as much as: - what the overall narrative that gets created is (which the broader party can barely influence) - where the donor money is going (which the broader party basically can't influence)
And even the donor money angle of everything is imo overstated - if pouring money into an election had more than a marginal effect, Harris would have won!
www.amny.com/politics/man...
I’d love to believe this but where is the evidence? Endorsements from unions and grassroots groups are critical but not the same as establishment Dems like Jeffries, Schumer, Torres, and Gillibrand, who have refused to endorse and in some cases have outright attacked him.
If you do endorsements early, they quickly wear off and people forget. Clinton endorsing Cuomo didn't happen in the first week of the primary, it happened at the end. We literally have lived memory of how the endorsement game is played Also Gillibrand was forced to apologize, so that's missing here
When it comes to leverage in local politics, unions, organizations, the Democratic Party of Manhattan, and the Democratic Party of Brooklyn are a LOT more important than any of those four. (I mean, Torres?? Come ON, who cares about him?) (And Jeffries, one rep for the 8th district? Who cares?)
LOL since when is Jeffries “the top politician in NYC”? He represents one district! (Also who tf is this mikeo331 person with the suspiciously bot-like name, and why should anyone care what he thinks)
I'm glad you mentioned this, because I've noticed that too. When I ask these commenters to cite who, exactly, they're referring to, the only answer I get is "Jeffries refused to endorse", which is BS. This feels like an op.
Seems fair for a representative not to put his thumb on the scale during a primary. Let the damn voters decide who's the candidate they want on the ballot.
Also, one out of the 7 neighborhoods that his district covers went for Mamdani. The rest were for Cuomo.
Hakeem Jeffries never endorsed Adams in 2021.
Someone tried telling me on here Mamdani won Harlem & Al Sharpton has endorsed him. Neither one of those things are true.
He didn't win where Black people were the majority. However, it seems the Asian vote was a factor. share.google/7C1EBTUqrcAh...
But Asian can mean Indian to the far East.
The article I linked provides more detail. www.thecity.nyc/2025/06/30/z...
He won South Asian voters. Same ethnic group as himself. That’s not surprising.
"His gains in heavily Chinese communities — including Manhattan’s Chinatown and Brooklyn’s Sunset Park and Bensonhurst were notable, too."
Ok
Yep. The intentional forces driving wedges are winning because people treat politics like a game of telephone without knowing who's on the other end of the line. 🙄
It is.
it's sort of category error to think of the Democratic Party as a single institution, especially when most of it is spread out in the wilderness.
It's not organic. It's giving troll farm
This is especially poignant given how they’ve been dog-piling her the last week, for having the audacity to say that antisemitism is bad, and hollow grandstanding isn’t politically efficacious.
It is super fun to piss and moan about pet issues, and then above all stay home and don't vote, and moan about the outcome. That feels like punk rock to these shrieking dweebies.
low social trust morons are the same no matter what side of the horseshoe they inhabit
🎯
The same conspiratorial mindset of MAGA
Democratic leadership is poisoned by corporate PAC greed
Once he abolishes capitalism, everything will come together.
This is the statement that causes my progressive eyes to roll. As if Capitalism hasn’t failed itself already by leading this nation smack into fascism. Progressives would like a kinder, more sustainable form of Capitalism, something like Denmark.
Denmark works because it's is full of well-behaved white people.
I feel the same way about Americans rallying around Netanyahu while the rest of the world decries every single Palestinian and their homeland being wiped off the face of the earth. The fact that it’s basically illegal in America now to wear a kaffiyeh or display a Palestinian flag is scary as fuck.
At least Killer Kamala was denied the White House though, right? That’s what really matters.
Kamala was the only one who isn’t Bibis bitch. She was our best shot at a 2 state solution, and the only candidate who would have stopped arming Israel. Trump, is obligated to destroy Gaza AND Israel to “trigger Armageddon and bring Jesus back” for the Christian Nazis who bought him the Whitehouse.
What is the matter with these people. We the voters voted for him are you trying to suppress our votes again
I think if, (as seems likely and fingers crossed), some want it to be in spite of Democrats instead of because of us. These folk eat, sleep, and breathe pointless conflict.
"Democrats support Democratic candidate" doesn't get eyeballs
Don’t tell the “left” that Mamdani won because he’s a Democrat who was endorsed by Democrats, and it was Cuomo who touted an “independent” run
They do it at their own peril. People won't come out and vote and we will have another 4 years of republicans if they keep this shit up.
A lot of media orgs on the Progressive/Left spectrum base their business model on monetizing discontent in the Democratic Party rather than creating and furthering Social Democracy.
not monolithic at all but there is a sizable amount of people who refuse to say his name without immediately going into "antisemitism on the left"
And I mean to be clear, fuck that. But it’s genuinely loser shit to paint that as the dominant force of your party rather than to claim the mantle yourself.
I am disallowed from partisan politics for employment reasons and am hopeful for a change in the status quo, but am also not gonna deny that they're there and wield considerable influence
Not enough that they were able to win an election with a high profile Democrat who was a Governor and who is from a legacy family in NY politics. So MAYBE you overestimate “their” influence?
tbf the ones I know were dismissing him out of hand all the way up to election night. before then they kept confidently saying that he couldn't win
Like who? He was winning in the polls for weeks. He clearly had all the momentum and, crucially, had scores of high-profile Democratic endorsements from city, state and national Dems. It’s entirely possible your acquaintances are stupid.
dude, I'm not naming names on bluesky. I am referring to people in a professional capacity at the national level, who I know through my spouse's work. yes, they're stupid, but that doesn't mean they don't exist
Ok? Well, they know less about politics than an average guy who posts on Bluesky then. You should tell them that the next time you see them.
these people have already written off bluesky as a safe space for leftists or whatever. idk why it's hard to believe that there's an organized and powerful centrist cadre in the DNC! democrats at the state and city level are generally (generally) much better
I’m sure there are “centrists in the DNC” but I’m also sure the DNC doesn’t have much influence in campaigns, especially primaries — as evidenced by the fact that ONLY BILL CLINTON came out to endorse Cuomo. If that’s your biggest bullet, you aren’t “organized” or “powerful”
I mean it’s all factional jockeying. I just mean time taken to set up a stabbed in the back myth is time not taken doing something more productive to win people over.
The commentary on this race is a great example of people giving words like Democrats, establishment, liberal, and left whatever meaning they want. Endless complaints about what Schumer or Jefferies are/aren't doing while completely ignoring the NYC machine lining up behind Mamdani.
The machine is the establishment in NYC! His biggest support came from the PMC who are the very definition of shitlibs (I know this because I'm one of them). Mamdani is being treated as the frontrunner locally but so many people outside of the city want to keep pretending he's the underdog.
They were losing their minds over Bill Clinton. A guy they all hate and then suddenly they were all thirsty for his endorsement.
There is a lot of missing the point and talking past each other on Bluesky. But there does seem to be one influential actor with questionable motives - our friends at NYT. The endorsement shenanigans and bad coverage expose them as highly political actors. Dems need to stop getting played
I mean, they’re basically the official paper of ratfucking now They may as well change their slogan to “Here’s Why That’s Bad for Dems”
what in the blue heck
Classic "let's you and him fight" commentary from what should be informative political coverage
A lot of people were convinced this would be true and then when it was immediately and completely debunked, they decided to proceed under the pretence it had been proved right
I think it's significant that the house and senate leaders don't support him! It's not monolithic, but they're pretty important!
“Haven’t endorsed him” seems a somewhat different statement than “don’t support him” IMO.
Oh come on in every other case there is no question standard to endorse the democratic nominee! But I mostly think this is a problem of Schumer and Jeffries specifically being terrible leaders. Even Ritchie Torres has gotten on board!
I’m saying I understand, just it’s worth being precise.
Both are also very far removed from “actually trying to stop him”
yes, but also "refuse to endorse or say you will vote for them while only talking about the issues you have with their policy positions that make it hard to come out and endorse them, thereby creating a permission structure for people to not vote for them" is something that we rightly criticized
I agree but I don’t think either Schumer or Jeffries has done that at all? The main ultimatum I have seen either lay down is around the Intifada stuff which is actually extremely easy for Mamdani to do, and would almost certainly be a (very small) net political boost
(I again understand that many people on here agree with his comments and think it would be a huge blow to his authenticity and appeal etc to admit he gave a bad answer, but I just legitimately disagree)
im pretty sure the only thing i've seen either of them talk about their misgivings about Mamdani re: the intifada stuff, and i haven't seen them do any pro-mamdani media hits about the policies they agree with, but that could be my own personal media bubble.
I mean they’re trying to leverage him into abandoning comments they see as morally bad *and* politically bad in a way that could impact their members, who they are responsible for. That seems completely legitimate to me, as long as it doesn’t lead to endorsing against him down the line
The ideal outcome is that Mamdani says “Yeah those comments were dumb, I do think it’s a stupid phrase. I after all never used it myself and I think it’s a bad idea for others” and then they endorse and then everyone’s a winner
could be the best outcome, though in the bad ending hypothetical of if this does end up the same way as biden/harris on gaza, where the campaign to change his answer fails, but they spend the entire time criticizing him, and somehow cuomo eeks out a squeeker in the general, i hope we treat their
Mamdani did just say that. He said he "wouldn't recommend" the phrase.
sure, though if only time either of them talk about mamdani is criticizing the intifada language and never about the policies he supports that they agree with, im not sure how different that is from leftists who were singularly focused on criticizing harris/biden on gaza that we criticized.
I mean this was the first thing Jeffries said the first time he was asked about him. I agree he can do more
leftists on here for doing to biden/harris in 2024.
and 'yeah sure i complained about them whole time and said they weren't great the whole time but i still voted for them anyway' uWu smol bean shit would ring even more hollow coming from the current house and senate minority leaders. but there's still a lot of time so for them to get on board.
Just like "Democrats will betray trans people any minute now."
My worst follows are all reposting an article that is precisely this. It makes me want to scream.
I cannot fully articulate how much i hate seeing this shit. The Democratic party has been one of the single most trans-friendly and trans-rights supporting political entities on the fucking planet. Room to improve? You bet! Some bad Dems on this? Yep! But christ, keep some fucking perspective.
It’s not necessarily crazy that people fear this, but it is crazy how it’s taken as gospel that the party as a whole is chomping at the bit to do it
ah but have you considered that we have examples of <5 specific Democrats (all in the bottom 10% worst shitters in the party) who are willing to abandon trans people? And therefore we feel justified in extrapolating this out to "all Democrats"? Pay no attention to how the rest of the party votes!
Again, the party could rather easily solve this by having a major figure tell the DINOs to shut the fuck up. It is a choice not to. I get the reasons behind that choice. I just think they're bad.
Yeah - most Democrats have been mostly good on trans rights, but this is one area where they have failed. The party can’t control the views of its fringe members, but it can absolutely make it clear that they are fringe views.
Bonus points - there’s an incredibly easy target in Gavin Newsom. He’s not in Congress. He’s in no danger of being replaced by a Republican. Some of the prominent Democrats in question are probably going to be running against him for President in a couple years, even.
Make a big deal of condemning him by name. You’re going to have to do it sooner or later anyway. (Maybe people are doing this and it just hasn’t penetrated my information environment. I don’t know.)
Wouldn't it be great if VP Kamala Harris called out Joe Manchin, and that resulted in him getting furious and revoking his support for the bill at hand? Because that's a thing that actually happened, not whatever Green Lantern bullshit you're imagining.
Again. I get that reason. But that reason *does not exist when we are fully in opposition.* If you can hit Mamdani, or Tlaib, or Green, you sure as hell can hit Moulton and Golden.
Uh I would say Moulton sure but Golden is worth every single other rep on that list put together x 10 so you don’t hit him unless it’s a deliberately staged thing to distance him from the party for his own electoral benefit
If he's not a reliable Democrat, he's not worth defending. And he's not a reliable Democrat. I'll accept conservaDems. But they need to be partisans. Golden isn't.
The corrolary here is that from a purely political lens, Golden being chided by leadership could actually be an electoral boon in that it lets him go to his red-purple district and show off his independence
Yeah as I said, if it’s a coordinated thing then great. OTOH if they hit him in a way that genuinely pisses him off and he decides to retire or flip parties or something then it’s just pure self sabotage for no gain. It’s an annoying assumetry but the way it is
Moulton did get hit!! And he "clarified" his remarks in response.
He got hit by *us.* Not by his peers.
The governor of Colorado Golden? Am I misremembering or do I not understand Colorado?
Jared Polis is the governor of Colorado.
Aaaaaaa that's right that's right, I thought his name was Golden somehow.
Congressman Jared Golden of Maine. Best known for his idiotic takes on both trans folks and tariffs. Holds the Maine 2nd, a Trump district (PVI of R+4).
the House's Manchin
I think you’re thinking of the wrong Jared? I mean Maine congressman Golden
I see, I see, totally, I must be confused, thank you, lol
That’s Polis. Golden is the Maine rep.
I mean maybe but also like, this isn’t how parties work in the US? “Your party commands you to shut the fuck up” doesn’t work?
indeed jwmason.org/slackwire/po...
It's not about the command. It's about the messaging. Congressional leadership handles moderates behind closed doors and liberals out in public. This rankles more liberal folks. It's not that the command would work. It wouldn't. It *would,* however, assuage concerns of trust and sincerity.
That makes sense also to me, totally
This is true, but basically I think it's unhelpful that in the present moment the two highest rank Democrats have all the worst opinions. If people felt they were allowed to just treat AOC or Pritzker or Harris as a leader in absentia, I think a lot of these problems would be alleviated.
I've been told queer rights don't matter and that queer people don't matter compared to getting generic dem trash elected by more then enough dog shit liberal middle class cis het dem trash to know that them, and frankly cis het folks in general cannot be trusted
Have you heard of the governor of California?
didn't know Newsom was in the 10% worst shitters in the party, the more you know
Newsom and Shapiro are the only two Democrats who could be candidates for President and who would be a bad President, prove me wrong.
kamala harris exists
Yeah, I'm going to laugh so hard when she instantly becomes the farthest left Governor California's ever had.
almost surely. the bar is so abysmally, atrociously low that it's nearly guaranteed she would be. Biden was the fartest left president the US has ever had after Roosevelt and yet
LBJ would like a word. But I mean yeah, Biden was pro-spending, that's why I was happy about Biden before 10/7.
biden was pro spending for a while, and then he saw the backlash against the growing inflation and cranked the spending dial to as low as it could get "Build Back Better" was a great slogan for the year or maybe two he used it for, before dropping it
I think she'd be a good President at least better than Clinton, probably comparable to Obama. Maybe better. She never really got much experience actually governing or legislating yet outside of her tenure as a DA, but like she was a very progressive prosecutor and Senator.
She would have been a fine president
She would have postponed the fascist takeover for another 4 years without fundamentally changing anything. She wouldn't have prosecuted Trump or touched the corruption in the SC or any of the other pressing issues fine indeed. Fine isn't enough, fine lets fascists fester
I'm pretty sure Harris would have convicted Trump being that she was basically running on it and she was a prosecutor and she was in early talks about getting rid of Garland when it looked like she might win - but I guess we'll just never know.
edition.cnn.com/politics/har...
cool fiction
sounds like a skill issue on your part tbh
people (including myself!) *used* to like him but i think his general image among The DemocratsTM is pretty much "defector to the enemy" now after the Bannon stunt
like even people who don't care much about trans rights can still broadly spot greasy weasel behavior when they see it
he had a brief rebound period for doing the bare minimum task of "resisting ICE literally terrorizing California" and then immediately went back to political penis car door-slamming upon seeing people almost forget the weaseling
"political penis" added to vocabulary
political self-CBT
www.politico.com/news/2025/07... Well we can add Hakeem Jeffries to the list un unimportant little shits that won't support Mamdani, is he also irrelevant in the party?
isn't Newsom one of the best-polling candidates for the next dem primary? I know that early polls aren't exactly rigorous but like the guy is extremely popular and influential in the party, no?
This is the mindset that brought us "48 senate Ds want to do this, Sinemanchin don't want to do this, therefore Democrats don't want to do this"
“The purpose of an institution is what it does” is completely wrong, in fact it’s conspiracy thinking Unintended consequences happen all the time!
I think that's a bit of a hard philosophical line, I just think people don't understand how "TPOASIWID" isn't supposed to be literally descriptive of intentionality so much as it is a tool for picking apart our own revealed preferences.
I think you're right unintended consequences happen all the time, I think that's part of what we're asked to examine if we're taking systems theory seriously.
It can be useful to think, if you meant to build a machine that does X and it does Y, you have built a machine that does Y. But too many people use it as if you say you meant to build a machine that does X and it does Y, you meant to build a machine that does Y.
Precisely
I think as a thought experiment it is not without merit, but it does kind of fall apart if you look at it as an ironclad rule. By this logic the purpose of 31 NFL teams is to lose every year
I personally am SO TIRED OF THAT BULLSHIT
Which itself is what brought us rotating villain, those 48 also don’t want to do it but are hiding behind Sinema and Manchin, theory.
This is about the point at which Jimmy Dore starts gesturing at things saying "Kabuki theatre," and reinventing LaRouchism
This made me laugh out loud
The vibes feel like a lot of people would go for LaRouchism now
I'm growing increasing convinced that LaRouchism is the most accurate reflection of the dark heart of the common man. The people yearn for a land bridge and directed energy weapons.
The fact that LaRouche is an influential thinker who it's important to understand in order to comprehend modern politics is proof that we are living in a wacky alternative timeline. In a main timeline LaRouche is obviously a forgotten footnote of history.
It's ambitious in a sclerotic world. It paints a picture of a future where we once again build wonders.
And enough conspiracy theories to explain the unexplainable and confidently sort out the blame for all ills. We'll do incredible things and finally get the bastards is great sales pitch.
It’s all about Beethoven, you see…
Even when we had 60 votes for about 40 days - we had *just enough* blue dogs to keep us from making real progress. My earlier comment explains why we’re still fighting the same fights we fought 55 years ago. *Just Enough* establishment dems.
well the easiest way to make it impossible to keep up the theater is to go way overboard and elect tons more dems. that'll show em!
A very specific designation: More “Dems.” Republicans have open primaries because they want their most conservative voters to have a say in who the candidate will be. Dems have closed primaries because they *dont* want their more liberal voters to have a say in who the candidate will be.
you know there's almost no barrier to voting in a closed primary you just have to register you don't have to believe anything, there's no requirements
That varies from state to state. (Which is something we use as an argument against republicans when it comes to a lot of things like voting laws women’s rights gun laws etc.) Open primaries would be the simple answer- anything less simple is easy to characterize as suppression wouldn’t you say?
So GOP turnout tends to be more solid at election time. Dems’ turnout tends to be less because the more liberal voters didn’t get a voice in selecting the candidate. It’s sort of genius - if the object of govt is to maintain the status quo. And status quo means rich get richer. Poor work harder.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to endorse or signal tolerance of rotating villain theory here. Precisely the opposite in fact.
No worries. I’m only an amateur observer of frustratingly close politics. But in my lifetime it always seems there just enough D moderates to eff thing up. They say that young voters don’t come to the Polls? Well when we give them a reason to - they show up.
we had like 15 senators in that congress who would be to Manchin's *right*
including Joe Lieberman, who mostly seemed like being a problem for the Dem caucus out of principle
Not to speak ill of the dead - but he was often on villain duty. That’s for sure.
remember when he proposed a Medicare buy-in for people under 65 to try to sink the ACA but then had to retreat when the Dems responded with "yeah, sure, that's actually great, let's do that"
Challenge: in December of 2009 59 Dems and 1 republican voted yes on the ACA. In March after Manchin became a senator it passed 56-43. So I don’t think your perspective is correct - (at least based on the ACA when it really counted.)
Zero republicans voted for the ACA. And what passed in March was a reconciliation fix to some of the stuff in it.
Not true. A senator from Ky was the sole R Yes in December 2009. When the final bill was passed March 25th it was 56-43 and bollotpedia doesn’t say if anyone crossed over that time so we can both be right.
That energy would disappear quickly if some of the Democratic leadership were to endorse him. I mean, endorsing the person who won the primary isn't too much to ask, is it?
Instead, they keep demanding Mamdami justify himself on topics that have nothing to do with running NYC.
Like what?
Why endorse early if people will literally forget within minutes? The median voter is not renowned for their deep breadth of knowledge and memory of political events. Simultaneously, people will literally never stop the stupid infighting, it's integral to the online momentum.
So far the Manhattan Democratic Party and the Brooklyn Democratic Party have officially endorsed Mamdani, so who’s this “leadership” that supposedly isn’t endorsing him? (Yeah, I know, the Brooklyn party switched their endorsement after the primaries, but that’s NYC politics for ya)
Y'all (his supporters) are saying this more than anyone else, though? The dude literally won the Democratic primary. I think he's doing okay.
It's amazing to see how many people seem genuinely gutted that Cuomo lost, and how many of those people aren't in any way what we would call "the Establishment".
The Eternal March of Cuomo (Derogatory) cannot fail, it can only be failed
This is the same mindset that will lead to these kinds of people metaphorically slitting Mamdani’s throat when they can gain clout for criticizing him as not being “pure” enough
Especially when there’s tons of evidence disproving it! His campaign announces new endorsements daily!
I’m sure he’ll get a big boost from that Jamaal Bowman endorsement. Between that & Rashida Tlaib it should really help with Jewish voters.
It’s the next party switch. Republicans embracing Maoism while democrats become the patriotic free martketeers
When has the Democratic party ever been able to monolithically align on *anything*? (Insert old Will Rogers quip here.)
The biggest mistake people make is thinking we have a national party that dictates policy rather than 50 state parties that are constantly in tension
And those 50 state parties are made up of X number of county parties that all have their own opinions
And even those county parties exercise only loose control over who runs as a Democrat and what messages they use
Yeah, as long as they meet ballot access rules, you can't do anything
It's shocking how often people say "the Dems ran terrible candidate X, they must hate us" We should instead blame candidate X himself. Particularly at the local level, "the Dems" don't run a person. The person runs.
People will say that and in the same breath argue that there is no point in trying to vote in primaries. Amazing politicians have literally lost their political career before it can even start thanks to limited voter engagement for primaries, including ones Leftists WOULD LIKE. It's aggravating.
Yeah, primaries are when you have the most say over what sort of person represents you in government.
Some primaries are so incredibly small that you could literally tilt the scales by getting you and 3 friends involved in them. People, flat out, have ZERO clue how much more control they would have if they did the literal bare minimum of voting every time, including in primaries.
And party rules say that party officials can't campaign against a Democrat in the general, so the only thing the party can do in that scenario is keep their mouths shut and not campaign for them
It definitely reveals how little they actually know about the party and the process.
They react to advice as if you're trying to do character assassination. It's wild shit but pretty typical of a kind of linear thinking associated with youthful radicalism
Just proves that the current Divide and Conquer tactic is in full swing, and people need more than ever, to band together and usurp abusive power - put highly ethical leaders in place.
People really showing they don't know ball (navigating a diverse coalition over a large geographic area).
Consider for a minute that the Dems in control of the party (ones who take the most money and fight to keep insider trading legal for themselves) have SO MUCH MORE in common with republicans than they have with regular working class Americans. THATS WHY it feels so bleak every time we get close.
I’m going to be honest I don’t believe you really are groot
Healthy skepticism is sign of superior intellect. lol I would expect nothing less.
Jefferies literally went on TV and basically did the "but does he condemn Hamas?" Thing about Mamdani so that doesn't really make one feel good about the parties leadership's willingness to support him
Jeffries is not even remotely the “leader” of the Democratic Party in NYC. He represents one district and that is all.
Hes the minority leader in the house of representatives and leader of the democratic caucus. Id say that puts him pretty solidly in party leadership territory.
That is federal business, and has absolutely diddly-squat to do with power dynamics in local city politics. We don’t care. Most of this fuss is people not-from-NYC obsessing about Jeffries because he’s one of the few NYC politicians they’ve heard of.
Hell, the official Brooklyn Democratic Party already endorsed Mamdani, and that includes Jeffries’ district whether he likes it or not, so the hell with him if he doesn’t want to play
Misread and blocked two people before realizing.. perhaps it is time for a break from interneting.
that HAS to happen, so that if he wins it is a win against the Democratic Party, and so that if he loses it is because of the Democratic Party. if anything else were true then it would contradict the preordained conclusion that the Democratic Party is bad.
And it has been thus since the first leftist lib hater donned the democratic party sash, defrauding their district by pretending to be democrat while running with the singular goal of dismantling the party from within. Tweet screenshots live forever, and DSA/Justice Democrats orchestrated the plan
haven't heard from Justice Dems in long, long time. AOC was smart to leave all that shit behind.
Isn't she still a part of it in some sense? You are correct in the sense I don't hear her speak about them as a whole. Their values weren't bad, but they were clearly trying to perform what could be described as a coup.
I mean, I think the problem is that four of the most visible relevant Democrats haven't done the right thing - Schumer, Gillibrand, Jeffries, and Hochul.
Schumer and Hochul didn't endorse until a week before the election last time. I don't know why everyone is expecting them to do so in July this time.
The primary runner up wasn’t running a sore loser campaign last time.
Thank you! Lefties want this to be a thing so bad!
Dems love him! This is driving me nuts. It's taken as gospel, it's crazy.
The bots. They are everywhere. Stop passing on bs people
Mamdani/Jeffries meeting this week, we’ll see what happens after that but I think it might break some brains
And Jeffries’ comments in that Politico piece were SO tame. Zohran was uncommitted and never endorsed Harris. And now he’s exceeded his own expectations with this nomination and has most Dems’ backing. Instead of positivity on left it’s only made them more hating of the Dem Party as whole.
An aging former President that’s completely out of the game endorses his former HUD secretary. AOC, with her massive platform and effectively in leadership, responds by “THEY will do anything to hold us back” conspiracies. This stuff doesn’t help anyone—Normies nor Progs—except the GOP.
Helping the GOP was always the point for a lot of these people.
Yeh A few really malevolent saboteurs and accelerationsiste, but the majority are just being tragically misled
Like how the GOP eve rally accepted Trump, so to will the NYDEMS bend the knee and a lot of them already have !
I mean let’s just say I’d be extremely surprised if anything but the obvious thing happened after this. A brain broken by that is either already broken or begging to be.
ARE YOU SURPRISED that Mamdani SOLD US OUT after meeting with *(terrible nickname for Jeffries thats like.... VAGUELY racist?)* This is all the fault of the neoliberals
After Friday, I imagine it'll go like this: Jeffries: "After meeting with Mamdani, I look forward to working with him and seeing his vision for New York come true" The Usual Suspects: "Jeffries didn't say he endorsed, therefore he hates Mamdani and is sabotaging him! **** The Dems!!!"
I have seen and am open to the idea that the usual "hold off all endorsements until the election season because voters are goldfish" idea should be changed in the current context of Mamdani being under attack from so many directions, but I'm not seeing it articulated explicitly much.
In theory a good compromise would be for Jeffries to anti-endorse Cuomo, but that seems like the last thing I'd consider putting on my bingo card.
Hakeem Jeffries top single contributor from 2023-2024 was AIPAC, he's received over a million dollars from them in that cycle alone, lmao. If Jeffries said that I'd welcome him to the resistance but I think I'm just gonna respond to what he's actually done (and does do), rather than imagine things?
📌
Hey I’m back from two days ago and it’s after the meeting they set and he hasn’t endorsed yet. Sorry abt the Fox News link but www.foxnews.com/politics/dem... Says they will “reconvene” at some point.
he has constituents, and they contribute a lot of money to AIPAC. of course that money coms back to their rep.
you have identified the dynamic whereby establishment democrats can ignore and shut down challengers who aren't openly supportive of a genocidal regime, i.e. progressives. I'm critical of that dynamic. Any field a progressive is leading in, an establishment voice can get *millions* to spoil.
that's because time and again leftists refuse to build coalition. not all progressives are pro-Palestine so if that's a deal breaker for you then you're not as antifascist as you think you are. if Liz Cheney can set aside her differences and joint team antifascist, where the hell were you.
Also, this is why democrats keep losing - they refuse to coalition with the left, and take cues from their eminently popular political positions and historical awareness (and, frankly, energy and desire to make things better), instead hugging diet Republicans to show fascists they can vote for us
No one is interested in history lessons from someone who thinks Liz Cheney is married to Dick. (Deleted and reposted because of egregious typo)
I don't care about Liz Cheney as a person beyond her radioactivity, believe it or not, like most normal americans. And that's not a history lesson, it's a sociology and political science lesson.
cool well best of luck in your senior year
Joe Biden coalitioned with the left in 2020, with Bernie and Warren, and won the more votes than the number of people who stayed home, which is extremely notable and hasn't happened in decades. Kamala, his vice, didn't. And lost every swing state. Because she ran to the right. Lets do the math.
Lmao great coalition-building you ass, I presented a cogent and reasonable argument and you have nothing for it but "ha ha you are a diapers"
Leftists do refuse to build coalition with people who would exclude or dehumanize or straight-up justify the genocide of others, lmao, absolutely, because Leftists know historically what happens when that happens. I voted for Kamala, but Liz Cheney definitely didn't help Kamala, dawg.
Cheney did help Harris. She campaigned with Cheney in three states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In those three states, she outperformed down-ballot candidates.
Did she outperform Baldwin? She got more votes than Casey and Slotkin (and the latter would do well to remember that 😑) but Baldwin got slightly more votes than Harris IIRC
I’m agnostic on the Cheney thing, but Harris absolutely didn’t outperform the down-ballot in Michigan. She lost while Democrats won the next three most prominent statewide races. (Senate and state Supreme Court x2)
That had nothing to do with her overperformances in those states
She lost every single swing state, dawg. And the down-ballot races were so bad likely *because* so many democrats stayed home. The idea that Cheney gave Harris ANYTHING in *Michigan* of all places is very wild - there's a huge arab electorate there that she spent a lot of time wagging fingers at.
What part of what is factually untrue?
Glonzo politics
Just another example of a flawed candidate everyone will get behind on voting day
This is easy, good things the democrats do are atypical behavior and exceptions that prove the rule while the bad things the democrats do are expected and also prove the rule. We like Mamdani so any support is exceptional while anything against him is proof of the party as a whole an it’s failures.
The dead enderism around congressional leadership and weather or not primaries will be successful feels extremely insane.
I worry that Cuomo will split the D vote and give the election to the R.
He won’t. Adams and Cuomo are more likely to split the moderate/Republican vote, and end up boosting Mamdani. Nobody is voting for Curtis Sliwa, except people who want to see how many cats he can fit into Gracie Mansion.
And the DNC will be perfectly happy with that outcome
It's AIPAC. We have to get it out
They will lose if they don’t get behind him.
yeah, its basically just that the two most visible dem leaders in jeffries and schumer have been the most awful, despite the rest of the ny dem party seemingly understanding they lost this one and getting behind him
I think the vast majority of the democratic party simply doesn't care who the mayor of NYC is. A city council member from Marysville, WA has ZERO reason to care about the mayor of a city a whole continent away.
yes, but unfortunately the two most powerful dems in the house and senate from the NYC and NY state so their input opinions on this local race has larger implications, perhaps unfairly.
Oh absolutely! Interestingly: I'm not sure anyone has ever cared about Pelosi's opinion on SF's mayor. There have been a lot of contentious elections there and I can't recall Pelosi weighing in AT ALL.
How many people whining about that would be complaining about lack of Cuomo endorsements if he had won the primary?
tbh, had cuomo won the primary they shoudn't have endorsed him.
do you think there would be a lack of cuomo endorsements if he had won the primary? pretty sure a big issue during the primary were all the people that rushed to endorse him that called for him to resign just a few years ago.
Could I get a list of mayoral endorsements Chuck Schumer has issued in the last 5 years? Since this is apparently the normal thing for him to do, I'm sure it would take 5 minutes to turn up hundreds of them, right?
not all within the last five years, but here are some I found Adams 2021 Walton (Buffalo) 2021 Sundquist (Jamestown) 2019 Brown (Buffalo) 2013, 2017 de Blasio 2013 Miner (Syracuse) 2009
Don't forget Gillibrand, profile in cowardice.
yes, but her opinion kind of doesnt matter because the broader public doesn't see it as the opinion of "The Democratic Party" like they do the opinions of the current House and Senate Majority leader. her opinion/endorsement's worth is closer to hochul's than schumers.
You mean Mike Johnson & John Thune? They are the House & Senate Majority Leaders.
bsky.app/profile/whoo...
minority* leader
👇 bsky.app/profile/maud...
It’s important to note that these two have also not actually aligned against him. Like you can be critical of them for not endorsing but the idea that they’re trying to defeat him or something is just… a fantasy?
I blame their parents for that fantasy. It reeks of daddy issues
My hot take here is that Jeffries in the role of Minority Leader asking an up & comer new to the party to clarify previous statements that may not align with party goals & values is Good Leadership, Actually, and the kind of internal vetting we want to see parties doing more of.
Exactly which statements?
See, the issue for me is that he'll call Mamdani out publicly, but he won't do the same for transphobes like Moulton. Like, fine if you're going to do this. But the asymmetry rankles.
This is a good hot take. I also think, more simply, that his job is supporting House members in tough districts well away from NYC, and the benefits to them of not endorsing Mamdani (when Mamdani probably will win but hasn't yet) outweigh the benefits to Mamdani of an endorsement.
People are just mad that it’s currently being directed at Momdani specifically.
Mamdani has clarified everything several times now, and Jeffries/Schumer know this. It's clear they are hesitant because he's a brown Muslim in a city with huge numbers of Jewish people and he is an unabashed member of DSA. This isn't hard to figure out.
And yet huge numbers of Jewish people voted for him! This is a cop out IMO
Everyone I know who is Jewish in NYC either a) likes him or b) dislikes him primarily because he's a socialist. Obviously there's some sampling bias there but at this point I am hearing about his supposed antisemitism more or less exclusively from people who don't live here
Ya! Which makes the poor leadership from Jeffries and Schumer all the more maddening.
100%
I think you're underestimating the degree to which much of this is political theater intended for normies who aren't as hyper-fixated on this the way us freaks are. It seems redundant and excessive to us because we aren't the intended audience for it.
I see no political upside for them if their reluctance to get behind Mamdani is meant to be a signal to normies that don't follow politics closely (but who just overwhelmingly voted for Mamdani against two household names in NYC politics). I don't see how it makes sense.
ZM has a lot of positions that are perfect red meat for Fox News to take out of context & (unfairly) make into some sort of natl referendum that loses Dems winnable races elsewhere. Jeffries is doing exactly what he should be doing by having discussions & not blindly endorsing. That’s politics
Because it gets Mamdani himself on-camera discussing his views in venues accessible to normies, like those people whose entire news intake is clicking on NewHour for 20 minutes in the evening while they prep dinner.
ok but the DSA are Vichy, they refused to endorse Kamala.
Yeah that was stupid and I do not defend that. That doesn't make Schumer's and Jeffries' hesitation to endorse Mamdani any less stupid.
What previous statements?
I don’t follow all of this that closely but I remember perceiving the thing people were outraged about with Jeffries as kind of an alley-oop for Mamdani.
Yeah that was a soft handed batting practice pitch that was intended to give Mamdani something to hit out of the park.
The literal senate minority leader hasn't had to answer for taking pics with a literal war criminal the other day? What are we actually doing here lmao
i think the issue is that they are using the same reasons to "just not endorse him" as conservadems like torres and gillen are using to actually align against him and it creates a perception they are on those outliers side rather than the rest of the dem party, which did endorse fairly quickly
Tbh I continue to think it was really shitty of Mamdani to protest outside Schumer’s house within days of 7 October and if I were him, I might also not be rushing to endorse that guy immediately
(I understand this is a wildly unpopular take on this website. I still think it’s pretty understandable, especially since it cannot conceivably affect any outcomes and it remains wholly possible he endorses later)
yeah, on the personal level i get it, and if schumer were just another senator, and not minority leader, his non-endorsement would probably not still be an issue (like how we moved on from gillibrand not endorsing, and don't care about hochul not endorsing). but he IS minority, and so his actions
minority leader*
Its really important to remember that he is/they are minority leaders of the caucus in Congress & that should carry different weight than a singular National party leader. I am still sticking to my rant that all politicians endorsements are dumb & the mechanism treats voters like ignorant children.
It's really annoying to realize the current 'leaders' of the Democrats in Congress are all representing a specific subsection of New York specifically and this means that when they act just as you would expect based on their voter base's biases, this looks like 'the entire Democratic party position'
the problem in the US is when you don't have the presidency there is no position of "national party leader" so people look to the highest ranking politicians of their party to fill the role. no its not technically their job, but thats what the rest of the party is treating them as, unfairly or not.
Generally agree with that. It is not communicated well to the voters perception at least that in the party system iteration we have now decisions (with Democrat’s) are generally made by consensus in addition to personal choices.
action do carry more weight to them, same with jeffries. people have been looking to them as the leaders of the party since T2 started, and so they see what they are doing as more of 'what the dem party is doing' than 'what jeffries/schumer personally want', perhaps unfairly.
but yeah, its mostly just vibes, because online politics is 90% vibes now
Hochul hasn't endorsed him either, unless I missed it. So that's the three top electeds in the state who have so far not endorsed the winner of a Democratic primary.
said this about gillibrand and compared her to hochul, but just reverse the names and it still works
They don’t, like, hate him, they just haven’t endorsed.
I don't think Hochul has endorsed him either (www.politico.com/news/2025/07...) Obviously not endorsing doesn't mean "aligning against", but anyway
sure, though the other big issue is it plays right into progressive insecurities about a perceived double-standards around 'vote blue no matter who'. you're in the dem party, he's the dem nominee now, why hold off on endorsing him? what's the issue with 'vote blue no matter who' now?
That ‘vote blue no matter’ who rings hollow when in May the generally perceived figurehead and leader of that wing agreed that “Democrats are a threat to democracy”. It’s petty, as well as real interpersonal beefs between all these groups all the way down.
Also: bsky.app/profile/joel...
"in their interpretation" lol aka "what we told them your words meant"
Reminds me of "Defund the Police".
It’s critical for their self-image to view it that way. They NEED to believe that any victory he has is in spite of the Democratic Party, a conquest forced on the “libs” they hate. If it isn’t, that destabilizes their whole worldview. Even his defeat would be psychologically easier to manage.
Yep; they want to defeat Democrats more than they want to defeat Republicans. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they refused to support their own candidate in the general because he's The Democrat; but we will, because he's our candidate too.
It really bothers them that he he is a Democrat who has run for office and won as a Democrat and that Democrats are the ones who voted him into this position.
democrat voters vs democrat leadership
Leadership is behind mamdani
oh really? outside of nyc?
Yes? Dems across the nation think he's great and exciting
that's not dem leadership though, which is ppl like hakeem and chuck or even like nancy or biden or kamala (considering bill clinton came out to endorse cuomo, this doesn't seem far fetched)
Ok that's 5 Dem leaders. There are hundreds across NY and the nation who are all backing him full throatedly. Those 5 aren't even opposing, jesus. Take a win! It's a win for us! This a very good direction to go!
all im saying is that the dem rank and file is not the same as the dem leadership. im happy there's dems coming out in support of mamdani but there is significant difference when some senator endorses him vs bill clinton endorsing him (not that I'd want that but it's just an example)
"(not that I'd want that but it's just an example)" lol come the hell on
a dem who is a "leader" (senator etc.) is not the same as a leader of the dems
Its the same leftists who decided to pretend to be Democrats to get elected in 2016 so they could dismantle the party from within because they knew they didnt have the numbers, or policy consensus. The screenshots of their tweets say it all, and the AOCs of the world have handed MAGA their wins
Well when you don't "pretend" to be a Democrat and you actually are one, apparently you lose. Maybe it's time to try something different, except that's not what the donors want is it
The thing about the american party system is that anyone in the party is part of the party. I'm not pretending to be a democrat, I just think the centrist losers who keep running towards the middle are wrong morally and strategically and results keep proving me right.
The (to date) failure of the New York State/national machine to rally around Mamdani (and in a couple cases choosing to poke at him) has lead to some seeing it as an extension of the primary, where Cuomo very much was a party favorite.
I can’t help but wonder how much of it is engineered to cause destabilization and division. Bot/agitator accounts can put it out there because it’s clear that people are vulnerable to it, then some people genuinely believe it because it confirms their suspicions and they repeat it, etc.
This dystopian feeling has happened before in American society. In the late 1950s when the youth rallied around John F Kennedy, 1960s protested Vietnam, Civil Rights and ERA. This is the generation changing of the guard political. Last time it took the GOP over twenty years to change.
All that needs to happen to fix it is for Hakeem to figure out who Mamdsni is—instead of saying he doesn’t know him—and endorses him!!!! Chuck, too, of course.
The establishment dems definitely wanted to defeat him until he beat Cuomo. I suppose the less outraging news about people changing their tune after he won hasn't gone viral. I mean Bill Clinton weighing was really fucked up for a mayoral primary and that gives a strong impression.
I mean people run in primaries and that’s cool and good? And Mamdani won in a competitive one and that’s cool and good too?
Oh definitely but it was just incredibly weird to have Bill Clinton endorsing a mayoral candidate and it was heavily publicized. It very much gave off the vibes of the leadership wanting to get rid of him with a very heavy handed compared to a lot of other smaller scale elections in the US.
I guess I'm not coming across correctly? It's that the dead ender vibes are very much due to the lack of viral support statements by the dem establishment.
Cuomo worked in the Clinton administration. Cuomo called him up and was like "hey old buddy can you toss an E my way" and Clinton was like "sure ok." Reading any sort of broader intention into it than Clinton doing a favor for an old colleague at old colleague's request is a mistake, I think.
I'm literally talking about THE PUBLIC getting that impression.
Honestly, that's on the public to fix. The public needs to work on being less stupid and more informed. Democracy is a civic-participatory system, we all have our obligations to fulfill in it.
Exactly. I even got the initial impression Mamdani was facing a lot of counter pressure after hearing about the Clinton endorsement until hearing about his background. The bigger opposition to Mamdani is definitely from media pundits and editorials by supposedly left learning folks being racist.
*about Cuomo's background.
I share your perspective about an alternate reality.
It's not just on this issue. There is just a godawful alternate reality on social media, fed and informed by bad faith legacy outlets like Axios, NYT, etc, that is constantly convinced Dems are doing the exact opposite of what they actually do. And no amount of proof can break through it.
It's all very very fake and manipulated. Not worthy of being taken seriously, even though it feels real. It's not real, but your neighbors are, and these politicians are real too, and they are not interested in the childish shrieking about purity tests
When a headline said that Trump was pushing Cuomo to stay in the race someone claimed that Jeffries, Schumer, and Trump were on the same team and I did a double take because I feel like I wouldn't have missed those endorsements!
Vote Mamdani
I probably will, if only because his major opponents both belong in prison rather than the White House, and because I wasn’t kidding back in November when I said “vote blue, no matter who”. Then again, it would be hilarious to see how many cats Curtis Sliwa would try to fit into Gracie Mansion…
*Gracie Mansion, not the White House. I know what office he’s running for, it’s just early in the morning.
I’m not going to (don’t live in NYC).
I refuse! You can't make me! (I live in Seattle and have to get Katie Wilson into office)
I know of only ONE Dem who opposed him. The rest had questions, he answered, no problem. In fact they gave him a pass on being opposed to Harris in joining w Uncommitted.
Yep, I’m kinda surprised that none have asked him about the Uncommitted Movement and his support for it, or about “LeaveItBlankNY”
You think it's bad now - wait till they find out that Mamdani's and Harris' views on Israel are more alike than they are different.
lol this is such a cope
No, it's reality. Both Harris and Mamdani support Israel's right to exist and defend themselves. They both support the two state solution. They both oppose Netanyahu, support cease fires, and both push(ed) for more Palestinian aid.
Oh where did Harris say she would arrest Netanyahu if he set foot in the United States? Guess I missed that one.
So that Mamdani is lying and Harris refused to is a win to you? Are you that much of a child you need to be told lies? Because Mamdani can't arrest Netanyahu. He knows this. And guess what - nor can a President. Foreign heads of state have diplomatic immunity.
Even worse, because of your fellow leftists who refused to vote for Gore and threw their votes away to Nader, the Bush Jr admin added a fun clause mandating the US protect Israel from the ICC. All you had to do was vote for Harris and give her a Congress that would get these changes to her desk.
Yeah I bet Harris would’ve broken from Biden and stopped weapons shipments to Israel. Also Gore lost because of the Brooks Brothers riot, and the Dems were too normspilled to bother contesting the SCOTUS decision to hand Bush the presidency
Considering it's Congress who has to stop those shipments, and not the President - I'm certain that if they'd do their jobs and get the required JRD to her, she would do hers. No President could stop the sales of those weapons, because Congress under Trump authorized them for 10 years.
Damn, no wonder yall lost in ‘24
Yeah, this is painting with a broad and disingenuous brush. These two things are not the same at all. www.jpost.com/diaspora/ant...
And you obviously didn't read the article, because you just confirmed what I said. The only difference between Harris and Mamdani's positions on Israel is that you refused to listen to Harris. Even when Palestinians begged you to save them from Trump. You ignored them.
No yall are retroactively equating Harris to Mamdani and trying to own a win you didn’t participate in. Harris was not different from Biden in any meaningful way in relation to Israel, hence why so many Arab Americans refused to vote for her.
I'm actually convinced we are in an alternate reality. It started as a joke but the idea seemed to cement somehow and I'll find myself starting sentences with "In the real world ". I simultaneously believe and also think it's a ridiculous thing to believe. There aren't going to be enough therapists.
The information environment for the too-online left (the type that use "liberal" as a sneer word) is every bit as fucked as the FOX/MAGA cinematic universe. No information that reflects well on Democrats penetrates. Information that reflects poorly on Democrats is boosted to the moon.
There are are nominally entertaining very popular posters who, like, once every week or two will just fly into a random anti-Dem tirade.
Like it’ll be “Dems won’t even say that the ICE raids are bad or legal immigration is good!!” - thousands of likes. Then half an hour later i see a Jayapal skeet about ICE raids with literally zero likes.
I've had to start blocking and muting people who are really damn popular almost entirely cause of shit like this. I understand being angry, I get wanting more, but this not so subtle commentary that's Dems are some secret monolith while we literally see a Republican party THAT IS THAT is so fucked.
I won't say who it is, but I actually got one of these accounts (who is also a youtuber/twitch person) into a little back and forth on China. A lot of what they said seemed to be based on assumptions. Made me wonder what other areas this is the case for. Very disappointing.
In the context of Democratic lawmakers already having faced down/facing down legal repercussions for standing up against ICE thuggery.
AGREED!!!!! Can't deal with the fuckery. It's so indulgent "I'm so special waaaah listen to my demands and jump as high as I say" Deal with it, kids, and vote properly so we can begin the enormous job of righting this goddamn ship.
The extremely annoying combination of low-info but high-engagement
Leftists just have a humanitarian ideology and liberals have an imperialistic ideology. The only reason they share a party is because of the two party system. That’s what I think, feel free to disagree and I’ll engage in some chat. To me liberalism is inherently inequal and unstable.
I don't know fighting for civil rights, gay rights, even when they faced backlash at the time, sounds pretty humanitarian to me. Not to mention, the majority of dem voters would call themselves liberals and not leftists.
History notwithstanding I guess.
That has been the plan from the start in 2016, though. The liberal haters on the left decided to infiltrate the party, pretend to be dems, get some of their candidates elected, and sabotage the entire part from within because "its a faster way to the revolution". Their tweets:
Just checking- are you calling progressives “liberal haters?”
I also am having a hard time discerning the factions - "the Liberal-hating left" is a new concept to me. Had I not encountered it here I would have suspected it was an LLM hallucinating an oxymoron.
Also have to accept the possibility that an account working so hard to split liberals into arguing sub-groups may just be fake or AI or whatever. I almost hate to mention it - but “Bernie Bros” were the creation of Russian bot farms during in 2016. Telling HRC supporters that Bernie is sexist. 😂
Oh man I dunno about that one- as somebody who voted for Bernie in the primary in 2016 I ran into way too many of said stereotypical Bernie Bros in real life to believe they were the invention of some foreign op. Don't we remember the snake emojii nonsense of 2020?
It seems to be going around these days.
if there was any truth to it, the party has come around. the institutions are endorsing, but the too online think gillibrand or schumer or hochul even matter in this
Social media is the game of appearing smart and you can't do that if you admit to being wrong, OR go against the collective consensus of what "smart" is. The problem is that people don't realize they're playing this game, and confuse the appearance of intelligence with ACTUAL intelligence.
If they lose their belief that the Dem party are wholly against them they lose their power. It's all that they have, they love railing against Dems. Bring up that Nadler endorsed and they find issue with that and call it BS and "only because he's going to win anyway" crazy times.
Why would we NOT be against them? They're whiney, violent, toddlers hell bent on OUR destruction, and they declared back in 2016 that their only goal is to dismantle the party from within. Justice Democrats and DSA spent a lot of time declaring this on Twitter, screenshots are forever
The people already picked him stop complaining and start campaigning to get him elected, dividing people is what got us in this mess “sigh”
It's because that's the republican strategy against him is. "Weak democrats getting pulled to radical Mamdani" and these people are so focused on "defeating" Republicans that they start to take their word at face value (and even find value in it, themselves)
Yup. It's bizarro world propaganda, as is their comprehension of NYC politics, which makes it important to know two things: 1. who is largely perpetuating it, and 2. what is their ultimate agenda.
I've had these people assert to me that they live in NYC, even that they have been to Jeffries' district, which I find very difficult to believe
Bed Stuy is in Jeffries’ district. What they mean by that is that they came to Brooklyn one time to visit their friend who moved here from Wisconsin in 2022.
I live here, which is why it's always really easy to tell the liars.
I actually saw a guy burbling something about how the Black voters will come around to Mamdani eventually 👀
What I find hilarious is the so called “educated” leftists claiming “educated voters” voted for Mamdani & “uneducated” ie. stupid voters, voted for Cuomo, & when I tell them about Mamdani’s voting record, turns out they’re totally surprised. They actually know nothing about the guy they’re praising.
Furthermore, they have no idea the Mayor of NYC has no power to raise taxes which is how he says he’ll pay for the things he’s promised; nor do they know the mayor has any authority over the MTA & can’t force them to provide free bus fare (which is dumb anyway & not cost effective).
His populist base has a Veruca Salt-like level of expectation...and patience. That's gonna run into a brick wall of limited power and lack of mandate if he comes in on a mere plurality, as polls suggest. A year from now he may have the same approval problem that Chicago's mayor does now.
This. The part that bugs me is anyone promising things that by NYS law, they can't deliver.
Just like Bernie. And Trump does the same thing.
Big difference is that Trump has a Supreme Court eager to ratify every instance of him breaking the law even criminal law - after the fact.
Right, and also, he's enacting the far-right plan to destroy the government as we know it, which not even Bush tried to do.
Yup. There are a lotta phonies running around.... and a distinct whiff of "We know what's good for you better than you do, because we're special".
Like, I know a lot of *sneer* liberals that are enthusiastic about this candidate. Sneering at voters you actually need seems like an unforced error.
The Democrats really need to stop doing that to the "Bernie bros", anti-genocide votersn and/or anyone who sees a corporate duopoly in the two party system.
Sure! Tell me when they’ll stop sneering and we can all stop sneering together. I’m down!
....but those people are bad at equivalency.
What I'm saying is they're not? Like, normal voters want to vote for him.
I'm saying I get sneered at constantly by centerist Dems.
Was I doing that?
They were agreeing with you
in other words, it’s the same cultish behavior from the bernie bros that we’ve seen for over a decade
For those who are, FU.
Up until the latest polls showed Mamdani winning this place was a cesspool of despair. "Everything is rigged" "Dems are only good at destroying leftists" "Ratfuckers!" The moment he won the messaging became "This was the most obvious outcome, just have good policy!"
Honestly though, why would we help them? Their only goal is to infiltrate the party and dismantle it from within, the Justice Democrats and DSA have been loudly declaring that fact since 2016! Screenshots of tweets live forever., and I'm still stunned that nobody paid attention to this
WTF Democrats? I'm a 68-year old lifelong Democrat--we need energy like that of Mamdani. Cuomo needs to go away--his time in the spotlight is over.
I don’t feel it’s an alt reality that the Dem leaders in Congress are not showing strong leadership and some criticism of the party as a whole is a reflection of what their leadership is showing. And yes, there’s a handful of people that just hate without thinking about it.
Mandani is the result of Dem evolution. Some haven’t recognized the evolution yet.
It does not make sense! Look at this list! I keep asking and at the most they come up with about 4 dems who actually are being jerks about Mamdani. That’s it. www.zohranfornyc.com/endorsements
The guy won hands-down and all I hear from federal Democrats is about how he's a Muslim or "a socialist". That they're not backing him immediately on his (very decisive) victory is telling. What happened to "Blue no matter who"? I guess we'll see in the general...
All you hear? Bro, it’s like 5 dems tops who have even mentioned it. And that’s out of like 200+ congresspeople and there’s also the local ny state dems tops take in account: You’re consuming rage bait media. Step back and chill.
I really have to get this granular? Of the federal Dems taking about Mamdani *when talking about Mamdani*. 🤦♂️ And yeah, the rest are *silent*. It was a HUGE upset win in one of the country's biggest cities gathering a TON of coverage. It's not like they aren't asked about him... Why so skittish?
I'm honestly hoping that's not true. I guess we'll find out as we approach the general election in NY. If they back Mamdani, there's still hope. If they back Cuomo *as an Independent*, then yes... It will be dead.
Silent? www.zohranfornyc.com/endorsements
Y'all keep pointing to state reps as if that somehow counters my point... And if you mean the handful of federal-level, there's exactly *one* Democratic senator, three (sitting) congresspeople. I'll give you James and Lander for name recognition at the state level, but I'm still calling bs.
Do you even live in New York? Why are you people so fucking obsessed with our local elections?
And? It’s a local election. What did you expect? The election isn’t even until November, remember?
In addition, this is a local election, not a federal one. You are tripping if you’re mad that a senator from another state hasn’t said anything. Why would they? It’s not their state.
And yet he's on the lips of media and federal politicians after his decisive victory in what, by all rights, should have otherwise been at least a close race. My point stands. Federal lawmakers are being asked about him... And yet most remain non-committal at best. How else should I read this?
Yes, of course the NYC based media is blowing it up. They love that shit. And you want dems to feed into right wing drama? And once again how many federal dems have been commenting on this matter? Barely any. Which is good! You don’t want them butting in.
For ducks sake which is more important to you? For mamdani to be able to focus on local matters and interact with local dems and campaign or do you want him all over tv because he gets dragged into media generated drama with federal dems?
Let the boy work. He doesn’t need conspiracy theorists online losing their shit because a dem didn’t use the exact phrasing or whatever they want.
They are so desperate to feel oppressed that they are red pilling themselves.
Yeah, I think the immediate at best luke-warm reaction from a lot of people we consider to be Democratic Party insiders was triggering. Even the Bill Clinton (derogatory) xeet that people point to doesn't really quite endorse him.
"Triggering"? Were you previously unaware that "Democratic party insiders" would be less than enthusiastic about someone who had refused to endorse Harris?
The leftists have never given anyone a reason to think that they are a solid, decent choice, especially since they started out everything by PRETENDING to be dems in order to take over and dismantle the party in 2016. And they proudly declared that fact. They're not better than the "libs" they bash
Is what these leftists are doing good or bad in your opinion? It seems from what you say that what they are doing is bad, yes? Then why do you want to imitate them? If these leftists jumped off a bridge would you jump off a bridge, too (as everyone's mother has said at least once)?
The NYT immediately setting out to rat-fuck Mamdani I think also ties back into that energy towards what people view as "the establishment".
The NYTimes had been ratfucking the entire Democratic Party for a decade.
The NYT ratfucked Biden and Harris.
The NYT just loves them some fascists these days, and will rat fuck everyone who might stand in their way.
So you agree that "establishment Democrats" are fighting fascism?
yeah this is a great example of people being held up as "the Democratic establishment" who actually hate Democrats and actively work against them. It's like Jesse Singal or Bari Weiss as "Democratic establishment"
It's been blindingly clear since 2016 that the MSM has been working mostly on Trump's behalf. It got a lot worse after COVID but they still didn't do much to hide it before then. Including them in the "Dem establishment" is another "nails on a chalkboard" thing ppl still say.
I mean, I know it’s not a monolith, and many have been awesome. but I do wish for a bit more enthusiasm and less scolding.
Sorry, this is an annoying nitpicking reply, I was telling myself I wasn’t going to do this anymore and I should listen to myself.
No, I get it. I’d prefer all that too. There also just feels like a speed of posting desire that gets people dug into ideas that will wind up not being true.
