I feel like you’re talking about the literal party when everyone who talks about The Democrats this way is referring to all of the money that supports the party and the “pay your dues” old boy club at the top I’m unclear if you’re doing this intentionally
can you just accept that the democrats like the guy they just chose to represent them
The politician believer has logged on
yeah i believe in mamdani is there a problem
So do I, I don’t understand why you’re trying to convince me Hochul or Gillibrand or any other number of the Dems do too
im not, i dont care about specific dems that make you mad the party supports zohran and so do i
Specific Dems like I’m talking about your neighbors Joe and Sue lmao. They are top Democratic leaders in our state. The one that Zohran is running in
you are more than happy to ignore the ones who support mamdani, why are you not happy to ignore the few weirdos who dont
i don't think your mental model of "the democratic party" corresponds to reality very much.
I acknowledge I don’t have the insight that you do. If not the magical hand of The Party what would you say has driven the coordinated railroadings of Hogg/Sanders/Mamdani at various points?
Great question
What Jamelle seems to be pointing out is that the official bodies of the Dem Party in NYC are lining up behind Mamdani (e.g. the Manhattan Dem Club), but what you’re referring to is high-profile, wealthy _members_ of the Party who wield outsize influence at the national level & with media.
Yep, I’m reiterating Jamelle’s first few points 🙂
Sure but those who wield outsized power are clearly the people being referred to when talking about “The Dems”. It’s silly to be making a big point about how The Party is nothing but the members, but also admit that some members have more say than others. In a party called the Democrats no less
Except, quite clearly, those “some members” don’t have more say (i.e., control), seeing as Mamdani ran as a Dem in the primary & won. See also: Obama winning his national primary to run for President. Referring to a faction w/i the Dem Party as the entire Party makes it difficult to fix things!
It's a very powerful faction, the most powerful in fact.
Agreed. But we can’t grapple with them if we throw the baby out w/ the bathwater, and Mamdani is now gathering considerable power for himself & his faction (DSA & adjacent folks). It is a Good Thing™ that Mamdani is winning, & being clear about how that works is how we can replicate his wins!
I admire your optimism, but why did the Democrats line up in favor of Eric Adams when he won the primary but now they have "concerns" about Mamdani? Not trying to be antagonistic but this is gnawing at me 😊
This is Jamelle’s point, that’s not “the Democrats”, that’s a handful of high-profile members. The Party itself, the local & regional clubs, are endorsing Mamdani, and quite a lot of NYC members of the Dem Party were out pounding the pavement for him! A small set of loud assholes isn’t “The Party”
Sadly, to most people, it is. If they have outsized influence, if they are the loudest voices, then they have the most pressure on them to do the right thing and endorse their nominee. At least to send a signal to national Democratic voters, if not to NYC voters specifically.
Hey Jeff did you vote for Kamala Harris to be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate?
Thinking that the amount of attention that letter from Paterson got was really telling. I don't think anyone has given Paterson a thought since his career flamed out due to bribery 15 years ago, but he sees either Cuomo or a second Adams administration as a path back to relevance.
So your most serious opinion is that money and influence do not matter in politics? And elections occur in a binary where money and influence can only win or lose you an election rather than close gaps in voting results?
See, the REAL members of the Democratic party aren't the elected politicians and staffers and officials. It's the fair-weather big money donors with no institutional role trying to force the party to do what they want via waving their money around who are the REAL Democrats.
A+ sarcasm, would read again
A number of prominent Republicans denounced Donald Trump in 2016 and yet by any meaningful analysis the Republican Party supported him
None of those dudes have been railroaded, at all, at any time.
Those three names don't have much in common. Mamdani is getting support from most of the important local Democratic institutions in NYC while his detractors are mostly pundits or political losers. Sanders simply lost a primary. Hogg maybe shouldn't have sought a DNC position if his goal was to 1/
also use his outside PAC and platform to primary incumbents. He needed to choose one or the other. 2/2
The devotion so many supposed progressives have for a grifter who went on Bill Maher to advocate that the party be more accepting of misogyny is wild to me. I'm so disappointed at the MAGA levels of lack of critical thinking from the side I thought was supposed to be better than that.
It's just incoherent. If the complaint is that the DNC organized against Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primaries, then folks should want a neutral DNC. If folks want the DNC to organize against incumbents, then they don't want a neutral DNC.
You’re acknowledging the contradiction that already exists then. Weird how in that contradiction the more progressive end was the one getting fucked
Yet Sanders was allowed to enter the primaries and perform well despite not being technically a Democrat. And progressive candidates win the nomination in progressive congressional districts on a regular basis. Progressives win when progressives vote in primaries. That's all there is to it.
I don't actually accept the premise that the DNC organized against Sanders. I'm acknowledging that your own views are contradictory based on your premises. Sanders simply lost.
