I think Mamdani is poised to win, but he doesn't have to fight with a legislature that's stacked against him. Pritzker is great, but I think he's gonna be tagged as an establishment Democrat. I was primarily referring to presidential contenders. Bernie Sanders would be a good example.
So who are the guys who lose constantly? Bernie lost two primaries for POTUS (to two candidates who ended up being disastrous) but is one of the most popular and consistently victorious senators in the country. Pritzker is, likewise, wildly popular and progressive. What’s your argument?
Also if you think Mamdani’s not going to face legislative opposition once he’s in office, you’re out of your mind. Or you’ve never lived in NY.
I do not live in NYC, but out in the Valley. But historically, I feel like the mayor of NYC has a lot more independence than, say, the President. Mamdani has to deal with 51 city council members, 46 of which are Democrats. So he will have a considerable party majority.
And not a lot of progressive ones. He’ll be negotiating with a lot of moderates who absolutely detest socialists.
such as going after specific grants for technical and community colleges and work up to fully subsidized public college rather than coming out with a full-on "free college" bill. So we compromise and slowly take notch after notch until we are at the top. 2/
Maybe, but we will have to see how that goes. He may have to settle for incremental victories rather than broad victories. For example, Bernie was for free college. I agree with that. A LOT of voters don't because they think it means higher taxes. So it may have to come in smaller segments 1/
Okay so what is your point, why should we stump for candidates who compromise on our values? And who are these progressives who keep losing constantly?
In answer to your question: Stacey Abrams Andrew Gillum Pam Keith India Walton Nina Turner Mary Peltola Yadira Caraveo (I think that's the spelling)
My point is that politics is not an all-or-nothing strategy. Certainly everyone has their key issues. But I think if you have a candidate who is 95 percent what you want and you toss them out because they don't have that five percent, you're missing out on a lot of possible wins.
It’s not all or nothing to want a candidate who supports trans rights and doesn’t destroy homeless encampments with his bare hands. That’s bedrock. That’s the bare minimum. That’s reasonable. And Newsom doesn’t meet it. And Democrats are yelling at leftists nonstop for not supporting him.
Positive: we still have 3.5 years, elections still exist and that we're not all living under martial law. Negative: I have strong doubts that we will have normal elections in 26 or 28. I can't rely on the hope that Dems will keep my trans daughter safe. So we are leaving the country.
I think what Newsom is doing right now is the right strategy with Trump. Taunt him and show him blue states can do the same shit red states do. He's smart. Is he ideal for '28 - no. But we don't really have contenders other than Pritzker at the moment (who I would be very happy with.)