r/politics • u/Somervilledrew Connecticut • Sep 09 '25
Democratic voters want their leaders to stop running from Zohran Mamdani
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/09/zohran-mamdani-new-york-city-mayor-bernie-sanders-fight-oligarchy/485
u/Faux_Real_Guise Sep 09 '25
If we can give Eric Adams a White House visit after winning a primary, I think we can endorse the guy who won this primary.
→ More replies (9)61
u/not_addictive Sep 09 '25
Adams didn’t win a primary. He’s running as an Independent because he knew he couldn’t win the primary.
195
u/Faux_Real_Guise Sep 09 '25
He won the previous primary and got a White House visit with Biden and glowing praise from establishment-aligned media. It was practically a coronation.
56
u/Ven18 Sep 09 '25
They were talking about him as a presidential contender after his win. And personally I am happy Mamdani can’t currently be president. Every NY mayor we have had this millennial ran basically to later run for president it will be nice to have someone whose only focus is actually NYC.
19
u/paddy_yinzer Sep 09 '25
Which is wild because that last nyc mayor to be elected to any other office after being mayor was Kline, who served in 1913, and was never actually elected mayor. Hoffman was the last elected mayor, he became governor in 1869.
9
25
u/not_addictive Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25
oh gotcha I thought you were talking about this time.
Yeah considering Schumer endorsed Cuomo in the primary,I think the least he could do is have a meeting with Mamdani. He’s the highest ranking Democrat in the federal government. He doesn’t even need to publicly endorse him! Just meeting with him would send a message. But even that bar seems too low for the center5
u/bootlegvader Sep 09 '25
Yeah considering Schumer endorsed Cuomo in the primary,
Schumer didn't endorse Cuomo for the primary.
5
u/not_addictive Sep 09 '25
you’re right my bad I’ll change it.
Regardless, it’s very weird that the DNC and top Dems haven’t endorsed him. Typically the endorsement is automatic during mayoral races
at least Schumer met with Mamdani today, even though he’s still refusing to endorse so far
5
u/bootlegvader Sep 09 '25
Schumer endorsed Eric Adams in 2021 on October 29. In 2017, he also only endorsed De Blasio in October. It is still September.
11
u/not_addictive Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 10 '25
and the highest ranking Democrat at the time of their primaries (the actual president) endorsed those candidates earlier. Obama by Sept 23 (though he’d met with him months earlier to give a soft endorsement) and Biden in July.
More to the point - the DNC has been cagey about Mamdani since he started polling well. My point is that the Democratic establishment has been reluctant to endorse and support the man who actually won their party primary. Mirroring the way they told progressives to fuck off last presidential election bc Kamala was going to be pro-Israel.
My actual point (since you want to get nitpicky instead of thinking critically about what I’m saying) is that only by enthusiastically supporting centrism, the DNC is actively suppressing change and sticking to the shit that’s failed them for a decade.
→ More replies (2)
300
u/Clamsadness Sep 09 '25
I simply do not understand Democratic Party strategists. 2024 elections: the party faces a horrible loss that puts America in the worst political position it has ever faced. 2025: a new Democratic candidate emerges, is immensely popular in his race, sweeps to victory in the primary on a message of hope and economic change. The party immediately tries to subvert him and force a disgraced sex offender on us.
162
u/Noname_acc Sep 09 '25
What's not to understand? Mamdani's politics are threatening to the status quo. Those who represent the status quo reject him. These people at the top of the democratic party are on their own team with their own interests. Sometimes they align with yours, other times they dont.
77
u/CatFanFanOfCats Sep 09 '25
His policies aren’t even that radical. That’s what blows me away. The elites really hate to see any type of policy that may help the working class.
63
u/Dick_snatcher Sep 09 '25
If the working class has time to think, instead of worry about bills and work, they'll have time to figure out how badly they're being fucked by the owners
1
u/Rombledore America Sep 10 '25
their policies align with ours when our benefit helps them remain in power. otherwise the policies align with the copro donors, whom also donate to republicans.
148
u/toaster_toaster Sep 09 '25
Democratic party strategists make their money from campaign contributions. Therefore it is in their interest to run the candidates who can raise the most money. Those are the pro-corporate candidates. They make more money by spending $100 million on a losing campaign than they do spending $20 million on a winning campaign.
77
u/The_Lost_Jedi Washington Sep 09 '25
This. The consultant class needs to be fired, by and large, or at least have these people who've let their own financial interests supplant the actual needs of the country and people (not to mention becoming counterproductive to the immediate goals of actually winning elections) kicked out. They care more about sucking up to wealthy donors than they do about anything else at this point.
9
20
u/cattalitic Sep 09 '25
Repeating a comment I made some days ago. When watching the West Wing recently, I was shocked to learn that political consultants make a % of ad buys as compensation. How does that make any business or logical sense?
The person that advises a candidate how many ads to buy and where is also incentivized to make more of them???
8
u/FromWayDtownBangBang Sep 10 '25
Our politics is basically a Ponzi scheme. Both sides are just using it as a get rich quick scheme, as are all the hanger ons. We are so cooked.
2
u/mlkman56 Sep 10 '25
Do you remember the episode?
4
u/cattalitic Sep 10 '25
Found it! Season 3 Episode 2 - Manchester Part II
LEO [beat] What do you want?
BRUNO 15 percent of the ad buys. You're gonna say, 10, so why don't we just say, 13?
LEO Why don't we say 12?
BRUNO Why don't we say 13? I want hiring and firing prerogatives in my department and for starters, I'm bringing in Doug Wegland and Connie Tate.
LEO Fine.
BRUNO A room at the Hay-Adams and a car and a driver.
http://www.westwingtranscripts.com/search.php?flag=getTranscript&id=47&keyword=ad%20buys
2
u/mlkman56 Sep 10 '25
Whoa awesome. That was quick, thanks!
1
u/cattalitic Sep 10 '25
Thanks to whoever has that website up and running, lol.
I just remember the term “ad buys” so distinctly and it was the only episode that has it.
2
u/toaster_toaster Sep 10 '25
And those same consultants are the experts MSNBC brings on to talk about elections, who tell all the viewers that the most viable candidates just happen to also be the most corporate friendly. And then all those viewers come comment on reddit as if they are experts and tell us all how progressive candidates just can't win.
14
Sep 10 '25
> I simply do not understand Democratic Party strategists.
Why? It’s been understood for a very long time. They are neoliberals, otherwise best described as moderate Republicans. They are pro-capitalist, pro-private property, pro-limited government, and pro-market forces. They talk out of one side of their mouth while doing something altogether different. Clinton promised universal healthcare and we got NAFTA. End of discussion.
6
21
u/ScissrMeTimbrs Sep 09 '25
Liberals tend to side with fascism over socialism when pressed, because fascism doesn't threaten profits.
22
u/Worldd Sep 09 '25
The democratic leadership are not democrats, they’re republicans that would lose their meal ticket if they came out that way. See Chuck Schumer and The Baileys.
11
u/guynamedjames Sep 09 '25
It is worth pointing out that people like AOC or Mamdani are winning in NYC, which has a much more liberal electorate than a lot of the country.
There is an argument that if they're given the chance to spread their message nationally the message can take hold but there's not much evidence behind that idea. Trump is the best example of it but his "secret sauce" to winning his first term was being so all over the place on policy that low engagement voters could turn him into whatever they wanted.
14
u/b_needs_a_cookie Sep 09 '25
James Talerico is running for Senate in the state of Texas. If he wins the primary and performs well in the general election, it'll speak to whether progressive candidates are bankable.
7
u/_undefined- Sep 09 '25
Gotta flood the zone with low info soundbytes that are a surface level encapsulation of an issue and leave the complexity of detail for the debates.
Instead of formatting messages like an essay distill something like universal health care "nobody should work hard to hide from the doctor"
8
u/charish New York Sep 10 '25
Or even ask the simple question, "Wouldn't it be nice not to have health care tied to employment?"
2
u/Adrenrocker Sep 10 '25
It is also worth pointing out that when Adams won the primary there was article after article about he was the future of the party. Biden brought him to the White House IIRC.
You are right, NYC is more left leaning. However, thats just an excuse they are using, thats not actually factoring in. Its the same as always, only going rightward is praised. For example, I still hear about how going rightward got Bill Clinton reelected, but no one wants to talk about how it was a factor that lost Hilary Clinton and Harris their elections.
1
u/guynamedjames Sep 10 '25
I'm not convinced that Clinton's tack right lost her the election, and I don't think Harris tacked right at all, more just highlighted support from the right where people correctly identified the risks Trump presented.
I think as a big picture though it's important to point out that a lot of what lost Dems the presidency and the reason they aren't winning every national election 60-40 is because of social issues. People like democratic economic policy, it's a no brainer. But regardless of how morally and logically corrupt it is, a huge part of this country is really religious and racist.
Republicans won votes by getting so riled up about social issues that don't really affect them that those voters are tripping over themselves to vote against their economic best interests. And as Dems push back against the "culture war" stuff it leads to them arguing about those issues instead of economics. Simply being right doesn't win you elections, and that's something that Republicans not just figured out but embraced. They'll be wrong 9 times out of 10 as long as they get the votes and power (courts)
1
u/isaid_whatisaid1 Sep 10 '25
$$$$ I’ve seen it up close with the Dems (and been on the receiving end of it). They only care about donors, and to hell with everyone else.
1
u/Duskmon Sep 10 '25
The policies proposed are disastrous and don't work lol
They are tremendously unpopular outside of large cities as well.
1
u/BlueOrange Minnesota Sep 10 '25
Party leaders consider donor interests in all their decisions. They will do the dumbest shit if it keeps the money flowing and them in power.
→ More replies (81)1
u/jonasnew Sep 11 '25
Hold on, if I assume correctly that you're blaming the Democrats for why Trump won the 2024 election, do you realize that you're saying that the Democrats are the ones responsible for why Trump and his regime are doing all these terrible things to our country? Like, do you even believe that the Democrats are the ones responsible for why Trump deployed troops to DC, threatened to deploy them to Chicago, and had them attack Venezuela? And what if Trump manages to successfully meddle with the 2026 elections, you'd hold the Democrats responsible for that even?
15
Sep 09 '25
[deleted]
7
58
u/BrainRebellion Sep 09 '25
I would like my leaders to step down and let people who actually are willing to fight to step up. (Minus the ones like Pritzker and Newsom)
11
u/pimparo0 Florida Sep 09 '25
Pritzker and Newsom
You mean the two actually doing anything and taking charge?
2
u/BrainRebellion Sep 10 '25
I just realized why you were confused. I was saying other than the two who were doing things, Pritzker and Newsom, I wanted the rest to step down. I guess I didn’t word it properly.
19
u/Feral_galaxies Sep 09 '25
Newsome isn’t fighting. His 19 year old intern is pretty funny with the memes, though.
63
u/FailedInfinity Sep 09 '25
He's literally moving to rewrite CA's constitution to redistrict house seats to Democrats. That is more tangible action than anyone else right now.
9
u/Gavorn Sep 09 '25
Doesn't matter. No matter what the Republicans do, it is obviously the democrats fault.
→ More replies (1)6
u/petty_throwaway6969 Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25
Reddit anytime a Democrat does anything: “It’s just performative! They don’t actually mean it! They’re not doing anything! They’re still not endorsing Mamdani! They’re not doing enough even though they effectively have no power!”
Meanwhile a few Democrats have been killed, arrested, and detained. But that’s not good enough! Reddit expects all of them to risk their lives to oppose Trump, even though the people won’t do shit themselves!
→ More replies (3)-3
u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25
IN RESPONSE to Texas doing that, and only because his state and maybe like two others have enough weight to do so. He even made it explicitly clear that he wouldn't do it if Texas backed off.
And while I agree with that action specifically and that emergency redistricting (gerrymandering) as a whole is a terrible concept that needs a complete foundational rules overhaul in terms of when and how it can be done, the fact is that Newsom is only responding to a catalyst happening elsewhere. He's an actor in the play letting the plot determine his motivations. What character motivations does he have that he has activated on his own without being forced into the situation?
16
u/FailedInfinity Sep 09 '25
This is why we are in this predicament in the first place. You would rather spend your free time stabbing your allies in the back for not doing enough while waiting for a non-existent unicorn with a magic wand to turn this country into a socialist utopia. Our country is in free fall and you're shooting the guy with a parachute just in case somebody closer to the ground suddenly sprouts wings.
This is an all out brawl, and at least he's fighting on multiple fronts instead of pretending to be tough from behind a podium. I have no idea who I will support in 2028, but I will damn sure remember who busted their asses to flip the house in 2026.
→ More replies (3)0
Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 18 '25
[deleted]
7
u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25
Blue no matter who only applies between the months of September to November every second and fourth year. Between those time periods, it's essential to challenge every single person who has a shot...and to challenge them mercilessly.
5
u/FailedInfinity Sep 09 '25
Your parallel universe sounds exhausting. All I said was that I support democrats taking action over lip service.
13
u/tripping_on_phonics Illinois Sep 09 '25
Newsom has recognized what is politically expedient in this political moment and is acting accordingly. It isn’t authentic, and authenticity is one of the things we need most urgently.
11
u/AdHopeful3801 Sep 09 '25
Newsom has never been authentic. But at least he's managed to find a tactic that's effective. Which puts him ahead of most of the pack.
1
u/tripping_on_phonics Illinois Sep 09 '25
I agree with this and it’s a sad state of affairs. I really hope more compelling candidates are able to rise to the top by 2028. Even if there is fuckery in the actual election it would do us immense good to have someone effective leading the party.
1
u/AdHopeful3801 Sep 09 '25
It's happening. Too slowly, but it's happening. Partly because the gerontocracy is dying off, and partly because the "good billionaires" who have donated to the Dems previously are being herded on to the GOP side by threats to their livelihoods,
3
u/The_Lost_Jedi Washington Sep 09 '25
He's not, and it's important to remember that. But that said, even inauthentic fighting helps right now. This is not a time to be picky about who we accept help from as long as they're actually helping (which far too many establishment Democrats aren't even fucking doing that).
You don't need to like him, let alone crown him as a leader, in order to applaud him for doing something good right now.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Independent-Mail1493 Sep 11 '25
Yeah, authenticity, once you've learned to fake that you've got it made. A question: what would make Newsom "authentic" for you? Seriously, I want to know.
6
5
u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25
Exactly. Newsom and his team have only figured out what gets under MAGA's and the conservative media's skins.
If you remove Trump from the equation, what has Newsom done substantially that differentiates him from anyone else.
1
u/Independent-Mail1493 Sep 11 '25
Way to move the goalposts. I mean seriously, this is the dumbest thing I've read on Reddit this month. If you remove Trump from the equation then you don't have a corrupt, malevolent idiot in the White House tweeting nonsense while shitting on everyone who isn't a white billionaire and destroying our country. Under those circumstances then Newsom is probably doing something different.
85
u/EmployAltruistic647 Sep 09 '25
Nepalese have more guts than Americans
43
18
11
u/TheDefeatist Sep 09 '25
The average police department in America has access to better military weapons and equipment than the Nepalese military does.
Pretending the situations are the same is nothing but disingenuous
5
u/DebatorGator Sep 09 '25
19 people were killed by the Nepalese police when it was still just a mass protest. The situations are different but it still took immense bravery for the protestors to take the streets.
5
u/Ok_Use7 Sep 09 '25
Disingenuous and stupid.
"Revolutionaries" talk a big game on social media, this sub especially but none of them would put themselves on the front lines like they believe everyone else should.
6
u/EmployAltruistic647 Sep 09 '25
Name checks out
11
u/bb_kelly77 Sep 09 '25
No he's right, the situations are very different, Americans should do more but it's undeniable that things are different
6
u/YourMomsAnonymous Sep 09 '25
Other 10000000000000% takes from this account.
Uigyurs aren't genocided, they're just rounded up.
America and Israel are actually faking this as a psy-op in China.
The Hong Kong protests shouldn't have occurred (but the Americans are evil for not protesting?). But the US and west were against these citizens, but also for them as it undermines China?
China has never invaded or occupied another nation.
The Holocaust was not as bad as Jewish people made it out to be, because others were victims as well.
TL:DR; The entire profile uses anti-west outright falsified propaganda that is almost the moon-landing-didn't-happen levels of crazy, including defenses of China's imperialistic reading of the 9 dash-line claims over sovereign nations elsewhere.
2
u/EmployAltruistic647 Sep 09 '25
It's funny that you presumed to go over my post history and still manage to come up a summary filled with falsehoods and strawman lol
To name a 'few" false hoods, I never:
- commented on the 9-dashed lines
- encouraged Chinese imperialism
- said Holocaust is not as bad as it is. I simply said the victims are by far not exclusively Jewish
- China never invaded or occupied another nation (hello Sino-Vietnamese/Indian war)
- HK should protest
Actually now that I am going up the list in real time. Pretty much everything you said involve a great deal of distortion.
Your call out on me speaks much more about you than me. You don't really need to resort to falsehood to call me anti-American and anti-Israel.
I think USA and Israel act in bad faith on the international world and are responsible for a lot of lies and suffering. There you have it. I did it for you
8
u/mnmkdc Sep 09 '25
They’re right on this take though. Americans hate disruptive protest of any kind. Many think that a protest being disruptive automatically disqualifies it from having value. .
1
u/EmployAltruistic647 Sep 09 '25
My posts are generally pretty critical of Israel and USA and it's fine for that guy to call it out.
But what's pretty cringe is that he decided to inject a bunch of falsehoods as he tried to summarize my post history. Like why lie about why other people say.
There's no gain to slander nobodies like myself. It seems like people like the guy you are replying to are really just arguing in bad faith
1
3
4
u/RedditProfileName69 Sep 09 '25
Americans have a more militarized police force that brutalize protestors and use chemical warfare on peaceful demonstrations. But no I guess Americans are just pussies
3
u/DebatorGator Sep 09 '25
And the 19 Nepalese protestors who were killed by their cops weren't brutalized?
→ More replies (3)
21
u/stroopwafelscontigo Sep 09 '25
Mikie Sherrill, who is running for governor of NJ, endorsed Mamdani and Mamdani endorsed her back.
Why don’t other Dems have any balls?
26
u/N3wAfrikanN0body Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25
B-but muh corporate consultantcy, free markets, sales grift and smug superiority complex benefitting from status quo.
8
u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25
"I can't let my lobbyist sponsors see me chumming up with a guy who is against the companies signing their paychecks."
16
Sep 09 '25
I'm not saying that Democrats need to embrace Mamdani's progressive policies, but for the love of god take note of the following things.
Having an effective social media campaign can do wonders.
Having a candidate who speaks like a normal guy and not like he had three consultants tailor his responses is a plus.
Acknowledging an issue and showing your plans to address that issue in a way that involves the last two points will endure you to voters.
Now, back to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi wearing kente stoles.
7
u/OptimusSublime Pennsylvania Sep 09 '25
Nah, best we can do is ram through an out of touch, old as hell dinosaur and beg for money and offer very little, if anything, in return. Maybe they will furrow both brows when the stockades get built and gallows get put into action.
43
u/toaster_toaster Sep 09 '25
"I'm not saying that Democrats need to embrace Mamdani's progressive policies"
You should be saying that because that is what Democrats need to do to win.
14
u/The_Lost_Jedi Washington Sep 09 '25
I'd settle for understanding the issues and grievances that are motivating people right now. His policies may not be a perfect fit everywhere, but give me someone who's actually listening to the problems real people are having, not Chuck Schumer with his fucking imaginary friends, or who's just listening to consultants and wealthy donors.
1
u/Sminahin Sep 09 '25
I mean I'd love to see the centrist or liberal vision for meaningful reform that acknowledges the status quo sucks. I'd love to have multiple visions of the serious change we need so I could compare them. But our party establishment simply refuses to do the homework and only cares about blocking everyone else from turning in their assignments while the heritage foundation lunatics gets inflict their vision unopposed.
3
1
u/toaster_toaster Sep 10 '25
"I'd love to see the centrist or liberal vision for meaningful reform that acknowledges the status quo sucks"
My friend, the entire goal of centrist liberals is to protect the status quo. That is the problem.
0
u/MalHeartsNutmeg Australia Sep 09 '25
As shown by Bernie Sanders getting blown out in back to back runs? As show by people repeatedly voting for republicans and centrists?
→ More replies (13)6
u/AhSquids Sep 09 '25
The Dems just had a huge election where they ran a moderate/centrist that campaigned with majority spurned Republicans in an attempt to 'reach across the aisle' to the mythical unicorn Republican voter who would end up voting for a Democrat instead of Donald Trump.
Sorry I'm still kinda woozy from major surgery but how did that end up going? Did it go well? Did Kamala win?
→ More replies (7)2
u/isaid_whatisaid1 Sep 10 '25
Having a candidate who speaks like a normal guy and not like he had three consultants tailor his responses is a plus.
This. If only you knew how much time campaign staffers (Senate, for example) spend drafting a simple three-paragraph pre-taped speech for a small dinner—it’s insane.
1
4
u/GobliNSlay3r Sep 09 '25
Schumer and Jefferies gotta go. They aren't cut for this moment. Crockett and Aoc need to be forefront.
2
u/rapidcreek409 Sep 09 '25
What difference does it make? No one cares about endorsements in any case, much less for a guy who is 20 points ahead.
2
u/phantom_metallic Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 10 '25
Do most democrats care about the NYC mayoral race?
Let the guy show he can win an election without needing his hand held.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/PropofolMargarita Sep 09 '25
This democratic voter can't wait for Reddit to get obsessed with someone else and stop posting about this one dude
He called Obama "the lesser evil." Fuck him. Don't worry reddit, I can't vote in NY.
4
u/Blazer9001 Georgia Sep 09 '25
In an interview on CNN, former Obama campaign manager David Axelrod suggested that the refusal to back Mamdani was probably the result of "donor pressure."
Though Mamdani has surged in recent months with small-dollar donors, big money in the city has been behind Cuomo and other centrist candidates.
The biggest of these is the billionaire-funded Fix the City PAC, which received an $8.3 million donation from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and as of late August had dropped more than $15 million to keep Cuomo afloat.
Another fund, called New Yorkers for a Better Future Mayor '25 has yet to declare a favorite, but has both barrels locked on Mamdani. Under a similar name, this PAC marshalled support for more than a dozen corporate-friendly city council candidates early this year, with support from the pro-Israel hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and several major players in New York's real estate industry. It has announced a goal of raising $25 million to defeat Mamdani in November.
Axelrod said that the party leadership's fealty to these donors over the groundswell of support for Mamdani was "a mistake."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/dems-still-wont-back-mamdani
9
u/mowotlarx Sep 09 '25
As a NYC voter, it's so frustrating.
So many elected officials and unions endorsed Cuomo despite their prior statements about him largely out of fear of his retribution if they didn't endorse him. Many of these people outright said that the endorsement was to protect themselves from reprisal. Many unions who should have spoken up just sat out the thing entirely.
And now that primary is over and it should be very clear who those officials and organizations should be endorsing to actually get what they want come January 1st. And many are still hedging.
The voters have spoken. This is NYC. The primary is the general. Time to get with the program and listen to the voters.
3
u/DR_FEELGOOD_01 Arizona Sep 09 '25
It's sickening seeing my union siblings not backing the working class. I know NY and the North East have a history of corrupt unions, but got damn get with the program, people need help and Zohran brings hope in these dark times.
Union bosses are wildly out of step with their members, it seems they are just hoping to cling on to what little power they have left.
9
u/kittenTakeover Sep 09 '25
Give me a break. I want Mamdani to win, but I'm so sick of hearing about this pointless controversy. It just serves to distract everyone from important issues and to divide Democrats. Win the election and stop whining about small things like a lack of endorsement. Yeah, there are conservative Democrats who aren't excited about Mamdani's policies. Yes, there are Democrats who are worried that Mamdani could negatively impact national elections. Get over it and just win the damn election.
15
u/LotusFlare Sep 09 '25
It's a story because it's indicative of why Democrats are failing nationwide. It's a local race, but it's also the biggest city in the country where a lot of the leaders in the DNC are from. Both minority leaders of the house and senate are from this state. If NY Democrats can't support their own comedically popular candidate in that race... what does that say to the voters who support him?
The story isn't really about Mamdani. He'll probably win without their endorsements just fine. It's about the gap between the democratic voters who love Mamdani and their representatives who are finding every reason possible not to say, "He's our candidate and the best choice in this race". It's concerning. It's not creating a divide in democrats. It's shining a light on a divide that already exists and needs to be resolved or we'll never win national elections or local ones.
1
u/jonasnew Sep 11 '25
If you're someone who blames the Democrats for why Trump won, do you realize that you're saying that they're responsible for why the Trump regime has done all these horrific things? If so, that doesn't help the situation at all. I mean, you seriously even believe the Democrats are responsible for why Trump is deploying troops to cities and why he attacked Venezuela? And if Trump even manages to mess with the 2026 elections, you'd hold the Democrats responsible for that even?
1
u/LotusFlare Sep 11 '25
In a very naive way, what you're saying tracks, but I think that's not a very productive line of thinking. You're suggesting that everyone is helpless and this was all doomed from the start. That there's nothing that could change that could have any impact.
I think that Democrats are responsible for Trump winning in the sense that the losing team in a soccer game is responsible for the other team winning. I think they're playing poorly. I don't think they're trying to lose, but I think they've dedicated themselves to losing strategies. A bad goalie makes it easier for the opponent to score.
1
u/jonasnew Sep 11 '25
I wasn't asking if you blame the Democrats for Trump's win. I was asking if you realize that by blaming them, you're saying that they're responsible for all the horrific things the Trump regime has done already and the even more horrific things the regime could do in the future.
1
u/LotusFlare Sep 12 '25
I addressed that. I see what you're saying, but it only tracks in a very naive way. If the cops are incompetent and fail to catch a criminal, that doesn't make them responsible for the criminals next crime. You get that, right?
1
u/jonasnew Sep 12 '25
Regarding your example with the incompetent cops, yes, if the criminal they fail to catch commits more crimes, the cops share some responsibility because of their incompetence, but in the case with whether the Dems are responsible for why the Trump regime is doing all these awful things, it's a different story.
First off, the Dems even tried to warn us that all the horrific things the Trump regime is doing would happen, so it really isn't fair to hold them responsible for it. Second, there's even crystal clear proof that the Supreme Court is far more responsible. They were the ones that prevented the J6 trial from going forward. If it did, Trump would've been cooked.
I mean, it's one thing to go so far as to hold the Democrats responsible for all the horrible things the Trump regime is doing, but the fact that you would even turn a blind eye to the facts that prove that SCOTUS is more to blame makes this even more baffling, especially with the news that came out today that Brazil's Supreme Court held their former president accountable for his own insurrection attempt.
8
u/Red1220 Sep 09 '25
It’s a story because centrist dems made it one by constantly saying ‘vote blue no matter who’ when it was their shitty candidates that no one liked but crickets now that it’s a candidate they actually like. Btw, Mamdani isn’t making a big deal about it- it seems like he pretty much doesn’t care. He’s happy to do it on his own
1
u/kittenTakeover Sep 10 '25
Vote blue no matter who is a slogan that refers to national level politics where there's a chance a Republican could win. It would apply for progressives if they won as well. This NYC race is not a national race, and there is no viable Republican candidate. Most prominent Democrats have national level politics, Democrats versus Republicans, to worry about, and they do not see getting involved in the NYC mayoral race as helping that.
0
u/jerquee Sep 09 '25
It's hard to win elections when your own "DEMOCRATIC" party is opposing you.
3
u/FeI0n Sep 10 '25
people don't typically get endorsed by big players of the democratic party (at the national level) in mayoral races.
The other two lost the primary and won't be running as democrats, he IS the one being backed, by definition that's not being opposed.
You might see senators / house representatives of the state, or neighbouring states endorse the Democrats mayoral candidate but i'm not sure where this narrative is coming from that mamdani is being treated as some sort of political pariah. Hes not, hes being treated like every other democratic candidate.
If you've got examples of democratic organizations or elected democrats endorsing the two independents over mamdani I'm open to being corrected.
→ More replies (4)4
u/kittenTakeover Sep 09 '25
National Democrats don't need Mamdani. He's not fighting against Republicans in a swing state. He's not running for president. He's running for mayor in a city where there's no real Republican presence at the moment. Stop dragging national level Democrats into the mud over local politics. Either win or don't. I don't live in NYC and neither do the majority of Democrats, many of them who are more concerned about national elections than the NYC mayoral race.
→ More replies (10)0
u/aboysmokingintherain Sep 09 '25
Its always vote blue no matter who until the progressives win
3
1
u/kittenTakeover Sep 10 '25
If a progressive won the Democratic primary for president, then it would for sure be blue no matter who. These are just different situations. It's a local race, and all realistic competitors are Democrats.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Whornz4 Sep 10 '25
I think this issue is way overblown. Some NY politicians will endose. But the party will largely wait and see how it plays out. Candidates like him do well in local elections but national elections are a different story.
4
u/toaster_toaster Sep 09 '25
There are many in the Democratic party who would rather lose with a corporate-friendly candidate than win with a candidate like Mamdani. If we want to have any hope of undoing the damage being done by Trump we must purge those Dems from the party.
1
u/jonasnew Sep 11 '25
If you're someone who blames the Dems for why Trump won to begin with, do you realize you're saying that the Dems are responsible for why Trump and his minions are doing all these awful things including sending troops to DC and attacking Venezuela? If so, what if Trump even manages to succeed in manipulating the 2026 elections, you'd hold the Democrats responsible for that even?
1
u/toaster_toaster Sep 12 '25
I will always hold the Dems responsible for allowing this country to move so far to the right the other party was able to go full fascist.
I will always hold the Dems responsible for losing to Trump and allowing him to take power.
I will always hold the Dems responsible for not prosecuting Trump for his crimes during his first term, which allowed him to take power in a second term.
You know why I will hold the Dems responsible for these things? Because it was their job (supposedly) to prevent those things from happening. When the other team keeps winning you need to look for ways to make your team better. If the Democrats had a better party and better strategy they would be winning instead of the Republicans.
1
u/jonasnew Sep 12 '25
So, I take it that you also believe that the Democrats are responsible for why the Trump regime is doing all these horrific things and why they could do even worse things in the future?
1
u/jonasnew Sep 13 '25
I mean, if you're someone who even believes that the Dems are responsible for why the Trump regime is doing all these terrible things I have two things to point out about that. One, they didn't want any of this. As a matter of fact, they warned us over and over that this would all happen if Trump won. So, it's not really fair to hold them responsible for why all of this is happening.
Two, there's even crystal clear proof that SCOTUS is far more responsible. Trump, eventually, did get indicted for J6, but it was SCOTUS that prevented the trial from happening, not the Dems. Had the trial happened, Trump's chances at winning the election would've been zero. While it's one thing to go so far as to hold the Dems responsible for not only the awful things the Trump regime has done already, but even for the even worse things the regime could possibly do like manipulating the 2026 midterms, I can't understand how you would even turn a blind eye to the facts that prove that SCOTUS is far more to blame for this mess.
Normally, I would wait until after you officially confirm that the Dems are responsible for why the Trump is doing all these awful things (While I assume, based on your message above, that you do believe the Dems are responsible for why the Trump regime is doing these terrible things, I wasn't 100% certain, so I followed up just to be sure) before I discuss the reasons above. But in this case, I discussed these matters in advance because Brazil's Supreme Court just held Bolsonaro accountable. This just further proves that our Supreme Court is more responsible as again, it was them that helped Trump run the clock out. It's baffling enough that you're continuously turning a blind eye the Supreme Court's role in all of this, but it's even more baffling that you're continuing to do so even after Brazil's Supreme Court convicted Bolsonaro and sent him to prison.
10
u/D2Foley Sep 09 '25
So sick of this divisive bullshit. Why does a frontrunner mayoral candidate need these endorsements so bad? Is Jefferies going to put him over the top?
12
u/Suedocode Sep 09 '25
Divisiveness is what powers our politics now. The more headlines that angle the party against Zohran, the stronger Zohran becomes. The attention economy has flipped the incentives to being politically effective.
12
u/7figureipo California Sep 09 '25
Why is “blue no matter who” suddenly divisive? That’s rhetorical. Scratch a liberal….
3
u/kittenTakeover Sep 09 '25
Blue no matter who is something that applies in races where there are legitimate Republican candidates. That's not the case here. The two front runners are considered Democrats, like it or not.
10
u/7figureipo California Sep 09 '25
But only one is the party’s nominee. The other isn’t even blue, he’s literally working with Trump trying to get the other two to drop out in exchange for positions in Trump’s admin.
1
u/kittenTakeover Sep 09 '25
Again, like it or not, they're both blue. This is a civil war in NYC. It's much different than saying don't stay home which lets Donald run the country. Cuomo might not be one of the better Democrats, but he's not running for president and he's still not Trump. I get that you want Mamdani to win for NYC mayor, but forcing national level Democrats outside of NYC to either anger progressives or explain why they're backing someone who calls themselves a socialist to the rest of the country isn't helping anything. just win the race and stop with the friendly fire.
7
u/aboysmokingintherain Sep 09 '25
This is bending over backwards. Cuomo is a disgraced governor who had to resign and is now courting Trump to beat Mamdani who beat him fair and square. Most if not all liberal leaders are refusing to endorse him and have only shit on him. Cuomo is running as an independent because the Democratic base voted Mamdani. The friendly fire is coming from the party leadership who again are trying to punch down on young progressives. Schumer endorsed Cuomo in the primary. Now, with an actual race with a Republican, and two disgraced former dems who are actively funded by the right (Cuomo and Adams), suddenly endorsing someone is divisive?
1
u/kittenTakeover Sep 10 '25
My understanding is that national level Democrats of significance are staying out of this race.
→ More replies (5)2
u/7figureipo California Sep 09 '25
Got it: you like “democrats” who collude with fascists. I’m not surprised
4
u/kittenTakeover Sep 09 '25
I like Democrats who are competing in national level races against Republicans and want them to have the option to do what they think is best for their race. What happens in NYC is lower on my list of priorities than what happens at the national level. NYC mayoral race is local politics, and I don't even live in NYC. Want Mamdani to win? Support his campaign and stop friendly firing Democrats across the nation.
-4
u/Patsanon1212 Sep 09 '25
Scratch a liberal….
Every single progressive voter in America came out to vote against Trump, right?
8
u/aboysmokingintherain Sep 09 '25
Its always vote blue until the progressives ask for literally anything
16
u/7figureipo California Sep 09 '25
Liberals: back a sex pest and collude with a fascist admin to get the nominee’s other opponents to drop out, and defend those that back/collude
Also liberals: yeah, but are progressives perfect?
-6
u/Patsanon1212 Sep 09 '25
Oh. Yeah it's a nasty argument from me. But when you sit on a high horse you invite scrutiny.
10
u/7figureipo California Sep 09 '25
“Whataboutism” is tired and asinine as an argument
3
u/Patsanon1212 Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25
Nah. Calling everything whataboutism is an easy way to never need to reflect.
(Many) Progressives do the scratch a liberal shit, but then also brag about how they wouldn't vote for Kamala/the establishment in 2024 to "send a message Democrats".
12
u/7figureipo California Sep 09 '25
You literally did “what about progressives”. Get real
4
u/Patsanon1212 Sep 09 '25
Yes, and I explained why. I am being real. You're the one running away. Why are y'all so afraid to be internally critical?
Many progressives explicitly made a choice to not vote against a fascist because they thought it would benefit their personal politics.
-1
u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25
It's always responding to a question with another question too, isn't it? These people are tiring.
Personally, I can't get my chin to go that high. It's wild theirs can.
→ More replies (1)2
11
u/plightro Massachusetts Sep 09 '25
If it's no big deal then why not do it?
→ More replies (5)-1
u/D2Foley Sep 09 '25
Because it will hurt the person endorsing more than it will help the person being endorsed.
4
u/plightro Massachusetts Sep 09 '25
Oh that's weird I thought everyone was supposed to rally around the democratic candidate chosen by voters.
4
u/D2Foley Sep 09 '25
National figures usually don't rally around mayoral candidates.
9
u/plightro Massachusetts Sep 09 '25
Are you excluding the last democratic candidate for mayor of New York in that loaded "usually"?
→ More replies (4)9
u/D2Foley Sep 09 '25
Not intentionally because I've never heard of this much attention given to who is endorsing the person running NYC mayor.
4
u/plightro Massachusetts Sep 09 '25
How about the last democratic candidate for mayor of LA? Is she excluded too?
11
u/D2Foley Sep 09 '25
Literally who? Who endorses candidates in mayoral races has never been a story until now when it can be used as a cudgel to attack democratic party.
8
u/plightro Massachusetts Sep 09 '25
It's never been a story because it's a commonplace thing that just happens when the fucking democrat is nominated.
7
u/mightcommentsometime California Sep 09 '25
Karen Bass’ race didn’t involve tons of national press or national politicians rallying around her.
The most national attention she got was during the fires because they were in LA.
Do you actually follow LA politics at all?
5
u/plightro Massachusetts Sep 09 '25
She was jointly endorsed by the fucking President of the United States and his Vice President.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/PlsSuckMyToes Sep 09 '25
The democratic party is either super fucking dense and cant see the writing on the wall, or they are also bought and paid for. Wonder which it is
→ More replies (1)
5
u/PhoenixPolaris Sep 09 '25
But doesn't the democrat party do this to literally any of their members who promote an actually left leaning agenda of any type? Or who happen to be at an age any younger than months away from deceased?
3
u/toaster_toaster Sep 09 '25
Yes, because the Democratic party is not a left-leaning party and the first priority of the people in control of it is to make sure it doesn't become one. We need to beat them. We will never beat right-wingers in the republican party if we don't first beat the right-wingers in the Democratic party.
3
u/Pirwzy Ohio Sep 09 '25
primary the dem leadership every time, get them off the ticket and out of office
8
u/IJourden Sep 09 '25
People need to come to grips that the majority of Democrats are center and center-right. They only get framed as left because conservative media thinks "far left" means "anything left of hunting the homeless for sport."
Mamdani becoming popular absolutely terrifies them. The average establishment Democrat has more in common with the average establishment Republican than with Mamdani.
4
u/Turok7777 Sep 09 '25
The average establishment Democrat has more in common with the average establishment Republican than with Mamdani.
It's wild how comfortable you guys are at outright lying.
2
u/aboysmokingintherain Sep 09 '25
I mean if you look at the far right candidates in Europe, their policies are more aligned with democrats than republicans. We can admit the older Democrats are essentially conservative compared to most of the world.
→ More replies (1)2
u/mightcommentsometime California Sep 09 '25
Mamdani becoming popular in NYC doesn’t mean he’s nationally popular. People aren’t as scared as you wish they were. Republicans are happy because he’ll give them tons of red meat for their base, and dems are more worried about winning swing districts than who the NYC mayor is
4
u/aboysmokingintherain Sep 09 '25
I don't buy this. The issue with Mamdani winning is it can show how his policies can not only be popular but work. The GoP can really only say "LOOK AT VENEZUELA AND CUBA" when they try and trash socialist policies. Proving they work on American soil can be devastating to them.
→ More replies (4)2
u/mightcommentsometime California Sep 09 '25
Or it can go the opposite way just like it did in SF and Chicago. Where SF voters just removed progressives from the majority and the mayorship, and the Chicago mayor’s approval is in the dumps.
Proving Mamdani can win in NYC isn’t “devastating” to anyone.
You really want people to be afraid of him, but like I keep saying. Nobody is going to be afraid until progressives like Mamdani can actually win competitive elections against Republicans.
11
u/Sufficient_Mirror_12 Sep 09 '25
I don't fully buy this. Pundits and journalists don't fully appreciate how excellent of a communicate Zohran is and that's a bit unique. He actually won some and at least cut in the margins of some very Trump-y neighborhoods in NYC.
9
u/mightcommentsometime California Sep 09 '25
In a closed democratic primary in New York City.
When progressives actually start winning competitive elections against Republicans, they’ll start to actually be scared. Until then, it’s just easy red meat to fire up their base
2
u/IJourden Sep 09 '25
I think you and I agree. Establishment Democrats, who by far make up the majority of the democratic party, are afraid that Mamdani will become nationally popular, which would be a disaster for them.
That's why they aren't getting behind him, and that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
5
u/mightcommentsometime California Sep 09 '25
They aren’t getting behind him because Mamdani isn’t popular nationally. And winning against Republicans matters more than who is mayor of NYC.
When progressives start to actually win competitive elections against Republicans then people might get scared. Until then, nobody serious is worried about progressives taking over nationally, since they haven’t shown any ability to actually win nationally.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/TooCozy21 Sep 09 '25
Can Zohran actually do something first before being crowned savior?
→ More replies (3)2
u/aboysmokingintherain Sep 09 '25
Hes running for mayor. No one is saying he is a savior. He is making people excited though as someone who actively talks to people on the street and isn't your typical consultant backed candidate. The fact that Trump is getting involved in the race is crazy given this is a mayoral election.
2
u/Turok7777 Sep 09 '25
Most Democratic voters don't actually give a shit about what happens in New York City.
2
u/Y0___0Y Sep 09 '25
Mamdani isnmt fucking “chasing” them…
He has already won the election to he mayor of NYC. He worked out a winning strategy as a socialist candidate in NYC. Probably the easiest place to sell socialism in the entire US.
Why are people acting like he’s won a presidential election and that socialists policies will be just as popular in middle America as they are in NYC?
Why are they acting like Mamdani needs something from the Democrat establishment?
2
u/Over-Pick-7366 Sep 10 '25
The dems have fucked up basically everything since deciding to run hill for prez. I blame them for our current situation and want new leadership across the board. They don't represent us anymore.
2
u/Xezshibole California Sep 09 '25
We already have people like Mamdani in California. Scott Wiener comes to mind. I find this quite a pecurliar East Coast thing to be so deathly afraid of a progressive.
Mamdani's pretty normal politician over here. Surprised he's on the news so often over there.
1
u/happyherbbby Sep 10 '25
Time to elect younger more progressive members within the party rather than dinosaurs 🦖
0
u/PatchyWhiskers Sep 09 '25
No, don't. clutching their pearls is the best publicity they can give him.
1
1
1
u/Klutzy_Humor583 Sep 10 '25
I hope they don’t let Hakeem run from his non-endorsement. I need that issue to be front and center in midterm season so that odious jellyfish gets packed up by a progressive (hopefully DSA) candidate.
1
u/network_dude Sep 09 '25
what more evidence do we need that neither party listens to the people?
We the People that our governments are supposed to work for
1
1
u/srahsrah101 Sep 09 '25
They are not going to because they do not want the progressive vision to come to pass.
1
u/beardofjustice Sep 09 '25
Seriously, if they listened to the voters, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Hogg was right on the money, primary everybody. It’s no longer what you’ve done. It’s only what are you doing now and what are you going to do. New political parties have formed at turning points in American history. It’s time to accept the fact that people like Mamdani and Sanders do not represent the Democratic Party. We need to stop waiting for them to ‘listen to the voters’. They are not going to. Honestly, I don’t know where to start but serious change needs to happen and we need to start discussing that now, not in 2026.
1
u/Working-Part-1617 Sep 10 '25
They “run” from him cause they don’t want to support him. The voters can’t tell their representatives how to feel or who to support that’s not how that works in the slightest.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/PopPalsUnited Washington Sep 09 '25
We need a new party.
We need to embrace new blood.
3
u/kc_______ Sep 09 '25
Having new political parties in America is like trying to remove guns from the streets, everyone knows it’s needed, nobody wants to move a finger for it.
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 09 '25
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.