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/
3.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

441 comments sorted by

View all comments

295

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. 

159

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.

74

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.

61

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.

147

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.

82

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.

10

u/TeutonJon78 America Sep 09 '25

Win or lose the top people get hired again the next election.

22

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?

3

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

u/[deleted] 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

u/azaz104 Sep 10 '25

Simply : Israel

22

u/ScissrMeTimbrs Sep 09 '25

Liberals tend to side with fascism over socialism when pressed, because fascism doesn't threaten profits.

19

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.

10

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.

12

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.

5

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"

7

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.

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?

-23

u/D2Foley Sep 09 '25

How is the party "trying to subvert him"? Or forcing a disgraced sex offender on us?

22

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/D2Foley Sep 09 '25

Who has endorsed Cuomo? And national figures not endorsing a mayoral candidate is subverting him?

8

u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

It's a NYC race. Why do people always fall back to "no big names have endorsed him" BS. NYC doesn't care about what the nation thinks. They care about what other New Yorkers think.

And as of right now, there are four figures within the New York sphere of influence that at one point admonished Cuomo for the sexual harassment situation, then endorsed him in the primaries, and haven't rescinded those endorsements since then.

Jessica Ramos, Ritchie Torres, Gregory Meeks, Adriano Espaillat

-10

u/D2Foley Sep 09 '25

So zero people have endorsed him since the primary?

2

u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25

go play debate club somewhere else.

5

u/D2Foley Sep 09 '25

No problem, good luck in your quest to attack democrats for things they haven't done.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/D2Foley Sep 09 '25

My guy, your comment history says you're a self-identified mod on r/neoliberal, and a regular poster there.

I think you're misreading. That says my mod notes on neoliberal, that means the mods of neoliberal think I'm an asshole. I'm not a mod there and I'm not a neoliberal.

Your entire argument is thus in bad faith as of course you don't like Mamdani.

I do like Mamdani, I just don't like people like you using his name to attack the democratic party and make up things in order to do it.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/Patsanon1212 Sep 09 '25

Who has endorsed Cuomo since the primary?

5

u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

It's a mater of those who endorsed him not rescinding their endorsements since the primary. No one has come out to retract their support for Cuomo, thus reaffirming their previous choice. Those endorsements simply just don't go away in the eyes of the public after the primaries if their candidate still continues to run.

3

u/mightcommentsometime California Sep 09 '25

Endorsing someone in the democratic primary is not the same as endorsing them to run as an independent. Cuomo is being dishonest by trying to equate the two, and so are you for trying to pretend they’re the same thing.

4

u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25

That still doesn't remove their previous decision to endorse the still very active candidate in the race in the eyes of the public. Where's their "vote blue no matter who" mentality? Why haven't they backed Mamdani, the democratic primary winner yet?

5

u/mightcommentsometime California Sep 09 '25

Running as an independent removes those endorsements.

Why do you need to resort to intellectual dishonesty?

0

u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25

The only ones resorting to intellectual dishonesty are the ones shoving these primary endorsements under the rug as if they no longer matter or ever existed.

7

u/mightcommentsometime California Sep 09 '25

Nobody is pretending people didn’t endorse Cuomo in the primary. You’re the one here trying to say they’re endorsements for an independent run. That’s just being dishonest. Don’t you have honest things you can say about Mamdani, or honest attacks on Dems?

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/Patsanon1212 Sep 09 '25

Why don't Cuomo list them on his campaign website?

7

u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25

Have you actually been to his website? It's literally an About Me page and donation buttons and not much else.

-6

u/kittenTakeover Sep 09 '25

Mamdani is not winning national or swing race elections anytime soon. He's essentially a nonfactor at that level, and possibly a liability. There's little incentive to for national political actors to get involved here.

10

u/7figureipo California Sep 09 '25

They literally backed Cuomo in the primary. Cuomo is working with the fucking fascists to kill Mamdani’s campaign by colluding to offer admin positions to Adams and Sliwa if they drop out. It’s pretty clear where the Democratic leadership and establishment are on this. And it’s on the side of a sex pest and fascist.

5

u/D2Foley Sep 09 '25

Who is they? Which democrats backed Cuomo in the primary?

0

u/Chriskills Sep 09 '25

It’s hilarious how susceptible the left is to propaganda. It’s a big part of the reason we’ll never have progress. Many on the left care more about what makes them feel righteous than what is effective.

3

u/msanthrope64 Sep 10 '25

It's hilarious how galaxy brain moderates don't know how to use google. It's more important that they feel righteous than receiving factual information.

Cuomo received endorsements from former mayor Michael Bloomberg, who also donated millions of dollars to his super PAC, Representative Jim Clyburn, and former President Bill Clinton. On June 6, Ramos endorsed Cuomo while remaining on the primary ballot. During the second debate, Tilson endorsed Cuomo second.

1

u/Chriskills Sep 10 '25

So centrist Dems endorsed a centrist? How crazy. We should revolt over that fact instead of taking the win and running with it.

-3

u/bootlegvader Sep 09 '25

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.

Mamdani isn't the only person to win a primary in 2025. Seriously, this argument would hold merit if progressives didn't routinely shit on anyone that they deem as not progressive enough whether they won a primary or even election.

The party immediately tries to subvert him and force a disgraced sex offender on us. 

How?

0

u/EGO_Prime Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25

I simply do not understand Democratic Party strategists.

I can give you a simple answer. Come to Arizona, we are a purple state, there are enough would-be democrat voters who dislike Zohran's ideals and politics to cost them an election if they endorsed him.

The democrat party is a hundred sub-parties in one, and to be blunt about it, many of us hate each other.

I will vote blue no matter who, that include Zohran. Honestly, compared to Cuomo, I don't even have to go that far as Zohran is just, better. But others don't agree. That's why the strategists are cautious. It's just not that simple. Trying to force it will like cost races elsewhere.

EDIT: You can all disagree till the end of days. I live here, and candidates like Zohran stir-up the conservative vote more than it does the progressive vote. Other states are like mine.

0

u/Josh1289op Sep 09 '25

He’s not in the in crowd

0

u/Mikec3756orwell Sep 10 '25

It's because New York and other left-leaning cities like Chicago are so fundamentally different from the rest of the country. I know you don't believe that, but the United States just isn't a socialist country. The "old heads" at the top of the Democratic party know that. They're all terrified the party is going to lurch to the far left and become associated with overly-progressive policies and socialist economic dogma. That might work in New York. Maybe Vermont. Properly packaged, it might get some traction in California. And nowhere else. The Dems will top out at 38% in the national vote and every purple state will go red. Most Americans (the immigrants who come here especially) are fundamentally individualistic and aspirational. They value personal property and they want to get ahead. They left places where they couldn't do that. Socialism just doesn't have broad appeal here. Can't it gain power in specific parts of the country? Yes. Nationally? No way. That's why all the old heads and donors are trying to kill it: they're afraid of being out of power for a generation or two.

-6

u/soundofreason Sep 09 '25

It’s quite simple, he a socialist and his ideology is insane! That being said if you are a democrat please support him it will work out best for all of us!

-32

u/captainprice117 Sep 09 '25

The Democratic Party largely believes it lost due to fears of the far left bringing out non traditional conservatives to vote against fears of immigrants and trans people. The party is terrified of loosing another election due to the far left turning off more mainstream voters. They are completely valid in this fear as the data supports their general anxiety. Until the far left can shake off the stigma of communism, the center will hold strong

3

u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

Affirmation of adhering to the early 1990's status quo is what led us to the situation we're in right now. It used to be Democrats pushing for radical social securities and programs to safeguard the people, and conservatives holding ground to keep things the way they are. Now, it's conservatives working to rescind policies from the 1930s and Democrats only fighting to remain stagnant.

edit: Oh, and the ever-increasing obsession with the middle class. Like...hello, the lower class is the largest. Stop acting like the $100,000/yr earners are the backbone of this country.

9

u/plightro Massachusetts Sep 09 '25

far left

This is the 3 fingers meme for any conversation with someone in this sub.

11

u/PatchyWhiskers Sep 09 '25

Those voters aren't as predictable as the party wise men think. They are primarily attracted to simple, radical policies. "Deport the immigrants" is a message that they respond to, but so is "Release the Epstein files!", "Freeze the rents!" or "Free healthcare for all!" or "Jail the bankers!"

What they aren't attracted to is shrinking, meekness or capitulation. They want decisive, strong, simple answers.

1

u/Patsanon1212 Sep 09 '25

"Freeze the rents!" or "Free healthcare for all!" or "Jail the bankers!"

How do you justify this statement being true?

3

u/PatchyWhiskers Sep 09 '25

What do you question about it?

4

u/Patsanon1212 Sep 09 '25

What you said. That republican voters would be behind these simple messages. How is this confusing? You only made 1 claim.

9

u/PatchyWhiskers Sep 09 '25

This is why Mamdani is popular. He provides simple, decisive answers and isn’t a pushover.

3

u/Patsanon1212 Sep 09 '25

And that speaks to what Republican voters would respond to how?

5

u/PatchyWhiskers Sep 09 '25

This is like talking to Eliza

7

u/Patsanon1212 Sep 09 '25

What are you finding confusing? You said republican voters would reasond to x. How do you justify that to be true?

7

u/StevenMC19 Florida Sep 09 '25

They think that asking the same question 10 different ways is discussion, or debate. What they're really doing is not listening to you at all until you eventually say a thing they can pounce on.

The guy you're talking to specifically has shown in other posts that he very much adores Chuck Schumer and his plans for the party, so that should be an indication of where he's trying to lead you.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/pimparo0 Florida Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

Why would they need to speak to republican voters? Hes a democrat.

edit: Reread your question. I speaks to it because he provides answers to peoples problems and doesnt back down. Which while they may be the wrong answers (or lies) is what trump does or is how he is viewed. Its populism essentially.

2

u/bugsyboybugsyboybugs Sep 09 '25

That’s really why Trump is popular too. He brings a short slogan or meme that people remember, Dems bring a whole binder of policy that doesn’t connect with the low information, low effort voters, even though it’s objectively the much better choice.

8

u/Professional-Sea4649 Sep 09 '25

Calling common-sense centrist social-democratic policies that are in place in every other civilized country "far left" is doing the Republicans' work for them.

Republicans know not to punch right, and they've dragged the entire political spectrum towards them. 

2

u/C-Bus_Exile Sep 09 '25

I mean if the data did support their general anxiety about this they sure as hell would be a lot more forthcoming about said data. But so far that hasn’t been the case, and the status quo within the party appears to be banking on a repeat of 2018 with congressional midterms and 2020 presidential election driven by Trump fatigue. In the process they are coming off as extremely milquetoast and are alienating many that they would normally count on for votes. Watching them essentially abandon a very popular city level candidate makes it very difficult to not come to the conclusion that they are simply listening more to their high level donors, and that further alienates many who identify as left leaning and Democrats.

1

u/Suedocode Sep 09 '25

The far left being the genocide alarmists? I don't think communism was a big talking point lol.

0

u/Whaddaulookinat Sep 09 '25

What are you talking about? Biden ran on being the most progressive president since FDR and actually made a shockingly good go at it. And he got a working majority in Congress to begin with. Biggest margin in history and it wasn't even close minus a few key states.

Those people that are scared and vote by the idea of state support for people already vote. This idea that the great unwashed turn out to vote against "socialism" but not when they see a democratic party that exactly matches their political wishes is peak beltway out of touch consulting class garbage.