- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- socialism@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- socialism@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
C’mon! Status Cuomo was right there!
For the people!
Everyone’s talking like he’s won the mayorship already.
He hasn’t technically but don’t stop the vibes. Fuck it, Mamdani FTW bitches!!! Woot woot! LFG for round two! For the people!
Agreed. Lets wait and see
What has made me hopeful and excited though, is that the Democratic voters are going against the DNC.
He hasn’t literally but he’s now the heavy favorite
Keep talking in ways that highlight progressive values, and you’ll get more of this.
He’s quite charismatic.
They will rig the general. Look to the firms in control of the individual machines and the tabulation servers…
Looks like Cuomo is planning to run as an independent to split the vote.
Considering Eric Adams already is running as an independent, Cuomo is more likely to siphon votes away from him. Although I think it will be ranked choice anyway, so “splitting” the vote won’t really matter.
That would be a nice change of pace for once.
The general is FPTP. Adams and Cuomo can fight for attention, they share the same demographic of assholes
You can split the vote in any system including ranked choice, it only means that there are some people who would choose Cuomo but if they weren’t there would vote for Adams instead.
That’s great that AIPAC had a backup plan
use the same methods as the gop, which dnc never bother pursueing when it was reporting in all counties last nov 5 election.
“Socialism” lol
It is a win though, it shows people are willing to vote for change
through alternative partiesand thats fucking hugeHe’s a Democrat, not 3rd party.
Because he had to run in the democratic primary in order to have a shot. He’s a member of the DSA tho—I feel like it’s disingenuous to call him just “a Democrat” (same with AOC)
AOC is a Democrat too, what is the issue? There are factions within the Democrats and she’s in one of them but afaict she is nowhere near as radical as she was depicted as being. Part of that is from getting slapped around by the leadership I’m sure.
Yeah, he’s not corporate enough. Let’s kick him out. Why do we keep losing? Must be the progressives we keep insisting aren’t welcome.
Shit I will amend that. Forgot he won the democratic primary. He is still heavily associated with DSA though and this is well known.
“socialism” in the sense of the french revolution, where they executed lots of people with the guillotine, must never happen again.
The problem with killing people is that it’s a lot like eating potato chips: Once you start, it’s impossible to stop.
Look at the Reign of Terror that immediately followed the French Revolution. They basically continued to kill people after all of the nobles were gone. These actions discouraged a lot of people and were one big factor that scared potential revolutionaries in other countries away from trying a revolution in their home country as well.
Take the rich’s resources, but don’t kill them.
“Tax the rich”, not “eat the rich”.
That is socialism for the 21st century.The french revolution, atleast the one you are referring to, was a bourgeois revolution and decidedly not socialist. It was the rising merchant class overthrowing the feudal class structures that held back their ability to obtain capital. It was not the proletariat overthrowing the capitalist class structures which hold us back. If you try and take property from the rich they will kill you for it. This has been endlessly proven throughout history, every workers revolution has a violent counter revolution from the bourgeois. Will you roll over and take it? Or will you defend yourself and the revolution?
It’s just a primary guys. Let’s hope he wins the seat.
It would take a catastrophe for him not to.
His opponents in the general are as follows:
-
The corrupt former governor sex pest he just beat, running as an independent in order to get a do-over
-
Current mayor in spite of being a hair’s breath from prison until he went full MAGA, always being a fascist cop (but I repeat myself) and genuinely unhinged, Eric Adams
-
Perennial loser and hyper-racist vigilante lunatic Curtis Sliwa.
Not only are they all awful candidates in themselves, their core demographics also overlap to such a degree that it’ll be an upset if more than one of them reaches double digits!
If NYC uses ranked choice voting in the general as well and Cuomo learns from his disaster of a campaign then he might try coalition-building with Eric Adams or others to pull off a win by getting neoliberals and MAGA to gang up on Zohran. It’s a headscratcher for me because I never expect neoliberals to learn from their mistakes, and yet they might actually feel forced to because they never fail to pull out all the stops against progressives, let alone an actual socialist.
-
If Cuomo runs 3rd party and the Dem establishment supports him, I’m going to fling that back at anyone who tells me to not vote 3rd party in a presidential election, lol.
I’m going to flip out if the dems support Cuomo and I’m honestly half expecting them to
I’m fully expecting them to. The Dem leadership supporting an ACTUAL leftist is only SLIGHTLY more likely than them going full fascist and endorsing Curtis Sliwa…
half expecting
Sweet summer child.
“Vote blue no matter who”
Mamdani wins historic primary victory
“…shit”
You’re going to fling that a high-profile and well-recognized (even amongst non-politically engaged voters) organization gave recognition and resources to a third party in a local (not even gubernatorial but) mayoral election as a counter defense for voting for a third party in a presidential election?
If they do it against a progressive after making a huge deal about not doing it against a centrist? You may like that level of rank hypocrisy.
I mean, I’m not even arguing one way or the other. When people argue against voting for a third party in a presidential election, it’s on the basis that the candidate has absolutely no shot at winning and, at best, will split the vote.
It has nothing to do with liking or not liking hypocrisy; the basis of their argument is entirely about whether a strategy is viable, not whether they felt good about the decision.
I assumed that the OP was actually trying to poke holes in the argument but arguing that the Democratic party has backed a third-party candidate in a local election doesn’t negate any of the actual points regarding dissuading voting for a third-party candidate who is without the same resources and does not have the same kind of outreach (such as appearing in debates, etc.) in a presidential election. That’s why, notably, OP had to specify a presidential election: people don’t, generally, argue against voting for third parties at the local level because the visibility of those candidates winning is entirely different.
Do you get what I mean? It wholly doesn’t engage with the actual reasoning or evidence for the argument so it…wouldn’t mean anything, if you did try to use it as a rebuttal.
Do you get what I mean?
Yeah. It’s conveniently different in this case because the nominee is a progressive.
It seems I’m not able to break down the core basics of the underlying mechanics well enough so we’ll probably have to end the conversation but, just in case I’m still being avoidably unclear, I’ll try to summarize as barebones as possible:
it’s about resources.
More resources behind a candidate materially changes that candidates viability; unless you can explain how a progressive candidate in this scenario invalidates the resources and reach that’s actually of concern when weighing whether a candidate can succeed, you – likewise – are opting to ignore the details of the reasoning and not actually address them.
P. S.
I’m not someone who prefers centrist or even left-of-center candidates; if I lived in NY, I’d definitely be voting for Mamdani and most certainly not Cuomo.
It’s weird to be like, “His progressivism makes the difference,” as though I’m hoping the party backs Cuomo or Adams and would rapidly vote third party in this case.
It’s weird to be like, “His progressivism makes the difference,” as though I’m hoping the party backs Cuomo or Adams and would rapidly vote third party in this case.
It’s honest. Voting 3rd party is literally voting for the worst candidate, in all cases unless there’s a progressive as the party’s nominee, in which case it doesn’t matter.
I’m sick of the double standards and I don’t buy the excuses for them.
If Cuomo runs 3rd party
He’s running as an independent, yes.
and the Dem establishment supports him
Unless they suddenly fall back in love with Adams or go full Sliwa, they will. They fight the left exactly as much as they accommodate the far right.
Last I heard, which I think was just hours old, is he’s still considering running as an independent. He hasn’t decided yet. I guess he’s waiting to see how much corporations will pay him?
Hey, nobody messes with the Zohran!
hope it annoys Adam Sandler.
Good. Zionists should suffer every day.
Social Democracy is not the same as Socialism. But, I wasn’t following the race, maybe he does want the public to own the means of production.
I get the hesitation since in US politics they often get conflated and I can’t say I’ve followed him very closely but someone else shared this. I know he’s also advocating for city owned grocery stores.
Quite a lot of red states have state owned liquor stores,[0] so city owned grocery stores doesn’t sound that radical. Apparently, Atlanta is doing it.[1] I hadn’t heard of this idea before, but web search shows it is a thing. I’d consider it socialism if he also wants to close down the privately run grocery stores. He doesn’t seem to be doing that
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage_control_state
Apparently, Atlanta is doing it.[1]
I’m an Atlantan and this is the first I’m hearing of it. Neat!
Reading the article, though, it’s really just that the city is subsidizing a private business (and in one of the two cases, acting as its landlord) in order to create an incentive to open in a food desert, not actually getting into the business of operating a grocery store directly itself.
I mean, I got a loan from Invest Atlanta to help with the down payment on my house, but that doesn’t mean the city owns my house or that it’s some kind of ‘government housing.’
That’s a fair criticism. Usually with public-private partnerships there’s requirements they have to meet though. I’m curious what those are planned to look like. It could be something as lax as “continue operating at this location” or it could be “prices cannot exceed this value, and employees must have these things, etc.”
It could be a good start to actual state operated grocery stores, but starting from scratch and setting up the logistics is an insane barrier, and it’s also part of the issue. It’s too hard to compete with existing companies, so they can do whatever they want and no one else can reasonably enter the market to compete with them.
I see. Question then is whether the store operator gets to set the prices. Donald Trump of course lives in government housing right now, so that’s ok too.
The government running public alternatives isn’t socialism. Socialism is specifically about control of the means of production. The only people who think socialism is when the government does stuff are Bernie bros who think Sweden is socialist and MAGA who also think Sweden is socialist. Basically, if someone think that Sweden is socialist then they have no idea what they’re talking about.
so he is a socialist?
From everything I’ve seen, yes, he’s an actual socialist.
The word gets used so often as a pejorative it’s weird to see it used accurately by that crowd.
Don’t worry, Fox was quoting Trump calling him a communist today.
They say that about everyone to their left. We shouldn’t let them dictate our policy, but we keep doing it.
I’m OK with it because maybe when they realize he’s just a guy making decisions to help his community, it will remove a smidge of the ZOMG SOCIALISM reaction to folks like not only him, but also Bernie, and maybe others who might like to call themselves social democrats instead of democrats.
If Bernie and AOC start the social democrat party tomorrow with Mamdani and others, I’m registering before the ink is dry.
Also Democratic Socialism (Mamdani’s beliefs) are not the same as Social Democracy. They are slightly different.
That kind of depends. Bernie claims to be a Democratic Socialist, but Europeans have said that his stated beliefs align more with Social Democracy. This may be another case of us Americans having a different definition than the rest of the world (like with liberal).
Real “Judean people’s front” vibes with that one
also the red underlined section of this post: https://lemmy.ml/post/32229216
No idea about Mamdani but does the election not mostly show that people hate Andrew Cuomo? He seemed awful.
No, this campaign was everything you could ask for
His core platform - free and faster buses, free childcare, rent freezes, and no one making less than $1M will be paying for any of it
It’s simple, it’s hard to fear monger against, and it’s things the people want. The best they had was “but he’s Muslim”
Thanks, interesting, but I wish him luck delivering on any of that.
You can just skip the “but”. Other policy makers either horribly fail with their much shittier policies all the time and when they do succeed that’s still a problem because those are bad policies.
And don’t worry, a lot of that stuff has already been successful in better places so it shoukd go fine.
Ok fine. His platform is interesting and I wish him luck delivering on it.
Shitty policies are usually successful in the sense that they achieve or at least advance their (shitty) goals, fwiw. Are Mamdani’s proposals serious (e.g. does he have financial projections for them), or are they like platitudes like wishing for world peace? Tbh I don’t think the mayor has the authority to do any of that stuff.
We’ll see how it goes.
Cities are often where these things start. To underestimate a mayor’s impact, especially in a city like New York, is not the play. It also sounds like you aren’t even that familiar with his platform since it took me only one simple google to find a couple examples of a costed plan.
The US is plenty happy electing people with zero plan whatsoever, and what they do have is easily disproven nonsense that has never, ever worked. Major cities and economies in the world have done, with success, what Mamdani is proposing.
For the love of god, just be happy that the United Shithole of America is finally taking a step in the right direction. It’s going to be ok, and it pretty much can’t be worse since even trying and failing would be better than purposefully destroying everything for a quick buck.
Well, we’ll see what actually happens. NY has a history of chewing up mayors.
Yea, their really shitty or barely mediocre mayors? This is very different from times before and I think it’s ok to be excited. If it does end up going wrong you need to know that being a massive pessimist just for the sake of the world’s most depressing “win” is not a healthy way to live. Plus, nothing is really pointing to this being a bad thing except your own evident misunderstanding of the situation.
I wish him all the best, and more than anything I hope that the federal government doesn’t sabotage him and I hope that even if they do people will be able to understand that instead of going “wow he failed! No I’m not going to think about it harder than that.”
Yes, he’s the real deal. He has the math worked out, he’s got a cohesive plan, he’s made alliances, he’s got a ton of energy behind him, and he just nails every interview - even hostile ones
Yes, it’s going to be an uphill battle. There’s going to be a ton of institutional resistance… But if he can force policies through anyways, it would so huge for the entire country
Si, se puede.
and he was primiarly beeing pushed by republicans as a frontrunner, go figure.
He has always been offal.
FTFY
He seems like a decent person, and his platform is okay for the most part. He’s definitely better than the sex pest that is Cuomo, and so I guess it’s a win in that regard.
However, y biggest issue with him is that he has openly accepted the endorsement from the DSA. That is not a good sign. The DSA is the most vile and parasitic bunch on the American left. They openly simp for dictators and tyrannical regimes, they endorse violence, and they outright support terrorist groups. They’re genuinely the worst of the worst. The fact that he hasn’t rejected their endorsement, or at the very least ignored it, but instead accepted it with open arms is a major red flag.
Edit: I like how the DSA supporting cowards have nothing of value to say, just discretely downvote and scurry away. Fuck the DSA.
Okay I guess I will say something in addition to the downvote: none of that crazy shit you’re saying about DSA is true, they (we) are a bunch of idealistic do-gooders trying to make the world a better place.
What value did you actually add though? You provided no explanations, no counter examples, no specific disagreements, no points, no arguments, no sources, nothing. You literally just asserted that I’m wrong and that the DSA is good with no additional input at all. This is just a downvote in text form.
I literally have a detailed comment with sources that prove what I’m talking about in this very comment thread.
Your comment above and the longer one are just complete nonsense. You’re hyper-focused on this October 8th rally that you claim was organized by DSA (it wasn’t) and which you claim endorsed and celebrated the October 7th attack (it didn’t). And then you’re taking various DSA statements about how they oppose war and violence as proof that they secretly celebrate violence from the side you oppose.
Come back to reality!
Which terrorist organizations does the DSA support?
Hamas.
The terrorist attacks happened on Oct 7th. The world was in shock as it happened because that was the deadliest terrorist attack in the world has seen since the Camp Speicher massacre back in 2014 and 9/11.
Most people and governments around the world at the time condemned the terrorist attacks, they condemned Hamas for committing them, and they expressed sympathy for the victims. This was doubly so when Hamas took responsibility, proudly displayed videos of the attacks and the victims, and it became apparent that they took hundreds of hostages.
What did the NYC DSA do? They fucking organized a pro-Hamas rally on Oct 8th in SUPPORT of the terrorist attacks that literally happened the day before. They outright endorsed and celebrated the attacks on the streets. This isn’t an exaggeration, that’s literally what they did. You can literally google the rally and see this for yourself.
The rally was so disgusting, so immoral, and so evil that it caused an uproar around the world, including inside the DSA and the left in the US. So many people, including big politicians like AOC, Shri Thanedar, and Bowman, either quit or disassociated with the DSA:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/10/aoc-pro-palestine-nyc-rally-00120684
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/quit-dsa-gaza-israel/
The backlash was so strong, that the NYC DSA was forced to write a press release statement addressing their actions two days later on Oct 10th… and they came up with this:
https://socialists.nyc/press-releases/statement-peace-now-end-occupation-apartheid/
They didn’t condemn the terrorist attacks, they refused to name and condemn Hamas or the PIJ, they even refused to call the attacks as such, they instead called them “escalations of violence”. It’s like holding a pro-ISIS rally a day after the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, and then victim blaming the French people for the attacks. How tone deaf is that?
Keep in mind the context here, we’re not talking about the current day. This is before Israel started it’s bombing campaign on Gaza. At the time, a very egregious and straightforward atrocity happened. The human thing to do is to condemn it because terrorism is evil. This is why people condemn both the Oct 7th terrorist attacks and what Israel has been doing since, it’s because that’s the principled thing to do.
To this day, they still have never rescinded their support for Hamas or the terrorist attacks.
The DSA actually did something similar when Russia invaded Ukraine. Most people were in shock and they condemned Russia’s invasion and atrocities, but the parasitic DSA decided to “condemn” the invasion by blaming the US, Ukraine, and NATO for Putin invading.
https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
How are these not open endorsements of violence? How they are they not explicit support for terrorism? How are these positions not tone deaf and immoral? These parasites have no morals and they have no principles. Extremists like this need to be condemned and disavowed, not openly accepted. Mamdani’s acceptance of the DSA endorsement is a big red flag.
Who has less red flags?
Well, when you put it that way, recent events suggest the best course of action is to sit it out in protest.
/s for the triggered assholes. Only not really.
Good point, the DSA is full of red flags literally and figuratively
The DSA ran for office? What? I’m asking which CANDIDATE has less red flags you goober.
Brad Lander, Adrienne Adams, and Zellnor Myrie are better candidates.
However, y biggest issue with him is that he has openly accepted the endorsement from the DSA.
Your only issue is that he’s to the left of netanyahu.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read on this site all day
Sorry, was netanyahu too far to the left for you too?
Not supporting a shitty a brainless, dictator simping, terrorist endorsing, violence condoning organization like the DSA doesn’t mean I support Netanyahu. Fuck him and everybody like him. At the same rate fuck anybody who’s dumb enough to think that the condemnation of one political parasite is an endorsement of another political parasite.
Not supporting a shitty a brainless, dictator simping, terrorist endorsing, violence condoning organization like the DSA
This also describes the DNC, with whom you have no evident problem.
I have a lot of problems with the DNC actually. Any more assumptions you want cleared up?
Sure. How much further to the right do you want them?
It seems that every article from Jacobin is skewed ever so slightly, not enough to make most think there’s something wrong, but it seems to skew anti-progressive by tone and wording, while being assertive in part to some center (or right-leaning by European standards), and aggressive in language towards selective parts of the far-right while mellowing down the tone against conservatives in general.
It’s like eating candy and discovering that the sugar coating is actually aluminium.
They do tend to passively address the American Overton window in their articles. I think it’s pretty easy to navigate as an American because they do it mostly in the same style of our mainstream media.
The overall dynamics of American political language I think can be pretty jarring to both Europeans and any American trying to first learn about socialism.
Within the context of US politics, the center left/Democratic Party is the largest political obstacle for socialists. So antagonism towards the center left seems to be rational within that
aluminium
Nice touch. 🤣
Well, it’s how it’s spelled in pretty much all of the English-speaking world. Barring the USA and Canada.
Edit: my favourite ”whelp” is apparently not what I thought.
As long as we’re talking language…
whelp
noun
the young of a carnivore, as a dog, bear, lion, seal, etc.
a youth, especially an impudent or despised one.
The onomatopoeia is “welp”. Just because autocorrect says something doesn’t make it so.
Thank you.
It was a compliment, citizen. 🙇🏼♂️
deleted by creator
You mean ammonium, jsyk
Thank you.
Gotta coat that shit in something distracting, amirite?
