Zohran Mamdani’s campaign represented a struggle for basic dignity and an affirmation of democratic potential. It was ceaselessly denounced by political and media elites from across the spectrum as something sinister, violent, and dangerous.

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 36 points 1 year ago

How dare the people get a say in OUR government

  • those in power
  • source
  • [–] 81 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    I disagree completely, I think Zohran's victory is a key example of left unity despite all efforts to drive a wedge or schism.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago* (15 children)

    With our current Overton window, the word“bipartisan” means a coalition between conservatives (Democrats) and fascists (Republicans). So, yeah, it is a bipartisan meltdown, because neither party really represents Zohran’s base (or most Americans).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Democrats in office, state and federal, overwhelmingly support Mamdani, even Jeffries, and the exceptions make the rule.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    They begrudgingly supported him once it became clear that he was going to win. They never wanted to support him, they are only doing it to save face. How long did it take Jeffries to endorse him?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    Fuck if I know, or care, feel free to go count the days.

    We here on the left don't worship our politicians so it may surprise you to learn we're not heartbroken about Jeffries or Schumer saying some shit we didn't like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Yes, I know that you don't care about data that does't fit your obviously bullshit narrative. That's like... your whole thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    "Data that does’t fit your obviously bullshit narrative" being the number of days it took a single DNC politician to endorse Zohran Mamdani? Man, what a hill to die on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Who is dying on a hill? I'm just pointing out that I know you don't care about data when you find it inconvenient. Data like:

    "They begrudgingly supported him once it became clear that he was going to win. They never wanted to support him, they are only doing it to save face."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    "They" this "they" that, is this also the faceless them who own the banks lol? The vast majority, everyone minus a rounding error, endorsed Mamdani and were excited by his victory in the DNC. We're lucky to have him, like a second Bernie Sanders but not even Bernie runs on the DNC ticket outside of presidential primaries we invite him to participate in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Who is talking about the banks? WTF are you on about?

    The vast majority, everyone minus a rounding error, endorsed Mamdani and were excited by his victory in the DNC.

    I think you missed this part again:

    “They begrudgingly supported him once it became clear that he was going to win. They never wanted to support him, they are only doing it to save face.”

    It's almost like you don't like engaging with data that doesn't fit your narrative. Weird, I wonder where I heard that before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm a consequentialist, their reasons for supporting progress are meaningless in the face of progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    No, your a partisan hack. You ignore data that makes your team look bad, and spin data to make them look good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The system is partisan. Supporting a third party has a Partisan outcome. You're effectively a partisan hack supporting the GOP by even comparing the two completely different parties. You're normalizing destruction of rights fought long and hard to procure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Both:

    • bomb kids
    • fight against the working class
    • fight against healthcare for all
    • give tax money to their rich friends
    • fight against human rights
    • support genocide
    • support large corporations
    • support destroying the planet
    • support suveillance systems
    • support war
    • fight aganst making the rich pay their fair share of taxes
    • support rapists for president
    • support authoritarianism
    • openly fight against what their voters want
    • support mass deportations without due process
    • support the killing of american citizens
    • support torture programs

    two completely different parties

    lol, sure thing buddy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    DNC want to, based solely on their past legislation and voting history:

    • tax the rich
    • remove money from politics
    • Fairly redistrict to prevent gerrymandering
    • Implement holding time limitations, criminal only focus, and habeus corpus and proper court hearings for immigration enforcement

    You live in a fantasy land.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago

    That is a thought. I was told that even if Mamdani doesmt really acheieve anything, merely the fact that he was elected on a socialist platform was supposed to serve as proof that socialists are viable to run. The thought made me happy, but now im not so sure. As you state, neither side is really represents what people actually want, and as such anyone like mamdani would have to run under another party, because the democrats would never allow him to run. They did everything short of assassinating bernie to ensure he didnt win, i can only assume the DNC has been bought out and is now actively attempting to hinder America just like the republicans, and the entire debate is just a distraction while the two parties collude to make things worse for everyone. But third party is impossible to win in FPTP. So... we're still screwed, no? Its nice that we can get him in on a local level, but until we dismantle the entire DNC I don't see us making any progress since they will actively hinder him and American interests.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Sure, depending on who you mean by "left." Folks like Schumer and Jefferies, however, would certainly need to be excluded for the "unity" part to make sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Jeffries endorsed Mamdani before election day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Two weeks before the election, four months after the primary. Too little too late.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Look, if you stand before a hundred people in a room and two of them disavow you and then people started publishing stories that the entire room was against you: do you think that would be a fair portrayal? Or do you think it's just people trying to divide the room into camps?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    So we're doing the bad apples thing now? We know who the leaders of the Democratic Party in New York and nationwide are and many of them either waited for months or just straight up didn't endorse the literal primary winner, who by all means everyone should endorse from day one. If it was a leftist refusing to endorse, I don't know, Newsom they'd all be up in arms about leftist division and purity testing. I don't give a shit what random Democratic official #3011 said about Mamdani; the people running the show showed exactly zero unity with the Mamdani and the left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Technically yes, and what a ringing endorsement it was

    “As with any Mayor, there will be areas of agreement and areas of principled disagreement. Yet, the stakes are existential,”

    When asked later if Mamdani is the future of the party

    “No, I think the future of the Democratic Party is going to fall, as far as we’re concerned, relative to the House Democratic Caucus and members who are doing great work all across the country,”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    He didn't do anything, those broken people provoked themselves.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I really hope he proves the haters wrong and we can start ousting the losers we have in the Democratic Party. The people in New York need to fight like hell to let him enact his agenda. If it goes well the country might start to move in the right direction.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    As an example of the meltdown, this editorial in WashPo is....LOL.

    https://archive.is/tbbXM

  • source