top 87 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 62 points 1 year ago (35 children)

It's just a primary guys. Let's hope he wins the seat.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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!

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm going to flip out if the dems support Cuomo and I'm honestly half expecting them to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Do you get what I mean?

    Yeah. It's conveniently different in this case because the nominee is a progressive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

    See, this is why it feels like your responses are wholly detached from anything I'm actually saying.

    I explicitly said that people who make these arguments don't advocate against third party votes in local elections (because the viability/feasibility dynamics of a smaller population are different) and I thought it was clear to extrapolate from the underlying reasoning (but perhaps I was mistaken) that voting for a third party presidential nominee who's been backed by, say, the Democratic party because they opted to not back the winner of their primary during a presidential election (which I didn't mention as it feels highly unlikely, ever, but it's the same premise) would make sense because that candidate would then have the name recognition, reach, and resources necessary to reach a populace as large as the entire nation.

    Objectively, you're directly contradicting what I've said the reasoning of the argument is, even when I've pointed out it argues the opposite.

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

    See, it's ok to vote 3rd party here. It's not because the nominee is a progressive, it's because of this paragraph of excuses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    paragraph of excuses

    …you mean the material differences between two different scenarios?

    I've already said that the backing of a powerful organization in different election series would render the same advantages and chance of winning – regardless of the candidates political positions (and that I wanted Mamdani to win! I'm not even arguing to not vote for him; I think every New Yorker should) – so this is literally you just insisting that, no, really the reasoning would be different if Mamdani ran as a third party and the Democratic party endorsed him. Then I'd say the reasoning was different and you should vote for the guy who won the primary.

    Which, like, if you're going to assume I'm secretly lying, why even bother to have responded in the first place?

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

    …you mean the material differences between two different scenarios?

    The only one that actually matters is that Mamdani is a progressive and the sex pest you want is a centrist.

    so this is literally you just insisting that, no, really the reasoning would be different if Mamdani ran as a third party and the Democratic party endorsed him. Then I’d say the reasoning was different and you should vote for the guy who won the primary.

    Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. Your entire "it's ok to vote for a third party" thing is only because Mamdani is a progressive. "No matter who" crumbles instantly when the centrist candidate loses the primary.

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

    the sex pest you want is a centrist

    Ohhhhh; O. K. Yeah; you are just totally ignoring what I'm saying.

    Thanks for, at least, confirming.

    I've said multiple times I wanted Mamdani to win; I've also said multiple times that I'm, very much, not advocating for anyone to vote third party (again, the candidate I would want won). You're just ignoring what I'm saying and substituting your own reality.

    O. K. then; carry on. I wasted way too much time actually thinking this was a real conversation.

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

    I’ve said multiple times I wanted Mamdani to win; I’ve also said multiple times that I’m, very much, not advocating for anyone to vote third party

    Except the part where you keep saying that this is different because it's small and local.

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

    Speaking about the likelihood of whether a candidate can win is not the same thing as desiring for that candidate to win.

    I explicitly said in my very first reply to you that I wasn't making a recommendation about which candidate to vote for because my point was about the reasoning of the argument and whether OP's argument actually addressed the viability of a candidate, the central piece of contention when it comes to whether a third-party candidate is capable of winning.

    That doesn't mean I want Cuomo to win, regardless of how his chances look or his actual viability. I'm not a centrist; I don't want centrists for office; I'm thrilled the socialist won the primary; this is entirely besides the point of my original comment.

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

    That doesn’t mean I want Cuomo to win, regardless of how his chances look or his actual viability. I’m not a centrist; I don’t want centrists for office; I’m thrilled the socialist won the primary; this is entirely besides the point of my original comment.

    It sure looks like you've been arguing this whole time that voting third party is a-ok in this instance but not any of the previous ones.

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

    The properties of a local election where one of the major parties backs the third party candidate does change the viability of that third party candidate in the election. But…

    That doesn't suddenly mean that's the candidate I want to win or that I think that's the candidate everyone should vote for. I feel like we should be able to say Cuomo would have better odds without that inherently meaning we should vote for Cuomo.

    I was trying to help explain what material properties affect this to help explain why this election would not be convincing evidence to a person who argues against voting for a third party in a presidential election (where neither of the major parties are backing said third party).

    I didn't think that talking about the reasoning of such a person to understand their logic would suddenly mean that I thought voting for the third party was the thing to do or especially that I was advocating for voting for the serial sexual harasser.

    I…don't know how else to explain that these are separate things. I feel like I've addressed you in good faith repeatedly while you've just insisted I've been secretly lying.

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

    I…don’t know how else to explain that these are separate things.

    I understand what you're saying. I'm just not buying that you're not saying that it's a different situation for any reason other than a progressive won.

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

    O. K. I'm genuinely not (I tend to vote for the Greens in my local elections and I feel like one wouldn't've wanted Mamdani to win if coming up with this was solely because the candidate is progressive) but, like, I'm just a stranger to you so I can understand the hesitation to take at face value.

    Regardless (as I believe this is the point we are both of the same opinion), the great news is still that he won. I think it was sometime last year I remember discussing with my partner how so many people have this idea of NYC as a liberal city yet their mayors have all been neoliberal centrists, at best; I know he hasn't won the main election, yet, but I'm definitely feeling hopeful about the odds.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    justify random decisions you’ve made to kiss copirate dems asses

    Damn; that's…really impressive to've gleaned all of this insight about my past decisions on a comment that has mentioned none of my past decisions. You've got nothing on Miss Cleo.

    Would you care to explain what corporate media talking points I'm reiterating?

    Also, I've not been remotely as aggressive or attacking to anyone here; you're acting like I'm encouraging people to vote for Cuomo or Adams. I have not given this level of hostility or assumption of poor character out the gate like this, remotely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I genuinely don't believe I've moved the goalposts, especially as I didn't argue anyone new in my last post.

    Would you be able to explain to me how I moved them so I can better understand what you're seeing?

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

    I’m not mad or upset with you or anything I promise

    O. K. That's fair enough; "talking out of your ass" and "kiss copirate dems asses" felt more angry than anything but maybe that's just because "ass" was being used.

    I feel like the points I've mentioned I've gotten the reasoning for more from political scientists (as I don't really care about the positions of the media or the corporate Dem.s) but it was never my intent to convince anyone of them; I was trying to explain why, if the Dem.s did back Cuomo, it wouldn't address the reasoning of someone who believes not voting third party in a presidential election (an attempt to understand the building blocks of that person's PoV, even if one thinks that PoV is garbage). It may just be how my brain works but understanding the mechanics of someone's reasoning, even if one would never agree with the conclusion, I find beneficial. Potentially because it helps to break apart their argument in a way they'd understand (though, of course, it can be hard to convince some people to change their minds).

    But it's definitely not the most important thing here, in the end. The progressive (and exceedingly) better candidate won the nomination; (since I think that's something we both agree on wanting to have happened) I'm entirely much more enthusiastic about that outcome than anything else discussed in the thread.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

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

    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?

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

    That's what's fun about the whole establishment coming out swinging against him - he just won the primary. He's not even elected yet, and they are losing their shit.

    (also, didn't notice until after posting that you'd posted 2 days ago - sorry for the necro post!)

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

    Two days old post is still relevant on Lemmy. It's when someone responds to a 3+ month comment that I'm like, "how did you find me?!"

    I think Cuomo is going to stay in the race, it will be interesting to see who wealthy establishment Dems support.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Apparently, Faux News calls him "Zohran the Destroyer". This is exactly the sort of name that I want with progressive leadership. 🤩

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

    The number of opinion pieces having meltdowns over Mamdani is simply off the charts. The fascists and neolibs are losing their minds about this. It’s incredible.

    Mamdani isn’t even remotely radical as far as leftists go. What’s he’s proposing is just the bare minimum of common sense as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • Right? I don’t get this at all. The guy gets elected, offers a couple things via social policy change, and everyone loses their shit. Even the title of the article this is about calls it “socialism” when it’s a far cry from it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 71 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 85 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The word gets used so often as a pejorative it's weird to see it used accurately by that crowd.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    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

    [1] https://thefern.org/2025/03/are-government-owned-grocery-stores-the-answer-to-americas-food-desert-problem/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.'

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

    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 really depends on who you ask these days doesn't it.

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

    Well, they sent me a letter a few years back saying the loan had been forgiven since I'd owner-occupied the home for a decade, so now the only other entity that might claim to own it is the creditor for my regular first mortgage. And the state (in the sense that my title is 'fee simple' and not 'allodial' so I'm still subject to things like taxes and eminent domain), I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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.

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Also Democratic Socialism (Mamdani's beliefs) are not the same as Social Democracy. They are slightly different.

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

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Everyone's talking like he's won the mayorship already.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    "Socialism" lol

    It is a win though, it shows people are willing to vote for change through alternative parties and thats fucking huge

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

    He's a Democrat, not 3rd party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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)

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    "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.

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

    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?

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

    C'mon! Status Cuomo was right there!

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Keep talking in ways that highlight progressive values, and you'll get more of this.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    He's quite charismatic.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    The status quo is garbage and has been degrading rapidly for most of my life. Here's hoping the rest of this country gets its shit together in time.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    19 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post