all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Good thing the DNC just ousted the person who's been advocating for this the whole time. That was a close one

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 54 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 129 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Start with the 128 Democrats who voted with Republicans to table an impeachment vote this week.

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

    I've got one in my district. I'll be on board with all efforts going forward to replace him.

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

    This isn't even time-specific advice. Strong primaries, everywhere, for everything, all the time should be the norm.

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

    Perhaps once you get preferential voting in, then primaries won't be as necessary.

    They're not a big thing here (Australia), because most people aren't party members, and each party has various methods of choosing candidates.

    I'm just out here proselytising for preferential voting (for single member elections, that is).

    Good on the new york democrats for using it at a party level 👍👍👍

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

    Let's show them what "woke" really means. We are awake. And we see what they have been doing. And we are going to stop it.

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 84 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    The best way to have a Dem win the general, is a healthy primary.

    If it's not then the only way shitty Dems get out of office, is giving the seat to a Republican.

    The myth that primaries hurt in the general is a lie spread by neoliberals. It's bad for them because if you compare a neoliberl to literally anyone that's not a Republican, they look like a turd sandwich.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Are you saying we shouldn’t vote blue no matter who?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago

    Screw blue. If everyone votes blue, no matter who, we still live in a fascist, capitalist country going down the drain because politicians would rather cash checks from their corporate masters than do what's right. We need actual reform.

    Since it has to rhyme, vote progressive, not regressive?

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

    Both. Vote your heart in the primary, head in the general. Whatever BS they put out is going to be better than the alternative, but if everyone shows up to primaries it might be actually decent.

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

    Vote your heart in the primary

    You mean like I’ve been doing for the last 25 years as shit continually got worse?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You say that because you're a rational person. The people he was replying to. Thought it was more important that Biden/Harris lose than trump. They ridiculed those calling for solidarity against trump. Screeching blue maga. Because they didn't care if trump won.

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

    And there you go again deflecting. It was always going to be either a democrat or a republican that won. We would have had far more impact trying to negotiate with the Democrat than a Republican. Yes both candidates were bad. But one would have definitely been better. The one so many hyper focused on attacking. While not attacking the other in the slightest.

    My position looks as good as it ever did. I was right before. I was right during the election. And I've been right since the election. All people like you can do is silently downvote pyrrhicly. Or delusionally you create scenarios in which there's a magical world in which I was wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    I’ve been kind of confused about this whole thing. In the US, are even mayoral elections Democrat VS Republican? What happens if more than two people want to run for mayor?

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    This was a primary election so both major parties were fielding several candidates. The reality is no Republican is getting elected in NYC as long as we have free and fair elections in the USA so the democratic primary winner is the most likely person to win in November when the general election is held.

    You are not obligated to run under a party in US elections. It just makes it easier to win.

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

    My concern is that Cuomo is planning to run as an independent and my pessimism is telling me that somehow he might win. I mean no one thought Trump would win in 2016 or again in 2024, but here we are.

    But the part of me that wants something to hold on to is desperately optimistic that this might be the start of the change.

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

    If Cuomo runs as independent, I don’t think he comes close to winning but he definitely splits the vote which could push this Republican. Does the NY Mayoral race also use rank choice? If it does then evething should still be fine.

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

    If Cuomo runs independent, the democratic party loses any hope of keeping their progressive base and it might actually split entirely.

    After bullying their base for the last 10 years to get in line behind their shit moderate candidates, if they were to suddenly decide that primaries don't mean anything then they'd never be able to convince progressives to vote against their interests again.

    Cuomo is backed by the democratic establishment and the DNC's donor class. It doesnt matter if he's independent, he's the establishment pick and would be running with their funding.

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

    The general already has Mamdani, Adams, and Sliwa. Anyone voting for Adams or Sliwa probably wasn't voting for Mamdani anyway. So if Cuomo jumps in as an Indy, he won't take any votes from Mamdani, who's already beaten him once, so he'll have to shave votes from Adams (he can't be getting too many votes) and Sliwa (he never wins anything). Mamdani will end up with half the votes, and the other three will split the remaining half.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Mayoral elections like most US elections are multi-party in principle, but usually there are the two major parties and the rest are marginal or fringe. Some offices are solidly enough controlled by one party that the primary essentially determines the general election winner. Example: AOC primaried out the incumbent in a solidly Democratic seat. She then ran in a general election against a Republican and others, but none of them really mattered.

    I don't know whether the NYC Mayor election is like that these days. I know NYC has had Republican mayors in living memory, like Ghouliani. Bloomberg (I just checked) did two terms as a Republican, then a 3rd as an independent on the Republican ballot line. He later ran in the 2020 presidential primaries as a Democrat.

    Right now there's a situation where Andrew Cuomo (anointee of the NY and maybe even national Dem establishent) just lost the primary but might run as an independent. If the Dem establishment keeps supporting him, maybe he has winning chances. Something like that happened with Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, who lost a Dem primary but then got re-elected as an independent with Dem party support. His opponent (Ned Lamont, now governor of Connecticut iirc) wasn't even left wing from what I remember.

    For his independent run, Lieberman started a new party "Connecticut for Lieberman" and ran as its candidate. After being reelected, the new party had served its purpose and became useless to him, so he forgot about it and the incorporation documents expired. Someone else then got control of it (I guess that's like domain squatting) and apparently used it for some entertaining pranks. I wasn't around for that though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_for_Lieberman

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

    Huh, that kind of sucks to be honest. In Ontario (and I assume the rest of Canada), Mayoral elections don’t have parties involved at all. It’s just individuals and your city ward’s individual candidates. Truthfully, the candidates often have some former experience with a provincial or federal party (or at least an endorsement, but they don’t run under any party banners)

    I think it makes more sense that way since local politics work a lot differently than state/provincial and higher politics.

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

    It depends on the city. Mine (Madison, WI) doesn't officially list any party affiliation for mayor or city alders. We also use a runoff election system, so we're not stuck on two parties for local things.

    In practice, candidates are often backed and/or endorsed by some political parties. Common ones are Progressive Dane (county level party) or Working Families (which has national reach and is basically a socialist party working within the Democratic party). When they move up to state or federal seats, they usually join the Democrats while continuing to work with the Working Families party.

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

    The whole two party system thing in general isn't really a rule per se, you're allowed to run as part of some other party or independent of one, for any office that I know of. In smaller local elections like town councils and such you can even be competitive that way. It's just that the way we do voting, most of the time, means that for any election in which a reasonable number of voters participate, only two parties can be competitive and any more would actually make their side less likely to win. It's a not originally intended side effect of the rules we use, that now serves to keep the existing parties' monopoly on most higher offices.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Yes, very much so. Each party has their candidate. Some states might let multiple members of the same party run, and there have certainly been instances where people have run unopposed for certain offices, but generally most elected positions in the US are partisan.

    It has been a key Republican strategy for several decades now to control as many states governorship as they can manage because it allows them to do things like gerrymandering and to pass state policies that favor Republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • It depends. Some cities do nonpartisan elections (usually with some form of "jungle primary"), some cities do partisan ones. For the ones with partisan elections, there are often more than two parties, but parties other than the Republicans and Democrats rarely have a shot at office.

    NY has a unique system in that it has a lot of parties, but many of them just endorse a candidate from one of the big 2 parties rather than running their own. This is why Cuomo isn't entirely out of this thing yet, unfortunately; he conceded the Democratic nomination, but he still has the nomination from the Fight and Deliver party (which he, himself, founded specifically for this election) and may choose to continue to run as their candidate instead of dropping out.

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

    Cities and states sometimes have different rules for different races. Cities are often so Democratic, that elections sometimes end up being between two Democrats. I've even seen Republicans register as Democrats so they have a shot at getting people just to listen to them.

    Often races like judges, school boards, etc. are officially "non-partisan," but you can usually figure out which is which by their positions on the issues.

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

    Clear out the cruft! Give us politicians we can get behind.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    You basically have to clone Mamdani to fill out all the positions he should have.

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

    The other side is already scouring obscure precedent to use to disqualify and deport him. So while this is great news, I won't hold my breath for any sort of actual election victory past the primary.

    Going through the motions of elections right now feels very much pointless since only someone incredibly naive would think that the right has any intention of allowing elections to matter any more.

    The sooner Americans realise that it's Let Them Eat Cake time the sooner they can move on with guillotine o'clock.

    Peaceful protests, boycotts and sternly worded letters rely on the people you're protesting having a sense of shame. Which the right (and most of the left) no longer have.

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

    Peaceful protests, boycotts and sternly worded letters rely on the people you're protesting having a sense of shame. Which the right (and most of the left) no longer have.

    They can do a lot more than that - it can scare them, and that will have an effect.

    At their core, Conservatives are cowards. They are literally afraid of EVERYTHING - it's their primary characteristic. They want to remain in their safe little bubble, with no changes to anything. Any changes can only bring uncertainty, and uncertainty is terrifying to them.

    So when the crowds at the protests get larger and larger, week by week, they begin to realize that they are outnumbered, especially the leadership, who KNOWS they cheated to win the election, and know they don't have anywhere near the numbers on their side that they claim. They know that when the Tipping Point arrives, and the Left finally rises up, they don't stand a chance.

    All they have to defend themselves is empty bluster, and they are scared shitless that we all see it, which we do. That HitlerPig/ Hegseth presser this morning is a perfect examples. Those were two frightened cowards, demanding that everybody acknowledge their empty power, and hoping nobody will realize how weak they really are.

    So protests, boycotts, letter campaigns, etc. all serve to amp up their fear, and sooner or later they will do something about it. It's likely that the first reaction will be violent, but when the counter-response is crushing, and continues to be crushing, they will quickly start demanding to make a deal.

    That's when we should purge MAGA once and for all. No mercy.

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

    I wish I saw a single Democratic member of Congress talking about plans to seek criminal prosecution against ICE agents. These people running around in masks abducting people need to be indicted on various federal charges, including violations of civil rights. The problem is right now Dems can't even bring themselves to discuss the idea; their plan is to win back power then immediately declare "it's time to unify and move on," at the same Republicans start to plot Project 2033.

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

    This is not nearly as true as it seems. Sustained protest and sustained cultural change can and does work.

    Hell, look at all these nazis covering their faces. You think they're proud? Republicans in Congress are incapable of making eye contact with their co-workers. Proudly defiant my ass, these people know the score.

    Far more of them are looking to hop off that burning pile of shit than we realize, and we need to openly be a place where everybody who abandoned that loser ship for real can come join the normal people looking to stop it.

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

    Yes. They are proud.

    I hate to tell you, but they're not covering their face out of a sense of shame; they're covering them in order to prevent retaliation from people who disagree with them. They have no shame about what they're doing.

    If they are recognised and shunned, or refused service because of their actions, there's no shame or self-reflection. it's still the fault of the "damn libs". THAT'S why they cover their faces; because they know they're actions are unpopular and will get them retaliated against.

    But knowing their actions are unpopular doesn't mean for a second that they're ashamed of those actions. On the contrary, the fuckers are proud to be doing Trumps dirty work.

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

    Going through the motions of elections right now feels very much pointless

    “going through the motions” is a huge reason why we’re on the other side of issues to these fucks: we’re on the side of due process, faithfully executing, reading the law as intended, of evidence, of science

    we don’t jump the gun because we don’t let our feelings dictate when, where, and how we dish out punishment - we wait for evidence so that we can be effective, and fair

  • source
  • parent
  • 21 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 41 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    I honestly think corporate Democrats are more content with Republican (non)governance than the idea of being progressive-led.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 37 points 1 year ago* (14 children)
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    One time. He simply didn't get the votes second time around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    In that case you should read this and this. By their own admission the Democratic establishment did everything they could to undermine Bernie and make sure Biden got the nomination.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "Less discussed is the all-out media campaign, waged primarily on the cable news channels most watched and trusted by the older voters who vote disproportionately in Democratic primaries,"

    Newsflash people- this is POLITICS. This is no different than young podcasters on tiktok or whatever the hell giving air time to Bernie and not Biden, etc. Hell, it's no different than Jacobin, which I do read occasionally, giving WAY more preference and bias to more left wing candidates. If you can't see that is two sides of the same coin then I don't know what to tell you.

    He LOST. Get over it.

    Again, 2016 he definitely got fucked and I'd find it hard to believe anyone could not believe that. But you're upset at political maneuvering which is a thing in ANY race. Again, he could've made different decisions AND he could've won if the young people he was relying on bothered to show up. I mean- it says it right in that quote. "The older voters who disproportionately vote in primaries." Why? Why can't young people go out and vote?

    Zohran just won. Know why? Fully 1/4 of voters had not voted in a primary in the decade and a half prior to this one. You should be more pissed that people decided Biden was the right call than normal political operations.

    Do I want all that money in politics? No. But I also know it's what it is and you gotta win like Zohran did and stop blaming anyone and everyone else for your faults. Bernie was a great candidate. So why in the fuck after he got screwed in 2016 and we saw the complete shitshow that was Trump's first term did people not come out in droves to vote for Bernie? That has jack to do with being ratfucked and everything to do with primary voters either not showing up or deciding he wasn't the choice compared to Biden.

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

    Newsflash people- this is POLITICS. This is no different than young podcasters on tiktok or whatever the hell giving air time to Bernie and not Biden, etc. Hell, it's no different than Jacobin, which I do read occasionally, giving WAY more preference and bias to more left wing candidates. If you can't see that is two sides of the same coin then I don't know what to tell you.

    That's only one part of the article, though. What really got me on the "they fucked Bernie" train was this:

    Also undiscussed is the ruthlessness with which the Biden campaign and Democratic officials forced an end to the primary. At the same time they were urging people to stay home and avoid large gatherings — and a time when it was still widely believed COVID was spread through surfaces rather than respiratory droplets, leading almost everyone to eschew mask-wearing — the campaign and the party ignored criticism and warnings from health officials, and cheerfully misinformed voters that it was safe to turn out to vote in person, while aggressively rejecting widespread calls to delay upcoming primaries.

    The DNC went so far as to threaten to cut states’ delegates in half if they did so, all to wrap things up before Biden sabotaged himself, or before the sexual assault allegation against him that the mainstream press assiduously ignored for weeks became widely known. The result was election day chaos, depressed turnout, and several cases and deaths linked directly to the contests.

    I do find it distasteful, but the media stuff is just political maneuvering. However, forcing voters to choose between their vote and their health is not something that should happen, ever. That was blatant abuse of power.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Lol, wrong.

    They learned in the media to not even mention him as a candidate half the time, despite consistently being in the top 3.

    Then after Bernie won several early primary states, the entire rest of the Democratic candidate pool orchestrated dropping out at the same time to back the guy who hadn't broken 5th place yet, except Warren to split the progressive vote, to manufacture consent for backing Biden.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Oh so you mean he couldn't play politics? Why did he and Warren not make a deal where one would drop out and the other take up a position in their cabinet or something?

    You're mad at politics. There was no reason he couldn't have done the same and gotten the win.

    Again- HE DID NOT WIN. Sucks because I got off my ass and voted for him but bringing up 2020 is just sour grapes and makes you look like nothing but a whiner.

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

    The fact that the Democratic Party cares more about internal politics than the good of the country is part of why we're in the situation we're in now.

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

    You're acting like people ratfucking the primary is fine because the entrenched group of elites had a stranglehold on the process and were able to do it better. You're "ends justify the means" bullshit doesn't fly.

    And Warren obviously threw in with the establishment, so why would she do a deal with Bernie?

    People are bringing it up BECAUSE the establishment Dems are clearly GOING TO DO IT AGAIN. Holy shit pay attention

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

    I am not excusing 2016....at all. But I am excusing politics because...you know, that's politics. Do I like it? No. But it is what politics is. It's messy, dirty. Has been forever and probably will continue to be.

    And that's Warren's deal then. She was the main competitor on the progressive flank. If you can't win the primary, you don't get to go to the general. Whose fault is that? Why could Bernie not convince her to go out? Why could he not win out?

    And if somehow the Democratic party says "do not vote for the winner of our primary" and throw in behind Cuomo then sure, I'll believe you.

    But until then you're still just fantasizing about everyone being against you. Note that a lot of the people you think are so against you- you're going to need their votes in November. So maybe don't go all cold war over nothing.

    You guys are so damn eager to find the "enemy" in the "establishment" that you can't just be happy your guy won and work to get him elected. No instead you gotta bring up BS (like Bernie not winning 2020). Good luck. I honestly hope Zohran wins. But the funny thing is- you're acting JUST LIKE the "establishment" dems who can't wait to bring the pitchforks up against people that should be your allies instead of your real enemy- more conservative bullshit.

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

    once again using the results of ratfucking to justify the ratfucking.

    Also, you're assigning shit to me I never said nor insinuated. Pointing out the very obvious public motions these elites are already taking to try to ruin the chances of an actual progressive winning, is not "looking for enemies". They were never hiding their actions. We don't have to go looking.

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

    They haven't done anything but make offhand comments. I haven't heard anyone colluding with Cuomo. The official party chairs haven't said anything that I know of. Once they do, hey, I'll give you credit and say burn it down. But they haven't...

    And I brought up 2016 because it was a ratfucking. That is in comparison to 2020 which you did bring up where it was not. Bernie lost because he couldn't convince the majority of voters that he was the guy to win. It's that simple.

    Now- how is this that much different than David Hogg saying "we should primary people in safe blue districts?" I mean, he very blatantly called for change and this is before primaries where he could influence it. Not unlike what Clinton and every other rich person did in the primaries.

    FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree with him. But you can't say "they can't say this!" when you agree with someone else doing the exact same thing.

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

    And you think the media often purposely not even showing Bernie as a candidate despite being top 3 the entire cycle, often first, didn't play into that?

    Stop making excuses. Just because you were too blind to see the manipulation doesn't mean the rest of us were

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

    Good. Establishment Dems need to remember they work for us and we're not happy.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Where's David Hogg when you need him?

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

    Wow, what a novel idea.

  • source