Politico reports that at a Hamptons fundraiser last Saturday, Cuomo told his well-heeled supporters that, contrary to all available evidence, he could win the New York mayoral race as an independent—because he was likely to have the implicit support of President Donald Trump.
The imperative of defeating Mamdani justified the new coalition Cuomo is trying to create of his die-hard loyalists (who are Democrats) with Trump Republicans.
Some of that latter group might be tempted to back Curtis Sliwa, the actual GOP nominee in the race. Cuomo told these donors, “We can minimize [the Sliwa] vote, because he’ll never be a serious candidate. And Trump himself, as well as top Republicans, will say the goal is to stop Mamdani. And you’ll be wasting your vote on Sliwa.” Cuomo went on to emphasize that he’d be a mayor who could find common ground with Trump:
Sounds like you already know what the strategy is.
What I’m SO OVER is dipshits who think calling a Democrat a libtard is super aware and oh so class-conscious. We get a lot of people from around the world (yay) who want to weigh in on American politics (okay) and come in swinging about “liberals” as if that isn’t what every person to the left of fucking Eisenhower was called their whole lives. (Oh you live in the PNW? Okay, not you.)
Then we get to being bourgeoise and comrade and I gotta say if you’re talking about American politics like that and you don’t understand why you can’t even get enough signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states maybe you should shut the fuck up because you’re sure as shit not helping anyone but yourself.
You wanna talk about raising the minimum wage? Cutting military spending? Restoring green energy investment? Restoring education, science, and public media funding? Great! We already agree so why are you wasting your goddamned genius PoliSci insights bitching about corrupt Democrats by lambasting them all? Fucking morons. Get your ism out of our face, we’re trying to fix what you refused to prevent last November.
Actually, the NYT published the results of an investigation last week, and it showed that in the states that track voter registration by party affiliation, democrats lost 2m voters and republicans gained 2.4m. taking into account the states that don’t track voter registration by party, that means the 6m people who didn’t vote for Kamala last fall were democrats that switched party because there isn’t a real difference between the two parties on most things, and they wanted something new.
So maybe if the democrats want to win, they can stop jumping ship and voting for fascists.
So if that’s to be believed (which, to me it looks like an enormous red flag of vote manipulation, but okay) - then 6m registered democrats decided to vote for trump instead of Kamala. And your take is if they want to run someone more progressive than Kamala those voters will vote Democrat again?
Given that progressives made a huge garment-rending show of NOT voting for Kamala, and apparently the trump-loving people registered as Democrats, who did in fact actually vote, went the other way, you’re suggesting the Dems could win by moving left, and I’m saying why would they not think the opposite?
The numbers show they can win if they move more right. The numbers are bullshit, but that’s what we’re working with. And what the DNC is working with. Run a candidate that will lose in Iowa and win in California, and will lose nationally by a lot or have a close race nationally.
Non-voting progressives are up a creek. With only a year to go til midterms.
No, my take is that they stop trying to appeal to the fascists in their party and start adopting populist policies. Which, as the name implies, are popular. Things like universal healthcare and a bump to the minimum wage.
The democrats lost the election because their conservative members fled to the republicans. They’ll lose the next election too if they continue trying to appeal to republicans. Bitch about it all they want, nobody is responsible for that except the party and their stubborn refusal to be anything more than “republicans, but sometimes with gays”.
So if they run someone more conservative, they’ll win the election. You see that, right?
Like, I’m not hoping they do that - very much the opposite - but that’s what they’re getting told by shithead consultants and that’s the “smart” play if they want to win elections.
If they run more progressive candidates, they’ll lose more voters. Because the left has just proven in the most disastrous election in anyone’s lifetime that they can not be swayed to vote Democrat no matter how dire the circumstances - in fact, the more dire, the more they dig in that they will not not help republiQans destroy everything.
Name one fucking democrat who has run for president in the last three elections what was not a fascist, and I’ll show you a democrat that got the progressive vote. Who are you going to pick? Kamala The Cop, who laughed on TV about throwing mother in jail for smoking pot while she was doing it at home? Maybe one of the DNC members who was laughing at pro-Palestine protesters?
Stop being fucking nazi scum, that’ll get you a ton of votes.
I mean, No, because you won’t be dissuaded.
So here we are with midterms barreling down, Dems will have someone to vote for - what’s your plan? Is there any - I mean, seriously, any national progressive party presence at all? Is any group even close?
Yeah I didn’t think so. And that’s the rub, as they say.
Dude, exactly… I’d love to have a viable leftist party in this country, but that doesn’t just magically materialize.