- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Mayor says progressive peers who swept primaries speak to Americans ‘coast to coast’ as moderates have reservations
Zohran Mamdani, the New York City mayor, said on Sunday that he and a slew of democratic socialist allies who prevailed in recent primary elections are carrying a “national message” to struggling working Americans hungry for a new kind of politics “coast to coast”.
Mamdani made that triumphant clarion call on ABC News’s This Week just five days after he had seen his endorsed candidates win Democratic nominations in three races for New York congressional seats, as well as for five state legislature positions in Albany. He made no effort to disguise his delight that his clean sweep marks a dramatic shift in Democratic politics – not just in New York City, which he has led since January, but also across the US.
He said that collectively they were carrying a “New Deal understanding” of Democratic politics to Congress and on to the “national stage”. It spoke, he said, to Americans feeling exhaustion at struggling to make ends meet “every single day”.
You must log in or register to comment.
The reason Mamdani is so good, is that he gets shit done. I hope he’s endorsed people who can also get shit done, otherwise he’s gives fuel to the centrist critique that the left are a bunch of feckless idiots.
Considering the so-called centrists have failed to win elections nonstop, and bowed to fascism and unfettered capitalism, who gives a fuck what they say?
Exactly, these centrists are more upset with Mamdani than Trump and that should tell you everything you need to know.
He also has this air about him and the most infectious smile. The guy has a bright future in politics. If only the world weren’t ending.
No legislator can get shit done and judging them by that is a recipe for failure. They’re one vote in 500. Legislative elections are about team building and shifting the Overton Window.
The legislators that brag about all the bills they pass aren’t passing anything important.
I’m so tired of this god damned second guessing.
“Yeah he’s good BUT IS HE GOOD ENOUGH?!?”
Yeah its important not to put all our hopes and dreams on a politician and heroize them but we can also be hopeful that we may be starting to see the beginnings of needed change
I’m excited that a mamdani can win. And he is a great vessel for that change in many ways, he is one of the most profoundly charismatic and articulate politicians I have ever seen. And when we deserve more than his platform delivers then we keep working.
I dont think he has a magical ability to get things done, it just appears that way because the things he said he would do have a meaningful impact on people’s lives.
Other mayors have basically been elected on a platform of maintaining the status quo.
My big comparison is to the string of mayors mayors in Seattle, who share similar political leanings, but appear to have have the execution power of rocks. He is like a million times more effective - and it makes a huge difference.
What do you think is the practical difference? I can’t help but wonder what someone with the execution power of a rock does all day. Do they just roll into work and fire up their reddit machine?
From my perspective, it seems like Mamdani has a personal policy of finding things that will make a positive impact, no matter how small, and giving them the push they need to get done rather than letting them get bogged down by committees or fishing for funding.
A lot of politicians in similar positions spend their days wrangling and maneuvering, rather than finding a thing and just doing it.
The message is that American voters are increasingly lazy, polarized and/or tribalized, unable or unwilling to think for themselves, and vote for whomever they’re told. The same thing happens with Trump’s base.
I hate to break it to you, but most Americans never have the opportunity to personally interview their representatives.
Of course Americans vote for who they’re told to vote for. Every candidate is being built up by someone else. You’d say the same thing if all the candidates that the establishment DNC propped up had won. The trick is finding someone who both shares your values, and has the knowledge to give you an informed opinion. Mamdani is a pretty solid voice to listen to.
No the trick is to actually do some research, learn about the candidates, their positions, their reputation, and make an informed decision based on that, and not on anyone else’s opinion of them.
- Politics is about coalitions. These are people that are saying they are going to work together to enact specific changes they’ve outlined
- Yes people should do that but they don’t. So we adapt to the world we have rather than let it burn waiting on people to change.
- The idea that persons A opinion of person B has no relevancy to my potential opinion of person B goes against a million years of evolution.
3a. Experts exist. If I have a specialty and recommend someone in my field that has more value than someone else who isn’t in that field. I know enough about this person and his expertise to take his opinion into account when forming my own.
They hated you for speaking the truth.
No, I think it’s because it’s a lazy, facile take. Americans can’t think for themselves and only do what they’re told? Trump’s been blasting shit at us from the country’s largest bully pulpit for a decade, why doesn’t he have 100% approval and support?
People vote for candidates for a variety of personal, communal, and environmental reasons. Some of that has to do with what those candidates say and do, but reducing it down to “Americans are brainless automatons who do what they’re told” is nonsense.
So when folks such as yourselves get downvoted spectacularly as such, does that just reinforce your underdeveloped, edgy opinions? If so, what a vicious cycle to have to deal with.
I don’t see downvotes in my instance so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Oh, I’ll help then. 2 people agreed with you and 33 thought your comment was worthless trash.
For real, I don’t know how else you explain people voting for whomever they’re told.
People hear candidates’ arguments and make their own (informed or otherwise) judgements about them. How exactly do you think this system of yours works? Do you think Americans count how many political ads they see and vote for whoever aired the most? or do they just check the box next to the last name they heard before they walked into the voting booth?
What you’re saying makes no sense. Of course people are going to vote for one of the candidates that wants their vote, those are the only kind of candidates on the ballot. How they choose which one is more complicated.
People hear candidates’ arguments and make their own (informed or otherwise) judgements about them.
So you think it’s a coincidence that all those voters arrived at the same decision as Mamdani, entirely of their own volition, and they completely ignored his endorsement to oust establishment Dems? This is the line of logic you want to go with?
No, people care about democratic socialism because it helps average, ordinary, working class people. Mamdani is a democratic socialist, and he endorses democratic socialists. So it makes sense that people who would vote for Mamdani, also vote for the people he endorses. That doesn’t mean his endorsement was the sole determining factor in their decision.
If people were just mindlessly voting for whomever they’re told, then why wouldn’t they have voted for the people Jeffries told them to? Why would he be so butthurt right now that people didn’t vote for the ones he picked?
If people were just mindlessly voting for whomever they’re told, then why wouldn’t they have voted for the people Jeffries told them to?
Because they voted for the one Mamdani told them to?
Are you saying that they chose to value Mamdani’s opinion over Jeffries’ opinion? That they chose to vote for Mamdani’s picks rather than Jeffries’ picks?
Bear in mind, Mamdani is the underdog here, and Jefferies represents the party establishment. So criticizing people for siding with Mamdani over Jeffries just means you’re pulling water for centrism and the status quo…
Did you read the thing you quoted? Obviously I don’t think it’s a coincidence.
LOL What’re you talking about!? You obviously do?
People hear candidates’ arguments and make their own (informed or otherwise) judgements about them.
Tell me how you get from this to “it’s just a coincidence”
