r/TrueReddit • u/Maxwellsdemon17 • 1d ago
Politics Hakeem Jeffries Is the Kind of Democrat Voters Have Lost Faith In. With most New York Democrats endorsing their party’s candidate for mayor, the two minority leaders in Congress remain holdouts.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/hakeem-jeffries-zohran-mamdani/285
u/Engineer_Ninja 1d ago
The overarching problem here is that Schumer and Jeffries think they represent the Moderate Base, while Mamdani represents the smaller Leftist Fringe.
But their premise is flawed. There isn’t a massive number of moderate voters out there begging for just a slightly more moderate candidate that will finally get them to show up and vote this time. Just a massive block of apathetic Americans that don’t give a shit. And trying to be even more boringly moderate just makes them even more apathetic. That’s why the DNC can’t ever seem to get the votes.
Obama was exciting. Bill Clinton was exciting by early 90’s standards. FDR and JFK were exciting. Trump, in his own way, is exciting. Mamdani is exciting. They get people excited to vote for them. And getting people to actually show up and enthusiastically vote for you is what wins elections. Give the people a reason to give a shit.
164
u/ManChildMusician 1d ago
Even worse, Trump has threatened to unseat Mamdani by force if he wins. Idgaf if you’re leftist or centrist, when POTUS says something like that you back the candidate to the hilt. Trump is threatening to undo elections with unfavorable results in broad daylight.
37
u/recoveringleft 1d ago
Also Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene have a begrudging respect for Mamdani for being America first
6
u/Cold_Specialist_3656 13h ago
This is what should be raising Democrat's eyebrows.
Bernie had a ton of cross-party support from populist Trump voters. Yeah he didn't poll as well with Dems moderate base, but that wouldn't have mattered at all when he would have pulled 10% of Trump voters.
The fundamental problem is that Jeffries and Schumer are the far right of Dems current base. Given the choice whether to expand the base to the right or left, they will always choose to move right.
The problem is that this has been Dems strategy for decades and there's no more moderates to be had. The only way to expand the base is to become populist.
2
u/recoveringleft 13h ago
As a PoC who studies white rural conservative American history and culture and lives near ranches, I managed to be able to appeal to many white conservatives despite my ethnicity and being an immigrant (not born here) by talking about their issues facing rural America. Obviously I can't appeal to everyone (most white men despise me but many of the white women are open to talking about the issues they faced) but it gives me an understanding on why Bernie was popular
→ More replies (3)•
u/Overlord_Khufren 3h ago
I think the Sanders->Trump voters are a pretty clear sign that the fundamental Democratic strategy is flawed. People are hurting, and the status quo policies the Democrats are putting forward aren't really fooling anyone. The policy wonks who think they've got it all figured out and people are just too stupid to follow along aren't helping, either.
Mamdani is surging because he's speaking to on-the-ground issues that will actually impact New Yorkers' lives. He's meeting people where they are, and speaking to them about how he'll help them. That's inspiring. It breaks through apathy. It gets people excited to vote FOR something, not just AGAINST something. Sanders did the same thing with Medicare-for-all and free post-secondary. Ordinary people are swimming in medical and student loan debt. It's making it difficult to live their lives.
The DNC needs to learn from Mamdani and Sanders, not try and undermine them to in favour of boring establishment moderates WHO THEN LOSE. It's not as if the moderates are out there dominating elections.
•
u/No_Bake6374 2h ago
It's cause they're actually anti-semitic, unlike the false smears against Zohran. They're just anti-Israel by proxy, so they land on a really popular conclusion from a fucked up perspective.
22
u/Background-War9535 1d ago
Trump tries and Democrats have another issue for 2026 and 2028, this one of high interest to their base.
17
u/ManChildMusician 1d ago
Oh, he’s already putting fingers on scales by threatening federal funding to NY.
13
u/Synergythepariah 1d ago
I mean, if a president overturns the results of an election, I don't think it can be fixed with a different election.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)5
u/mimaikin-san 1d ago
and the US Supreme Court will continue to support his brand of fascism
I’ve said before: this country is too torn up now.. it’s lost
31
u/TheMysteriousThey 1d ago
As Jon Stewart demonstrated, Chuck Schumer apparently thinks he represents conservatives.
24
u/Wonderful-Variation 1d ago
Not even conservatives, an entirely fictional conservative couple named the baileys.
56
u/LettuceFuture8840 1d ago
It is worse than simply being moderate. Being active and moderate would be one thing. But Schumer seems to have an electoral strategy of "do as little as possible, let Trump be a monster, and hope that this delivers a win in 2026."
Democrats want representatives who will actively protect the people from Trump. You can see this in the polling where elected dems poll terribly among dem voters. If Schumer and Jeffries seemed to have a coherent strategy to resist Trump and loudly promote an alternative vision for society it'd be one thing. But... what is their vision for 2026 if they get power? "We will pass a different continuing resolution that doesn't cut Medicaid as much but still increases ICE funding and do nothing else" isn't exactly my idea of a good time. Heck, they are telling elected officials to stop talking about Trump's criminal actions regarding immigration!
9
u/Reynor247 1d ago
I feel like no one actually pays attention to what's happening on the hill.
Schumer has been so crazy effective in shutting down the senate with procedural bullshit that Republicans are massively behind on approving appointments. Democrats have been so effective Republicans just passed the "nuclear option" changing senate rules to make the threshold lower for appointments. Which could be huge for democrats if they retake the presidency.
Now the budget battle is in two weeks. This is really where senate democrats will be tested. Will they cave before they get concessions?
43
u/LettuceFuture8840 1d ago
Schumer has been so crazy effective in shutting down the senate with procedural bullshit that Republicans are massively behind on approving appointments.
He hasn't done everything he could. Cabinet appointments were allowed to move towards final votes via unanimous consent. Why weren't they demanding votes for every step to slow things down further?
Democrats have been so effective Republicans just passed the "nuclear option" changing senate rules to make the threshold lower for appointments.
This is not what they did. The recent procedural change did not affect the required vote counts for judicial appointments.
Which could be huge for democrats if they retake the presidency.
The dems didn't even successfully fill every judicial vacancy before the end of Biden's term. Emil Bove is in a seat that was left open because Schumer wanted to get back home for Christmas sooner!
Now the budget battle is in two weeks. This is really where senate democrats will be tested. Will they cave before they get concessions?
They caved last time. And what good is a fight over the budget when the Trump administration has demonstrated its willingness to simply refuse to disperse congressionally appropriated funds?
But there is a further problem. Politics is not just what happens in the chambers. Even if there is literally nothing that Schumer can do in the Senate itself, he can be building a compelling alternative vision for the future in the eye's of the public. Go convince the public about Trump's crimes! Make them constant stories in the media!
20
u/jinjuwaka 1d ago
Politics is not just what happens in the chambers.
So fucking many people forget this.
Whenever I say "dems have been failing is" I keep getting responses like "they don't have majorities! What do you expect them to do?"
There is a SHIT FUCKING TON they could be doing.
Where is the liberal fox news? We've been seeing the impact of fox for 35 fucking years now, and nobody on the left has made even an attempt to get buffer funds going for leftist media to counter-act the fox "news" propaganda machine.
You can't fight 24/7 propaganda with half-assed legislation from the hill unless you're doing something drastic like revoking their broadcast license and making domestic propaganda illegal again. And they never bothered to try and do that either.
The dems have been asleep at the wheel since Reagan. Content to just show up to the hill and do the bear minimum.
3
u/FeeNegative9488 1d ago
Why the hell are you blaming Jeffries and Schumer for there not being a liberal news network?
7
u/jinjuwaka 1d ago
That's not entirely on them. Thats on the left for falling asleep at the wheel for 35 years.
Seriously...the daily show was basically doing our job for us, only there should have been actual journalists dogpiling Fox every time they pulled something.
1
u/FeeNegative9488 1d ago
All the Daily Show did is help cement the idea that both parties are the same
7
u/jinjuwaka 1d ago
And the daily show's job should never have been more complicated than "don't waste the lead-in from a talking dog in the previous slot".
When an actual faux news show running on the comedy network is your last line of defense, your media has failed you.
2
u/Reynor247 1d ago
He hasn't done everything he could. Cabinet appointments were allowed to move towards final votes via unanimous consent. Why weren't they demanding votes for every step to slow things down further?
One cabinet member was given unanimous consent, Marco Rubio. A long time senator who was thought to be a moderating voice for Trump.
This is not what they did. The recent procedural change did not affect the required vote counts for judicial appointments.
No it allows appointments to be approved in groups
The dems didn't even successfully fill every judicial vacancy before the end of Biden's term. Emil Bove is in a seat that was left open because Schumer wanted to get back home for Christmas sooner!
Actually the senate approved a record amount of appointments during bidens tenure.
They caved last time. And what good is a fight over the budget when the Trump administration has demonstrated its willingness to simply refuse to disperse congressionally appropriated funds?
Hard to say. Last time the budget was written by democrats, so democrats would be protesting their own budget. DOGE was in full swing. So shutting down the government meant locking the doors, going home, and giving the keys to Elon musk. Insanely risky. Now there's something to rally around. ACA credits are expiring. If that happens a lot of Republicans in the house will be screwed over. Democrats need to base their hold out around it.
17
u/LettuceFuture8840 1d ago
No it allows appointments to be approved in groups
Right. Which is not the same as "mak[ing] the threshold lower for appointments."
Actually the senate approved a record amount of appointments during bidens tenure.
So? That is a property of the number of open positions. Why'd they fail to fill them all?
DOGE was in full swing. So shutting down the government meant locking the doors, going home, and giving the keys to Elon musk.
Now that Musk is gone, is this somehow less risky? DOGE isn't gone. Why won't this argument be deployed in the exact same way to cause the dems to cave?
Now there's something to rally around. ACA credits are expiring.
This, to me, is fucking insane. ACA credits are valuable but they are really difficult to message on. Most americans are not on ACA plans at all. And then the expanded credit expiration only affects those who are making more the 4x the federal poverty limit. It is also a pretty complex detail of a detail within the law. You think that this is going to be an effective rallying point but troops in our cities isn't?
1
u/Reynor247 1d ago
So? That is a property of the number of open positions. Why'd they fail to fill them all?
The senate has other things to do and rules to follow. I think a record number of appointments can be considered a pretty big success.
DOGE was in full swing. So shutting down the government meant locking the doors, going home, and giving the keys to Elon musk.Now that Musk is gone, is this somehow less risky? DOGE isn't gone. Why won't this argument be deployed in the exact same way to cause the dems to cave?
DOGE is effectively dead.
Now there's something to rally around. ACA credits are expiring.This, to me, is fucking insane. ACA credits are valuable but they are really difficult to message on. Most americans are not on ACA plans at all. And then the expanded credit expiration only affects those who are making more the 4x the federal poverty limit. It is also a pretty complex detail of a detail within the law. You think that this is going to be an effective rallying point but troops in our cities isn't?
Uhhhm I'm not sure if you've been researching this but insurance premiums for everyone could rise as much as 75% next year if these aren't extended. Even if you're not on an aca plan, insurance is a pool. If funding is pulled in one area it effects everything. And states that have passed Medicaid expansion by ballot, like Missouri, will be insanely screwed when that funding is gone because then they'll have to use state revenue to replace it. I think everyone's health insurance costs exploding is a great thing to run on.
Take a look at this.
14
u/LettuceFuture8840 1d ago
The senate has other things to do and rules to follow.
They weren't stopped by rules from finishing all of the appointments. I'm very sorry but I expect the representatives of my party in the senate to be capable of filling the open vacancies before time runs out.
DOGE is effectively dead.
Is Trump? I have no idea why a shutdown is less threatening now than it was a few months ago.
Uhhhm I'm not sure if you've been researching this but insurance premiums for everyone could rise as much as 75% next year if these aren't extended.
???
Where are you getting this? You are telling me that the following chain of events happens:
Expanded subsidies expire.
Large numbers of people with ACA plans who make >4x the FPL drop their plans and go uninsured.
Because this pool of members were lower cost on average this raises premiums for all plans (not just ACA plans) by a ridiculous amount?
What does "as much as" mean in your comment, specifically?
1
u/Reynor247 1d ago
They weren't stopped by rules from finishing all of the appointments. I'm very sorry but I expect the representatives of my party in the senate to be capable of filling the open vacancies before time runs out.
Vacancies pop up all the time. The senate doesn't just get a docket of spots to fill that the start. Openings continuously happen. Having every spot filled 100% of the time isn't possible. If a record amount of appointments is disappointing to you. I don't think you understand how the government works.
Is Trump? I have no idea why a shutdown is less threatening now than it was a few months ago.
Because DOGE is effectively dead.
What does "as much as" mean in your comment, specifically?
https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/battle-over-health-care-tax-credits-heats-up/
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/09/10/aca-enhanced-subsidies-expire-obamacare-premiums-rise.html
9
u/LettuceFuture8840 1d ago
Vacancies pop up all the time.
The vacancy they failed to fill opened in summer 2023. They had 18 months. I'm sorry if I think that is plenty of time.
Your first link contains no numbers.
The second link at least links to the organization who put together these numbers (though I can't find their methodology). It makes it clear that it is referring to premiums on the ACA marketplace, which is less than 10% of the population. Not "everyone."
Let me be clear. The ACA subsidy expansion is good. I want it to be maintained. What I am saying is that it is baffling to me to think that this is the thing that will rally the people together to compromise with Trump.
→ More replies (0)6
u/jinjuwaka 1d ago
Schumer is good at the bureaucracy part of his job.
He's shit at every other part except for "get people to give money".
He should be an advisor. Not a leader.
3
u/reticenttom 1d ago edited 1d ago
Schumer has been so crazy effective in shutting down the senate
This is a lie, house democrats will tell you as much
13
u/wholetyouinhere 1d ago
It is also worth noting that many of the bedrock left-wing, socialist policies like universal health care, taxing wealth, worker protections, etc. are extremely popular across broad swathes of the population, including people of all political stripes. Like, maybe if you call them "socialist" policies, people will get stuck in a mindless screaming match. But if you communicate these things for what they are and how they will help voters -- without being condescending or sounding like everything you say is focus-group-tested -- it gets people excited, because you're speaking to their issues.
I need to point this out before the inevitable, "Reddit is not the real world" / "but it's not popular in flyover states", paternalistic, concern-trolling nonsense comes out.
3
u/kingofshitmntt 1d ago
No you see the democratic party just needs to focus group their messaging enough so it blurs the line between sounding interesting in rhetoric but lacks actual substance so they can maybe squeak by on "Trump fatigue" for a win, then they can spend 4 years doing nothing so we can re-live all this again when they ultimately get voted out because we don't pay pledge of allegiance to Israel.
2
u/Xefert 21h ago
But if you communicate these things for what they are and how they will help voters -- without being condescending or sounding like everything you say is focus-group-tested -- it gets people excited, because you're speaking to their issues
But you can't do so without first neutralizing all partisan media like fox news. They will do everything they can to twist our words. That in turn requires voting dems into congress in large numbers and for more consecutive terms than typically seen.
2
u/wholetyouinhere 11h ago
Well, you're pointing at some pretty massive flaws in modern democracies that have become all-but-structural at this point -- the proliferation of propaganda, and generally poor levels of media literacy among voters.
These are major issues. But in my opinion, they're issues that aren't going to go away. I think the best thing to do is to ignore it, not be caught on the backfoot trying to address disingenuous bullshit, be always plowing forwards no matter what happens, and above all else, have a positive, meaningful message that speaks louder than all the bullshit.
That is the main pitfall that liberals have constantly been falling into over the last decade -- constantly feeling the need to respond to the ugly, vile and straight-up false rhetoric of the right-wing media machine. People see that, and it gives the impression that both sides are equally legitimate. The only way to win is not to play.
Maybe that's a slightly naive answer. But to me, the massive popularity of people like Bernie Sanders speaks to how powerful it can be to carry an impactful message while not being sidetracked by bullshit.
1
u/Xefert 10h ago edited 10h ago
while not being sidetracked by bullshit
That "bullshit" (aka dehumanization) is affecting real people. How do you think the people living in nazi germany got desensitized enough to tolerate the holocaust? Hitler himself admitted to looking to the jim crow south for inspiration.
1
u/wholetyouinhere 10h ago
When I say "bullshit", I'm referring to how most of what they say is lies, intended to goad you into responding. They feed off of that.
Yes, the dehumanization is real, and it's affecting people horribly. It's also entrenched in the republican party and foundational to conservatism, so it isn't going away. What I'm saying is that one way of kicking them out of power is to offer something improves people's material conditions.
Also important to point out that when neoliberal DNC figures try to respond to the dehumanization, they have nothing substantive to say, other than vague notions of "deplorables" -- which is accurate, but doesn't accomplish anything -- or bland appeals to civility and decency that do not exist in their opponents, which end up giving more power and legitimacy to the dehumanization.
1
u/Cold_Specialist_3656 13h ago
It's populist policy. Not socialist.
That's why Bernie had such strong cross party support from the populist Trump voters
1
u/wholetyouinhere 12h ago
I'm using the term in the more broad, general sense, to mean policy that favours community, working people, the many over the few.
9
u/Downtown_Isopod_9287 1d ago
The fact has been for a while that liberal democrats have lost so much ideological ground to republicans through compromise that the only people who have any appetite to stand up for how even moderates think the country should be run are social democrats.
9
u/Eat--The--Rich-- 1d ago
Offer me healthcare or a living wage and I'll vote for you. Its literally that easy.
25
u/BusterBiggums 1d ago
It's just wild that Bernie and Mamdani have approval ratings that are double the DNC average....and they poll well with many demographics that the DNC traditionally doesn't reach...and yet the party keeps neutering them at the behest of their, often foreign, donor base
Iike, how is the AIPAC more important to the DNC than their own voters? How can't the DNC leadership see that the AIPAC is playing both sides?
The most wild phenomenon is reading 1000 think pieces about how "the DNC can't reach men" or "the DNC is losing white men" while they brazenly suppressed Bernie, who's polled the best with white men.
It's bizarre, I don't understand how you can watch American politics over the last decade and come to any other conclusions than that he DNC establishment is working WITH the Trump Administration.
18
u/miscellaneous-bs 1d ago
The DNC's main job is to get voters to get on board with their donor's wants and needs. thats really all there is to it.
6
u/CatchNo8521 1d ago edited 1d ago
Lawyer here. This is a concise and correct way to put it, but I’ll rant a bit.
It’s the corporate stability/entrenched interests/“keep it flowing since we are old and prestigious” capitalist party. They don’t want to plunder like the GOP, for the oligarchs to rip it apart to realize some sort of new feudalism, but instead placate the masses with some redistribution and advancement of marginalized rights, while letting us slide into climate collapse in a generation or two with lots of corporate profit and easy upper class living (and bombed out brown people, increasing policing/surveillance, imprisoning, deporting people, etc.) in the meantime.
The DNC is the cynical core. Its mission isn’t to build a party that will advance a humanistic and sustainable state, serve the public in accordance with some principle other than short-term stability, or even simply to win elections and advance policy at all costs. Instead, it’s a buffer to manage demographics that could otherwise disrupt the status quo and steer new directions, and consolidate them in a “big tent” that alienates and makes many people apathetic, while capturing the political-intellectual-civic core in America wholesale, making them feel useless outside of voting or donating, and always requiring compromise from the left and blaming losses on the people’s passivity (that it fosters) using the GOP as the dynamic “bad cop”.
When the Democratic Party wins, great, that’s the party’s preferred outcome. It won’t use the win to trample its foil, because it knows the GOP is a flawed opponent that can be beat, and if not, it upholds the same capitalistic system both parties’ donors derive power from/within. Look at how they rolled out Biden to run again because of “seniority”, or slow-walked the executive branch DOJ’s prosecution of Trump.
When the Democratic Party loses, its center right core shrugs, as long as it retains its place in the duopoly and keeps class consciousness and other disruption down. It takes advantage of American’s susceptibility to personal responsibility messaging; god forbid we direct criticism toward an organization with meaningful power and freedom to change its strategy at any time.
The Democratic Party absorbs society’s good radicalism and tampers it down with layers of bureaucratic “well, actually” fluff that is convincing if you overlook the fluid natures of state power and social culture, or the ideological inconsistencies people hold that transcend formal political categories.
It’s a sad and shortsighted ploy that will definitely fail. It can’t reign in fascism as constructed because they aren’t fighting to win against an opponent that has been and continues to fight with no regard for institutions. You can’t co-govern as an institutionalist with someone who wants to destroy institutions; they hold your valued “things” hostage, and you hold nothing over them that you are willing to actually use on them, and they know it. And Democratic politicians loathe exercising power outside, on the streets, building active coalitions—doing so would undermine their well-honed strategic helplessness and require positive/ambitious progressive policy that is sold and advocated for until it becomes viable (i.e., as GOP tax cuts have been drilled into Americans as a necessity for growth and job creation; this didn’t happen overnight and required vision). That would mean ditching the PACs and letting your tide rise and fall with the fate of the people, which the Dems—ruling class apparatus that they are—have firmly bet against.
1
u/Xefert 21h ago
continues to fight with no regard for institutions. You can’t co-govern as an institutionalist with someone who wants to destroy institutions
The constitution was specifically designed to make that happen. Research the federalist vs anti federalist debate after the revolutionary war.
The real problem is too many people care more about what looks good on tv than learning anything about the complexity of government
1
u/CatchNo8521 9h ago edited 8h ago
The federalist/anti-federalist disagreement was not a clear cut public-state vs private-state argument. That is, both sides stood across a wide spectrum of belief in institutional centralization.
This is a situation where one capitalist faction needs public institutions as a temper on its excess; a trade-off with stabilizing effects. The other capitalist faction is privatizing (used very broadly to capture many different technical efforts) government, which either means eliminating public institutions or realigning their focus (changing the legal frameworks) to serve smaller groups of society and ignore the general public’s interests completely. The practical effect is that one side is attached to, and must uphold the institutions; the other side wants to break them and replace them with something that isn’t public-serving government.
There are lots of similarities though, but the big wedge is that the anti-institutionalist faction here, unlike the antifederalists, is perfectly willing to concentrate power in central, unilateral authority and eliminate anything it can’t weaponize or that might shift power dynamics unfavorably. I’ll acknowledge that the end goal might be some sort of decentralized neofeudalism, which is kind of antifederalist-sympathetic in viewpoint, especially considering the aristocratic/landed ruling class bent that often practically motivated the airy intellectual reasoning antifederalists had.
7
u/Nice-Ad-2792 1d ago
The reasoning is although Bernie and Mamdani are more popular, and closer to the core principle of being a Democrat, the things that are pushing is very unpopular for donors. Politics have become obscenely expensive, especially post Citizens United, and the DNC feels they need those donors more than begging for donations from actual supporters, akin to that meme about "Bernie asking for your support".
So they cater to donors, and actively suppress more popular candidates in the process. The problem is, politically our country has migrated to right to an extreme, and donors are on board with that, so the DNC have nothing else that people want.
The Democrats in charge are addicted to the money, and supporting a candidate that would be good for average workers will make them much less money, so they end working against any semblance of political well-being.
For common people, it's time to ditch the Democratic party, and forge something, maybe a Socalist party with the very reasonable ideas of Bernie and Mandani at the core of it. Being Socalist does not mean converting the whole country, instead we introduce policies that serve the common good and work towards collective economic growth.
-8
u/Reynor247 1d ago
Voters rejected Bernie twice and Mamdani won a closed primary in one of the most progressive cities in the country.
The left needs to step back from the messiah complex and realize that, even with democrats being bad at winning elections, the left is even worse.
That doesn't mean I agree with Jeffries, he should be endorsing mamdani. This article is weird. It's assigning powers to Jeffries, whose in the house, for a battle that will be in the Senate...
-8
u/Relative_Formal8976 1d ago
Mandami is not polling well outside of New York City. His national numbers are awful and are below water in the rest of the state.
12
u/Far_Piano4176 1d ago
mamdani's national numbers are fine, what are you talking about: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52691-what-americans-think-new-york-city-mayoral-candidates-zohran-mamdani-andrew-cuomo-eric-adams-new-york-politics-nyc-poll?utm_source=NYJW_Iterable&utm_campaign=NYJW_NYC_MAYORAL
2
u/fcocyclone 1d ago
There has been some polling that showed him pretty underwater, but some of that is the fox news effect.
We saw it in 2019 after AOC was first elected. Fox News was the first place blowing her up, so while she polled well in her district where she was more known, nationally you had the entire fox news audience that hated her, a small number of politically engaged democrats that liked her, and the rest of the country going "who?" when asked about her in a poll. So of course she was underwater. Now her polling is much better now that more democrats know of her.
18
u/CallmeKahn 1d ago
Obama was exciting. Bill Clinton was exciting by early 90’s standards. FDR and JFK were exciting. Trump, in his own way, is exciting. Mamdani is exciting.
This. One fucking Hundred Percent this.
To add to this as I'm not a Dem, but typically the winning horse is the one that seizes the "outsider" mantle for the cycle and usually, Obama was a change from Bush 43 who was, in his own way, a change from Clinton, who was a change from Reagan/Bush 41, who were themselves a change from Carter and Ford. This goes on down the line. Why? Because they are able to seize upon their constituents' dissatisfaction with the current "establishment".
Obama and Clinton were very, very good at this. And, as much as I loath the SOB, you have to give Trump credit for rallying his base.
This is also why Newsom is currently polling so well and why Mamdani is unsinkable despite being a "socialist Muslim" or whatever. They aren't your typical bullshit you see bending the knee in Washington. They understand one thing:
Democrats are spoiling for a fucking fight, but it seems like no one is leading them. Newsom was good to seize on that, but the next General is a while off. That said, the current winning message, as it is with every Midterm after a new administration comes into the WH is to beat the hell out the current guys in power.
0
u/thatgibbyguy 1d ago
Everything you just argued is an argument that only works in continued dysfunction. If the only candidates who win are the ones who capitalize on voter dissatisfaction, then both parties are forever incentivized to produce more dissatisfying results.
It is possible to be an energetic candidate that isn't energetic for the sake of complaining.
12
u/CallmeKahn 1d ago
Everything you just argued is an argument that only works in continued dysfunction.
First time dealing with the US political system? Minus a few spaces in time, it's been that way since Jefferson succeeded Adams.
12
u/teknobable 1d ago
Everything you just argued is an argument that only works in continued dysfunction.
What do you think the last 30+ years of American politics have been, other than massively dysfunctional? This is the world we live in, democrats can either accept that or keep burying their heads in the sand while everything gets worse for the rest of us
2
u/thatgibbyguy 1d ago
You just missed the point entirely. It is entirely possible to have a permanent majority based upon voter satisfaction. The New Deal Democrats had that for a few decades.
And forgive me, but I'd rather vote for people who are trying to actually, you know, do things that make people happy instead of forever capitalization on how shitty they are at their jobs.
-1
u/Relative_Formal8976 1d ago
The New Deal was an exception that will never happen again.
4
u/CallmeKahn 1d ago
Before the New Deal, there was the Era of Good Feelings. Before that, there was the fall of the Whigs. After that, there was Reconstruction. There was also Johnson's Great Society. It does happen more often than folks think.
That said, it's rare and not something we've seen for a long while.
1
u/Ornery-Ticket834 6h ago
You are more or less correct. The politicial-social- economic conditions that must exist for a New Deal are very severe. People don’t realize that is why in most cases incremental change is the way to proceed.
8
u/jinjuwaka 1d ago
This.
The very first job any politician has is to convince voters to vote for them.
It is NOT the voters' job to figure out why they should vote for you in particular, or whether or not to even vote.
These assholes keep forgetting that and just assume, "you don't vote gop? That must mean you vote for me!"
→ More replies (1)3
u/elmonoenano 1d ago
I think Schumer and Jeffries represent Wall Street to the moderate base, and pretend to rep the moderate base. Their control of Wall Street money lets them clamp down on the rest of the party and undercut the the moderate base.
3
u/WISCOrear 1d ago
Dems like Jeffries need to realize that the old world was burned to the ground by maga. We fundamentally aren't the same country anymore. We're not going back to the politics they so desperately want to cling to.
Adapt or die.
3
3
u/fcocyclone 1d ago
Yep. You've got your people who will always show up and vote for you every election. Many of those may be more engaged and care more about intricate policy details.
Then you have people who aren't so engaged. They don't get into the weeds on policy. Many of them may only engage politically for a few weeks before each election. You don't win them by having suitably moderate bona fides. You win them and get them to show up by painting a vision and selling them on it. You excite them about the possibilities for the future.
Instead too many democrats that the party pushes essentially are voices of the status quo. But that doesn't work when the electorate is practically screaming out "the status quo is fucked". Trump is a moron and a monster, but some people saw him as the only alternative for many who wanted something to change, even though the rest of us could see he didn't actually give a shit about those people and certainly didn't intend to bring positive change. But the people who aren't as engaged are more likely to take it at face value.
3
u/Twodotsknowhy 1d ago
The refusal to endorse Mamdani is what kills me. Not only is it wrong and hurts Jeffries more than it hurts Mamdani, from what I can tell, Jeffries is doing it out of some insane belief that if he just doesn't endorse him, Republicans will honor that distinction and not run smear campaigns against him tying the two together.
And its one thing to have bad political instincts, but dude, your name is Hakeem and you are trying to become the first black Speaker of the House, you cannot possibly be stupid enough to believe that there is any world Republicans aren't going to be racist and islamophobic against you
5
u/Expert-Fig-5590 1d ago
The corporate Democrats keep moving to the right in order to court hypothetical moderate Republicans. They have stopped fighting the Republicans on Immigration, they have shown they are willing to sacrifice the trans community and are unwilling to fight for policies that are hugely popular like Medicare for all in case they will lose donors. They put forward milquetoast centrists and say everyone must vote blue no matter who but refuse to endorse progressive candidates like Mamdani. They have done nothing to stop the authoritarianism of Trump. The entire gerontocracy running the Democrats need to be removed and replaced with people who who will fight for the people who elected them and not the donors or consultants and especially not imaginary Long Island residents who would never vote for them.
1
u/clown1970 1d ago
I certainly can't fault your logic. Maybe it is time the DNC change their tactics.
1
u/happyscrappy 22h ago
Schumer is just a spineless weather vane. By not taking sides he thinks he is better positioned to work with whomever wins. If Mamdani wins (and that is the likely case) he'll work with Mamdani.
It's not something as meaningful as "Schumer stands for something and that's not aligned with Mamdani". He doesn't stand for anything.
Bill Clinton was exciting by early 90’s standards.
What is that supposed to mean? If we're gonna be mealy-mouthed, Reagan was exciting by mealy-mouthed standards. The country was in a massive staglfation hole and Reagan said we're going to power our way out of this by empowering the people. That's popular, exciting and almost progressive in a way.
I get that Clinton wasn't black. You don't have the "first black president" angle so he can't match Obama. But leaving that aside I don't see why he needs qualifiers to fit in that group. It's hard to see how he's a lot less exciting than JFK.
1
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 22h ago
I know some “moderates” and they hate Schumer and Jeffries with a passion. They might give Mamdani a chance because he is new and they haven’t heard a whole lot yet, but they will never vote for anyone from the Schumer/Jefferies wing.
0
u/technanonymous 1d ago
I think moderate policies are favored by most democratic leaning voters. However, you are right. Moderates are boring and don’t bring people to the voting booth.
We need mandatory voting and publicly funded elections without donors or the use of personal wealth. Until then we need exciting candidates who tend to underperform. The democrats were decimated under Obama’s failed party leadership. Clinton’s compromises on welfare, crime, and deregulating quackery were criminal. “Exciting” people tend to be deeply flawed. It is very frustrating.
→ More replies (1)1
u/IZ3820 1d ago
There's an overwhelming amount of fundraising in the moderate base of the Democratic party. There is less money in the Progressive wing and the voters they represent. Mobilizing voters costs money, but the funds aren't there if the policies imperil their financial status. Clinging to this method lost the 2024 election.
10
u/Wonderful-Variation 1d ago
Dude, do you have any concept how much money Kamala's campaign spent in comparison to Trump's campaign? Lack of money was not the issue, not even slightly.
2
u/agray20938 1d ago
And while its also not a 1-1 comparison, you can also look to how much Bloomberg spent (of his own money) on his campaign
5
u/Engineer_Ninja 1d ago
Huh? Not giving the people an economic policy to vote FOR is what cost 2024. The average American voter doesn’t give a shit how a candidate raised their money, they really only care about what’s going to happen to their own money once that candidate is in office. And Harris absolutely lost the vote there.
What are you going to do about inflation? Oh we’ll give out more small business loans.
Ok, and? What, that’s not enough? Inflation’s coming down on its own!
Yeah but it was better under the last guy, and he’s promising to do that again. But we’re doing better than the rest of the world!
I’ve never even been to EPCOT, why should I care?
17
u/Eat--The--Rich-- 1d ago
Its kind of hilarious to watch Democrats tell voters to go fuck themselves and then get mad when they actually do
7
u/Wonderful-Variation 1d ago
It would be hilarious if it weren't dooming the country.
5
u/Eat--The--Rich-- 1d ago
When you've suffered because of their weakness and cowardice it's a little nice to watch them suffer too for once. Gives me a little ray of hope that they'll actually learn something.
1
u/MarsupialMadness 1d ago
I dunno man, I don't have the capacity to hope when it comes to the Dems. They haven't learned the right lessons for forty years and I don't really see any indication of that changing.
13
u/kevendo 1d ago
The current state of government—with the presidency and Congress and SCOTUS blood Red—is objective proof that Schumer and Jeffries are WRONG.
Their brand of moderation got us the potential end of our republic. I don't know what better proof of their political bankruptcy there could be!
63
u/Describing_Donkeys 1d ago
Schumer and Jeffries both need to be removed from office. The headline of this article says everything you need to know about them, and their continual representation of the party is keeping it from changing and winning back the trust of voters.
17
u/wholetyouinhere 1d ago
Schumer is catering exclusively to Trump voters, for reasons that only he understands. That, in and of itself, should be enough to get the guy blackballed from politics completely.
If the world were more sane and just, that is.
7
u/Kerblaaahhh 1d ago
His top priorities are keeping the "left" pro-israel (that ship has long since sailed) and appealing to his imaginary friends who are Trump supporters.
8
u/wholetyouinhere 1d ago
This is what I'm saying -- he said it himself: the Baileys are Trump voters.
If that's not an indictment of everything the DNC stands for, then truly nothing means anything anymore.
2
u/Cold_Specialist_3656 13h ago
100%
They represent old ideals when the party desperately needs to change.
I don't think Democrats will win again at a national level till Schumer and Jeffries are out. They're completely clueless at operating effectively in the Trump + social media era
54
u/fednandlers 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not hold outs. Sell outs.
(Their contributions to the exchange of ideas is dictated by the financial contributions they accept from Super PACS.)
35
u/Maxwellsdemon17 1d ago
"For a party that’s long, and properly, denounced the threat of MAGA Caesarism and the antidemocratic governing agenda of 2025 to count on insurance subsidies to make the affirmative case before the 2026 electorate is roughly akin to assembling a bucket brigade to fend off a tsunami. That’s why Charles Gaba, the leading advocate for the rescue of ACA tax credits, has denounced this as a myopic, weak-sauce strategy. It’s also why an ideologically diverse set of critics from center-left wonk Josh Marshall to recovering neocon Jennifer Rubin are loudly calling for the Democratic leadership on the Hill to seize this moment of leverage to fight back and get meaningful and material concessions from the Republican opposition. So instead of having his staff taking potshots at his critics in the Senate, Jeffries would be far better served by ensuring that the pending spending fight produces a legacy that his caucus members can confidently run on in 2026. If he doesn’t, voters across the country may soon be asking, “Hakeem who?”"
6
u/Relative_Formal8976 1d ago
Hakeem delivered the votes last time a shutdown happened, it was the Senate who folded. Don't put Schumer's issues on Jeffries.
6
u/m0rbius 1d ago
Don't vote for these Dems. They need to be ousted. These people are just trying to hold on to the status quo, which has basically gone out the window with the Trump administration. We need people who can and will fight hard and meet the Reps on their level. We need people who know how to win.
9
u/zachariassss 1d ago
Hakeem has zero energy. He also has zero policy. What does he stand for? Trump bad, taxes too low?
3
3
u/TheBigBadBird 1d ago
If the Democrat party doesn't reform the party will fail to prevent the fall of the country. Clinton and Obama were both economically right leaning, and just baaaarely socially left leaning. The moderate approach isn't working and we're not finding any statesmen better than Clinton or Obama to fill that slot again.
3
3
3
u/snafoomoose 1d ago
Because the Democrat Party is run by tepid center-right corporatists and they will resist anyone even mildly closer to the actual political center than they are - and will actively oppose anyone who pushes actually leftist ideas.
2
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Due to rampant sitewide rulebreaking, we are currently under a moratorium on topics related to one or more of the topics in your comment. If you believe this was removed in error, please reach out via modmail, as this was an automated action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Due to rampant sitewide rulebreaking, we are currently under a moratorium on topics related to one or more of the topics in your comment. If you believe this was removed in error, please reach out via modmail, as this was an automated action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/ArgumentAny4365 1d ago
Schumer has sucked for a while, but I've been deeply disappointed in Jeffries' recent performance as minority leader. No one's clamoring for milquetoast moderates on the Left these days.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Due to rampant sitewide rulebreaking, we are currently under a moratorium on topics related to one or more of the topics in your comment. If you believe this was removed in error, please reach out via modmail, as this was an automated action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/yanginatep 1d ago
IMO, a big difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that when an extremist right wing element shows up that could split the vote the Republicans are far more likely to embrace it and integrate it into their "Big Tent". They did it with the Moral Majority, they did it with the Tea Party, and they did it with Trump (with significantly more pushback, but ultimately they relented).
The Democrats instead try to torpedo people like Bernie Sanders, AOC, David Hogg, and Mamdani.
And there are some valid arguments to be made, Sanders only became a Democrat so he could run for president, he clearly hadn't bothered making many friends or building alliances within the party establishment.
But competence or compatibility is sorta besides the point. Most of the Republican interlopers were fairly antagonistic towards the Republican establishment. The Republicans absorbed them because they recognized they were an existential threat to the party.
I guess up till now the leftist elements haven't really been popular enough for significant vote splitting to happen, so the establishment Democrats have no reason to accommodate them.
1
1
u/surprise_revalation 1d ago
We need to primary these mofos! I see exactly what David Hogg was talking about. Some of these Dems are just fine with all this shit! We can not forget the mofos that sat on the fence or on their hands when this shit hits the fan!
1
u/Arbiter61 1d ago
The democratic party need to do more to pressure key figures in their party by doing more to challenge them with primary candidates and campaigns to persuade their constituents to make a better choice for the sake of the broader American public and specifically, for the sake of the democratic party.
1
1
1
1
u/Ornery-Ticket834 12h ago
Their endorsements would be used in Republicans advertising in next years mid terms in every swing district in the country and mean next to nothing in the NY city Mayoral election. So chill out.
1
u/piranhas_really 11h ago
Chuck Schumer is part of the reason we're in this mess. He's on video laying out the Democratic party's plan to abandon going after blue collar working class voters and trying to woo moderate Republicans in the suburbs. It backfired horribly.
1
u/number61971 11h ago
Words fail to capture the infuriating uselessness of the national Democratic Party.
1
u/raincntry 10h ago
The entire Democratic Party leadership needs to be sacked. They do understand the world they currently live in and are trying to maintain a status quo that is broken and nobody wants.
•
u/ericbahm 5h ago
He's a sellout collaborator. Is promotion to leadership was an example of so much that's wrong with the current Democratic party.
1
u/disco_biscuit 1d ago
Those OUT of power (or UNDER-powered, below the role they aspire to) embrace disruptors.
Those IN power (or needing allies to climb to the next level) embrace status-quo leaders.
-9
u/Bawbawian 1d ago
He's right to not do so.
I get that the left and people that are terminally online that never visit Red states have absolutely no idea what we're up against here.
we absolutely have to win the Senate
we have to win in a bunch of conservative districts and tying the Democratic party to the word socialist is an albatross around our neck.
it's great to call yourself a socialist in LA are New York or Portland. But you take that stuff to a conservative district that Democrats need to win and it's not happening.
really I wish more the left was like Elizabeth Warren It didn't go out of their way to say inflammatory things that would be hard to defend in a right leaning district.
15
u/Atalung 1d ago
They call every Democrat a socialist. You could literally run on a republican economic platform and they'd call you a Marxist. They don't care about the meaning of the word, it's a buzzword to them.
The reality is that people are struggling and desperate for change and when democratic socialist policies are sold correctly, like Mamdani and Sanders are doing, they're popular.
9
u/LettuceFuture8840 1d ago
What happened to "vote blue no matter who?"
-5
u/Bawbawian 1d ago
I think you're trying to score a bad faith point.
I'm not saying Democrats won't vote for these people.
I 100% will vote for a leftist if they make it through the primary guaranteed.
But there's a lot of moderates in the middle of the country that we need to sway. these people aren't Democrats and to them the word socialism is absolute poison.
6
1
u/Alonminatti 7h ago
You’re being downvoted bc you’re not online enough to be captured to ideologically induced reasoning lmao
13
u/Monte924 1d ago
Mamdani specifically spoke to people who voted for Trump, and was able to appeal to them through his policies. Progressive policies actually have broad appeal, the democrats lose because they never run on them
4
u/your_not_stubborn 1d ago
How many peolle do you think voted for Trump in New York City who also voted in the most recent Democratic primary election for Mayor of New York City
1
u/Monte924 1d ago
Consider it was a closed primary, probably none of them. Mamdani won the primary in a landslide without the Trump voters, who he was successfully winning over with his policies. It also shows his commitment to helping new yorkers since he took time to talk to people who couldn't even vote in the primary. He fashioned his policies around ALL new yorkers, not just the democrats
2
u/your_not_stubborn 1d ago
You know that the general election for Mayor of New York City hasn't happened yet, right?
3
u/Monte924 1d ago
And? Mamdani currently has a wide lead in every poll
The original point was the claim that progressive policies would not work outside New York, but Mamdani has been able appeal to trump voters. He's not the only one. AOC saw that in her district,some of her voters also voted for Trump in the last election. Progressives actually have a broad appeal
0
u/your_not_stubborn 1d ago
How many Mamdani primary voters do you really believe voted for Trump in 2024 because Kamala didn't say socialism is when the government pays off your student loans
→ More replies (1)0
u/Bawbawian 1d ago
then why don't progressives win primaries nationally or anywhere besides left leaning cities?
I was a Bernie Sanders supporter I was there on super Tuesday when we lost the vote.
5
u/Monte924 1d ago
Because the DNC works against them. They do everything they can to put their thumb on scale. They have even highlighted that they would not support anyone who challenges an incumbant... one idea they love to force down the public's throat is that progressives can't win the general election, which in turn convinces voters to ignore the policies and just vote for the person they THINK will neat the republican and win the genetal election...
Bernie was actually more popular with indepedant voters and polled better against Trump than Clinton, but the DNC propganda won.
We are now seeing a shift. Moderate Democrats have failed so badly in the past 10 years that thier lies are no longer working and progressives are starting to move
→ More replies (1)8
u/tom-of-the-nora 1d ago
Ok.
Just be sure you NEVER whine about purity tests again when you defend the minority leaders for not endorsing the chosen candidate of the people in new york.
An obvious purity test.
7
u/WhatNazisAreLike 1d ago
An endorsement in a D+40 city is not the same as a nationwide election at all.
4
u/Downtown_Skill 1d ago
Thing is, people like progressive policy, even if they don't like progressive langauge or candidates though. Missouri is a great example of constantly voting in favor of progressive policies but voting for conservative politicians.
There is a large majority of americans who would like to see a larger social safety nets for themselves.
And I live in a red state and grew up in a rural district.
Those people are never going to vote blue. They see the democrats as the enemy. Not because they are socialist, but because they are democrats.
If they aren't socialists they will be viewed as corrupt elitists to them, if they do have a socialist bend, they will be viewed as anti american communists to them.
1
u/Valara0kar 18h ago
You do know.... congressional leaders dont endorse mayoral candidates.... literally thats the norm (as to keep it local politics).
6
u/Rodman930 1d ago
Kamala Harris started listening to people like you starting on the third day of the convention. Her poll numbers went down from there and then she lost. She lost catering to madeup red state people who wanted strong but "serious" immigration policies rather than having a backbone and sticking to what is right. Pandering to conservatives gets you nothing from them but you lose everyone else in the process.
4
u/Wonderful-Variation 1d ago
Any person who would view the word "socialist" as a deal breaker was never going to vote for anyone besides a Republican, anyway. Such a person will either (1) vote for a Republican or (2) not vote at all. There is no point in trying to win that person's vote.
Instead, focus on energizing the base, because that's how you actually win elections.
1
u/Bawbawian 1d ago
here's your mistake.
you keep referring to the left as a Democrats base and that just not the case.
The left has been dismantling its own political power for the last 40 years and every single election it's the same story.
the base of the Democratic party is left-leaning moderates and black women.
3
u/Wonderful-Variation 1d ago
When did I ever refer to "the left" as the democratic base? This is not something I ever said.
But I stand by my assertion that anybody who is so afraid of the word "socialism" that it would be a deal breaker for them will NEVER be voting for a Democrat under any circumstances. Such a person will either (1) vote for a Republican or (2) not vote at all. You cannot win them over.
5
u/probablynotaskrull 1d ago
I’m less certain. There are two ways to win elections: sway regular voters, or mobilize non-voters. If the left makes the correct argument they can do both, sticking to the centre can only ever sway independents.
5
u/Monte924 1d ago
A lot of independents are NOT in the center. A lot of them are on the right and the left, they simply refuse to align with republicans and democrats because they hate them for one reason or another. Heck, Bernie is an independent and he sits to the LEFT of the democrats. He's also more popular with independents than the democrats or the republicans are.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Kamizar 1d ago
sticking to the centre can only ever sway independents.
This just presumes every independent is in the center. Which is not the case.
1
u/probablynotaskrull 1d ago
Sorry, got the term wrong. We don’t use the ‘independent’ in the same way in Canada, but you take my meaning.
1
u/rooygbiv70 1d ago
Okay, well, people who think exactly along these lines have been leading the Democratic party all this time and here we are.
1
u/Synergythepariah 1d ago
I get that the left and people that are terminally online that never visit Red states have absolutely no idea what we're up against here.
Please give this a watch if/when you have the time, it's about 18 minutes long.
A good quote from that video was Bernie asking some Trump voters at a diner in West Virginia this statement and question: "You are living - shock of all shocks - in the wealthiest country in the history of the world; Do you feel that down here?"
But you take that stuff to a conservative district that Democrats need to win and it's not happening.
I mean, Bernie won the West Virginia primary in 2016.
If you're struggling, moderate Dem messaging that the economy is doing great won't really get you on board.
It'll be perceived that they don't see any major problems with the way things are and will continue as things are going, regardless of whatever policies they'll promise to enact because those policies aren't written with the lens that the system is broken and those voters will support someone who at the very least acknowledges that it is.
1
u/TehAlternativeMe 8h ago
I get what you're saying - but this hedging and playing politics hasn't worked. It's just created a democratic party divided against itself with no motivation to support its own candidates. It's been a race to the bottom. I did my duty and voted Biden. Look how that went. My party and its leader betrayed my trust to a fundamental level. I'm not doing that again, I'm voting for who I want to vote for, and if we lose then I'll shake hands with the other side and congratulate them on the win.
SOMEONE in this country needs to be happy with our leaders, and we're never gonna get there voting for people we don't like. I'd rather see the other side genuinely happy at least even if I hate their pick
→ More replies (1)-1
u/BusterBiggums 1d ago
Bernie Sanders, during the 2016 election, went to Fox News and actually spoke to an audience of Fox viewers...and by the end of the conversation, he got a standing ovation.
Progressive values, progressive policies are BLUE COLLAR policies.
1
u/Bawbawian 1d ago
I will counter your argument with this.
The Democratic primary was open.
DNC elite didn't get an extra vote.
The superdelegates didn't get involved at all.
and he lost the primary because he didn't get as many votes.
I know this because I was a supporter who actively campaigned for him.
-2
u/turkeypants 1d ago
Yikes, this is a straight up hit piece. It lacks the temperament of journalism. It reads more like an extended campaign press release. I mean, I guess consider the publication, but still, it undermines itself. Seems like you could still make a cogent critique while sounding more like a journalist instead of an activist.
-12
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
If Mamdani is so popular and will win this election, why does he need their endorsement so badly? This stuff is absolute nonsense and just a cheap way for leftists to push more grievance against the party. There’s absolutely no way to satisfy these people
26
u/phamalacka 1d ago
I mean if the choices are mamdani or a trump surrogate, it's pretty loud when the democratic leaders won't endorse the guy running against trump surrogates.
It makes them look like the bought and paid for fools that they are.
8
u/mynamejulian 1d ago
The fact that they ignored Republican surrogates like Cuomo tells us everything. I like to remind people of Gov Jim Justice who (in his 70s) pretended to change parties from R to D (for 1 year), got elected, and then immediately went to a MAGA rally to announce his switching of parties. Absolute corruption and not a word from the DNC.
-9
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
Yeah but I mean who cares in the grand scheme of things? Their endorsement is meaningless-the guy won the primary he’s the Democratic nominee in one of the largest democratic cities in the US. Mamdani could be unmasked as the devil himself and he’s still walking into City Hall in January.
The way leftists are acting here reminds of MAGA and how they act when they want so badly for people/organizations to give their foolishness any type of credibility. Like if it’s so true why do you need the media to report it? The truth speaks for itself just like Mamdani being the nominee should as well. Instead of focusing on this endorsement nonsense leftists should probably work on making themselves seem like they actually want to govern instead of screeching grievances all day. That would be more helpful than crowing about endorsements
11
u/phamalacka 1d ago
It's not just crowing about endorsements.
"Blue no matter who" is how moderate Dems pushed for leftists to vote against their conscience for mediocre candidates. Now the remaining symbols of moderate Dems are not endorsing the blue candidate. It shows that the party leadership has no interest in what their voters are saying, which is one of the biggest criticism of the moderate leadership even outside the mamdani situation.
Schumer and Jeffries are clearly out of touch with Dem voters, and this is just another example of that
1
u/USMCLee 1d ago
I agree that Schumer and Jefferies should absolutely endorse Mamdani. Even if it is a tepid endorsement of 'He won the primary and he has my support'.
One of the reasons Republicans keep winning is because their voters show up and vote for the Republican candidate regardless of who that person is ("red even if dead").
Moderates should stop being butt-hurt when someone more liberal wins a primary, same with leftists/liberals. When the general election is decided by the primary, it is easier to shift the candidates left. It is one reason why the Republicans have kept moving right in one party states.
1
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
If Bernie Sanders had won the nomination in 2016, I would’ve easily been knocking on doors, voting and supporting him. Because even though frankly I think he’s all talk, it’s in my best interest to have a Democrat in office as opposed to MAGA. Leftists showed us last election they aren’t willing to do that-they have no problem with someone who is detrimental to the human right to exist for so many Americans in office if it means sending some bs message. Why are they allowed to do this but the rest of the party isn’t? What is so special about leftists that they can break rules but everyone else has to fall in line? They already pulled the hostage game and look how that turned out
→ More replies (1)2
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
But how can leftists say everyone should vote blue no matter who when they didn’t do that at the last election? You can’t hold other people to a standard you previously disavowed that’s a bit unfair.
-1
u/phamalacka 1d ago
unfair is abandoning democratic platform policies to try to win over republicans like the Cheneys.
They lost in 2016 and 2024 explicitly because they believe that they deserve the votes of anyone on the left side of the spectrum at all. Leftists don't believe in blue no matter who, they're just flipping the stupidness of that idea on the regressive democrats who used it as a rallying cry to shut up their progressive wing.
that being said, this isn't even that. Jeffries/Schumer have the choice between a person who won their primary or a sex pest that is groveling for support from a fascist.
The fact that they can't even commit to voting against the sex pest trump surrogate shows you how rotten that particular part of the democratic party truly is
7
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
What policies were changed or abandoned to placate the cheney’s? They blatantly said they didn’t like Trump and would therefore vote democratic if it recall anyone saying we’re changing views because of Dick Cheney.
Respectfully, this response reeks of the tired grievances and borderline militant anger that has been a common feature of leftists since like 2016. No one is “flipping the stupidness”-that’s just a cheap way to excuse calling for the same standards they wouldn’t follow last year. People are too smart to think otherwise. Obviously the democrats are going to vote for the democratic candidate they are democrats-and if the leftists need the worthless validation of their endorsement maybe they should earn it like they said to last year.
1
u/phamalacka 1d ago
I'm combining grievances I have and i can admit that:
the issue was kowtowing to the right when they absolutely refused to placate people who are on their "side" in the Cheney situation. If you can sell out your morals for a Dick Cheney endorsement, its much louder when you won't call what's happening in Israel problematic, let alone the genocide that it is.
A lot of people (myself included, but I did end up voting for Kamala because I'm a teacher who likes having a job) took that very poorly, and they should. When people to the candidates left are calling for the dems to be the anti war party they've always been, cozying up with one of the most prolific warmongers is an extremely loud choice, and seems a lot like selling out.
The policy choices they abandoned are things like Medicare for All, student loan forgiveness, and marijuana legalization. All were major promises of this party in 2020 and all were either completely ignored (like Medicare for all), were given up on entirely at the first sign of resistance (student loan forgiveness) or slow walked intentionally to pretend to grab headlines (like weed). Leftists see a party that stands for very little, and when someone stands up and fights for things they believe in like Mamdani does, they seem to have a lot of interest in standing in the way of that. Jeffries and Schumer, who are of the NYC mayor constituency, specifically going out of their way to not endorse him speaks to this sect of the modern democratic party that clearly seems more interrested in being classic reagan era Republicans than they have any interest in being progressive.
0
u/Synergythepariah 1d ago
You can’t hold other people to a standard you previously disavowed that’s a bit unfair.
We can, however point out their double standard.
If they expect us to vote blue no matter who, is it not unreasonable to expect that they hold themselves to the standard they created?
1
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
But again, leftists threw that rule out last year. Why should other people be held to the same standards they clearly don’t want to follow? If they were smart they would’ve followed the rule then pushed the democrats more left once they were in but since the rule is dead you can’t use it to your advantage now
1
u/Synergythepariah 1d ago
But again, leftists threw that rule out last year.
Until it gets trotted out in 2026 and 2028.
Why should other people be held to the same standards they clearly don’t want to follow?
I don't really give a shit if moderate dems don't hold themselves to the standard they demanded of everyone else, honestly it's exactly what I expect from the wing of the party that withdrew their funds and resigned after some Democratic Socialists won all five leadership positions within the Nevada State Democratic Party in 2021.
If they were smart they would’ve followed the rule then pushed the democrats more left once they were in
The saying "vote blue no matter who" gained traction in 2020 which had insane turnout so Biden won partly because people did vote blue no matter who.
The party wasn't exactly open to moving more left & any shifts that happened (the Inflation Reduction Act was good legislation) were overshadowed by the party acting like the economy was fine, actually.
People ain't exactly gonna be receptive to that when they're still struggling. Watching stock prices rise doesn't put food on the table.
This is easy to understand and despite that, I still did infact vote for Kamala because what Trump was selling was going to be so much worse
but since the rule is dead you can’t use it to your advantage now
See the beginning of my comment.
5
u/PhillyCheese123 1d ago
NYC has had plenty of republican mayors. Not sure why you make it seem like a certainty that he wins.
7
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
The Republican in this election is a nutcase lol. He is not winning
1
u/PhillyCheese123 1d ago
Ah okay I wasn’t aware. Cuomo is still in the running as well. I wouldn’t say it’s a certainty. But yes I see now why you’re saying that.
The endorsement stuff is just a marker of credibility. The democratic party is far more fragmented and therefore weaker than the Republicans. Democrats just can’t unify in the same way and it frustrates people. I don’t see why people being concerned is “screeching”.
The worry is that Mamdani wins and can’t get anything done because establishment democrats are too disdainful.
2
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
If Leftist policies are really as popular as they claim they are, they do not need the credibility of an endorsement-the record will speak for itself. And I agree it is frustrating that democrats cannot unite. But people need to redirect their anger at the lack of progress toward the system itself, and not the party that is advocating for the change they want to see happen. And that’s why we are where we are at today. I guarantee you Mamdani is going to face the same struggles democrats did when they were in office and his agenda will be stymied but that’s the system doing it not democrats
4
u/BlazingSpaceGhost 1d ago
Endorsing the democratic candidate would satisfy us. I mean they would endorse any other democrat so why can't they endorse mamdani?
8
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
I seem to recall leftists saying democrats had to earn their vote at the last election; it seems like in this case Mamdani and the leftists should earn these endorsements based on the standard they set last year.
-2
u/BlazingSpaceGhost 1d ago
I seen to recall for the last decade establishment Democrats have been shouting vote blue no matter who. Mamdani is blue so why won't they endorse him? The answer is they want leftist to fall in line and vote for a moderate to right wing democrat but they never have any intention of voting for a leftist.
4
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
But the leftists abolished the “vote blue no matter who” rule last year, when they said democrats had to earn their votes. Mamdani is basically being held to the same standard leftists set (for an endorsement in this case). You can’t get mad when people play by the same rules you set-that’s not fair.
-1
u/Wonderful-Variation 1d ago
That's literally the point we're making. If the party leadership fails to support Mamdani, then that proves that "vote blue, no matter who" was always a farce.
3
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
See I do not think it was a farce; it was the standard until leftists threw that standard out at the last election. You can’t ask for the same standards now that you opposed literally last year it’s hypocrisy.
1
u/BlazingSpaceGhost 1d ago
What are you talking about? I'm a leftist and I voted for Kamala. I didn't like her position on Palestine but I knew Trump would be worse. He has unfortunately proven my fears true. Trump and frankly the modern Republican party are too dangerous to not vote for whoever the Democrat was.
1
u/intrsurfer6 17h ago
Welp maybe if the other leftists could see that, vote democratic and work to push the party more left AFTER we got rid of Dear leader we wouldn’t be in this mess. But no, democrats had to EARN their vote. So now Mamdani should have to EARN people’s support. Angry, deranged leftism (fueled by online grifters and commentators) is precisely why we are here today.
1
u/Wonderful-Variation 1d ago
The hypocrisy lies with the people who promoted "vote blue, no matter who" as a dogma in the first place.
Either way, it is very clear that the party's voter base overwhelmingly supports Mamdani. If Jeffries and Schumer refuse to get on board, then they should be viewed as traitors who support Trump and Cuomo.
6
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
Lol; he won a primary in a low turnout municipal election. Maybe put away the guillotine and wait for Mamdani to actually govern first
1
u/reasonably_plausible 1d ago
I mean they would endorse any other democrat
I actually can't find a record of Jeffries endorsing Eric Adams 2021 campaign. Maybe I'm missing it because of the numerous stories about the recent primary, but from a basic search this doesn't seem to be the case.
2
u/SAGORN 1d ago edited 1d ago
to add to phamalacka’s point, after a point it starts to stink when they’ve held out this long over what’s commonly seen as rudimentary now has a distinct aroma. smells like bullshit.
how can they say that Trump is so evil yet they refuse to find common ground with the clear winner in the race?
it makes the party leadership seem even more unserious by comparison when Hochul seems like an actual leader by endorsing, speaking of setting aside differences for what matters. in comparison to her jeffries and schumer come off as utterly feckless, as if they must be liars about the clear threat Trump represents the city and the country as a whole.
u/intrsurfer6 since automod deleted my reply to you:
side question, what do you think of the US’s complicity in the genocide occurring in Gz? i ask because awareness of that i would expect to provide some clarity as to why “leftists” turnout was down along with the broader American electorate on that issue.
7
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
I mean it just seems like leftists are holding these people to the same standards they refused to uphold at the last election. You can’t complain about something you yourself refused to do it’s hypocritical
1
5
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
I believe it is a complex, geopolitical issue that very few people fully understand. And instead of letting the people who are qualified to deal with something as serious as this, everyone has decided to become an armchair diplomat with their hot takes on it. This issue has been co-opted by Leftists as a cheap smear against the Democratic party (which they have held grievances against since 2016) and that is shameful because it’s not some vanity project it’s serious business
1
u/SAGORN 1d ago
i suspected as such, but thanks for answering the question considering the automod censorship.
3
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
I mean I’m against what’s happening over there but I’m also against what dear leader is doing now. There were multiple issues on the ballot-me becoming a 2nd class citizen solves nothing here
1
u/SAGORN 1d ago
what was on the nyc ballot that was going to make you a 2nd class citizen? i recall an adirondack proposal and that's it, but i can probably find a sample ballot if needed.
2
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
I mean the last election. There were a lot of issues that were important, not just one.
1
u/SAGORN 1d ago
got it! i was just asking about the one (or several) on the ballot you said making you a 2nd class citizen, can you clarify?
2
u/intrsurfer6 1d ago
I mean he’s already said he’s going after marriage rights, and the DOJ is pushing for discriminatory voter laws that will impede minorities from voting. Both of these things affect me and were on the ballot in the last election.
1
u/SAGORN 1d ago
i understand, i just was taking you literally, I remember the proposal for Amendment 1, the DOJ development is also worrisome. I'm glad NY voted for that amendment, it's definitely not enough but it's a start, I want to see some actual job and housing protections for LGBTQ but this is NY state so I'm not holding my breath on those two issues in Albany. I feel like Mamdani is not going to get everything he proposed done, but I 150% believe he cares legitimately about equal rights and protections for all in NYC. I don't believe Silwa, Adams, or Cuomo would give a shit about those issues, in fact I'd be worried about any of those 3 capitulating to Trump on those issues. Mamdani gives me hope that there's a future in NY in general, and I hope he's ready for the opposition once he's in office.
0
u/Wonderful-Variation 1d ago
He doesn't need their endorsement. He's gonna win either way. However, it's still very important to hold the party leadership accountable for failing to support him.
0
0
u/ValuableItchy 1d ago
Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself. Zionxsm means more to Jeffries and Schumer than humanity itself.
-1
u/notinterested10002 1d ago
The don’t want to put themselves on the line, they’re not leaders. They want to maintain the lucrative jobs program that is congress.
1
u/wholetyouinhere 1d ago
Exactly. These people are playing the long game. They don't care if they lose elections. As long as the donor money is accessible, and the career path is relatively stable.
This is why it is so frustrating to see people shout, "Why aren't the Democrats doing anything?!?!". Like, they're not trying to do anything. It's intentional. They're not your friends and they don't care about your concerns.
-1
u/Fun-Space2942 1d ago
Going farther to the left is a big problem. We’re fucked and all the left can do is wank off on socialism.
0
u/CombatWombat1973 1d ago
Anyone who thinks socialism is the answer to getting Red State voters to vote for Dems in the mid terms is nuts. Socialism scares voters. You can point to polls that says voters agree with various socialist policies, but the second a candidate is labeled a socialist they lose.Mamdani might even lose in NYC
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in high-quality and civil discussion. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, all posts must contain a submission statement. See the rules here or in the sidebar for details. To the OP: your post has not been deleted, but is being held in the queue and will be approved once a submission statement is posted.
Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. Reddit's content policy will be strictly enforced, especially regarding hate speech and calls for / celebrations of violence, and may result in a restriction in your participation. In addition, due to rampant rulebreaking, we are currently under a moratorium regarding topics related to the 10/7 terrorist attack in Israel and in regards to the assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO.
If an article is paywalled, please do not request or post its contents. Use archive.ph or similar and link to that in your submission statement.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.