- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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”.
It’s not two people, it’s thousands of people, and yes, it’s not a coincidence, that was my entire point. They’re voting for whom they’re told. It’s why endorsements are a thing in the first place.
So if you and I and everyone here just happens to both think federated discussion boards are a good thing and all choose to spend our time here, the two options for why we do that are coincidence and because someone told us to so it?
This philosophy of yours isn’t logical. You seem to be driven by your opinion on the results rather than any rational view on why multiple people would do the same thing.
It’s not a philosophy at all. It’s just observation.
You didn’t answer the question. Because your stance here is fucking stupid.
This is not an election, moron. If a large group of people had to choose exclusively and collectively one message board to be on, and it ended up being this one instead of fucking Instagram or Discord, I would posit the same position.
I’d say the ones voting for the mainstream platforms are the mindless peons, but you do you…
In a utopia, sure. This isn’t that. This is people voting for things they don’t understand because someone told them to.
That is so bass ackwards it’s not even funny.
If it were a utopia, why would people vote against the status quo? That wouldn’t make any sense. It’s already a utopia, why would you want to change that?
As things are now, the status quo is failing millions of people nationwide. People are hungry for change. Why would they not vote for something different?
And you’re assuming they don’t understand democratic socialism. Maybe they do, and that’s why they chose to vote for it.
It seems like you don’t understand it and you’re just projecting.
Elections are choices, no different from anything else in life. And people make the same choices because they have the same desires. Expanding your position to any choice made by a large group of people just being someone telling them what to do makes it even stupider.
What else does this apply to? Littering is bad? Which movies are popular? Having a dog? 2+2=4? All of it dictated by a mind-controller rather than a similar decision reached by many people because they share similar likes, desires, and understandings of the world.
Good decision moving away from your terrible analogy.
That’s the point though. They don’t all have the same desires. You’re missing the second part of this, which is the people who were voted out. People who had been voted for time and time again for decades.
So you’re saying people should just keep voting for the status quo because it… exercises their autonomy and self-determinism…?
Do I have that right?
No, and I never said anything that remotely resembles that. What I’m saying is people should assess candidates based on their qualifications, history, affiliations, their stances on issues, etc. and not what someone they like tells them they should do.
And those votes were a real expression of individual preference, but these votes are fake?
The circumstances and electorate changed and they elected someone they liked more. People currently aren’t happy to continue with the status quo and Mamdani’s win inspired voters who thought change was impossible to become active.
And they don’t have the exact same desires, but they have viewpoints that are aligned enough such that, when given a handful of options, more choose the Democratic Socialist than the centrist because they liked that choice more. Sorry your personal viewpoint, which is presumably the only non-sheep viewpoint in existence, was thoroughly rejected.
Nothing changed except the endorsements.
We can argue about this all the livelong day but there’s no way to measure this. All you can do is apply logic and reason. Mine tells me they were commanded by someone they liked telling them what to do and they did it. Yours tells you its a coincidence that thousands of people all came to the same unconventional decision individually. We’re done here.