Judging from the hammer and sickle, OOP thinks North Korea is a Democratic Republic, and the billionaires in the CCP are all self-made unlike the ones in the GOP...

He won 51% of a three-way race, which means moderate Democrats and independent voters had another option that wasn't a Republican, and he still kicked both of their asses with a majority.

I support what you're trying to say but your argument is built around a very disingenuous framing of the election outcome.

A better argument is that Mamdani won DESPITE being a known socialist. He won despite the tag. Just like he won despite his religion and name.

Understanding why he won despite those things is how we can best use his election to inform our other candidate and voting choices.

Mamdani won NYC with 51% of the vote; Harris got 65%. She got more total votes and a higher percentage than the guy who called himself a Socialist.

What Harris are you talking about? Kamala Harris? And what election? Because if you're talking about the presidential election, she got like 48% of the popular vote. And what do you think the effect of cuomo ratfucking the election and splitting the vote was, on Mamdani's performance?

Second, stop pretending there’s some giant ‘Left’ majority in the US. Mamdani won NYC with 51% of the vote; Harris got 65%. She got more total votes and a higher percentage than the guy who called himself a Socialist.

Ok, but now suppose you were to alter time and space and switch them so that each is now running for the other's office.

We'd have President Mamdani and Mayor Cuomo.

Yeah most Americans wouldn't call themselves leftists. But most Americans would agree with leftist policies. Anything less than that and Americans will just be voting by party, name recognition or by how bad the Republican candidate is.

It's a big conundrum:

• On one side, most people when told actual policies which are generally considered left-wing (say, Free Education) agree with them
• On the other side, most people don't have the attention span to read long lists of policies (hands up anybody who ever read the entire electoral program of even just one candidate in an election they voted in) so even the most well-intentioned politicians end up using short political terms with vague-ish definitions which are easily subverted, to describe their own set of policies or those of others.

So we end up with Liberal this, Socialist that and if you try and get down to tightly defined nitty-gritty details of their meaning, no two people fully agree on the definitions.