114
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 86 points 2 days ago

Around 1 million New York Democrats showed up to vote, the highest raw total in a city primary since 1989, before Mamdani was born.

Weird...

Almost like giving people a candidate they agree with, makes them more likely to vote...

[-] [email protected] 31 points 2 days ago

Not like that!

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Establishment dems were mad people didn’t turn out for Harris.

You’re welcome.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago

I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say, just that it's not relevant

[-] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Why do people keep talking about candidates like they’re gifts?

He won a PRIMARY. We get progressives in NY primaries ALL THE TIME. The only difference with Mamdani’s win is that WE SHOWED UP.

This is how we take control of our Congress. Vote. In. Primaries.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Thank you.

I always get ticked when I see people talk in the general election "man these are two shitty candidates" when they didn't vote in the primary.

The primaries are where much smaller grassroots movements can be far more effective than the general.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They’re arguably the most important elections for change. We should be voting twice every two years, not once every four, for federal elections alone. It’s much easier to remember with mail-in ballots, and they give you the names to research if you’ve been too busy to keep up.

[-] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

There’s also 1 million more people than in 1989 and (I think?) a larger portion of NYCers are registered dems now. So that’s not actually that good. We should break turnout records every year if our population grows.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

Fair, I always want turnout by percentage of total voters, because percent of total voters in each party is a big part of it.

A candidate that grows the party shouldn't have their accomplishments reduced because they drive turnout.

We don't live in an ideal word, most people don't even vote in generals.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

But large businesses cannot vote, that's so unfair!

::: spoiler

/S

[-] [email protected] 47 points 2 days ago

You know they're shitting themselves. Progressive successes pose more of a threat to incumbent Democrats than Republican successes

[-] [email protected] 30 points 2 days ago

The Dem gerontocracy should be and needs to be "shitting themselves" cause each and every one of these older-than-dirt career politicians needs to be run out of politics entirely.

🤡 🖕

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

The Dem gerontocracy are literally shitting themselves because they are so fucking old that they need Depends

[-] [email protected] 33 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

We need a new progressive party

[-] [email protected] 34 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Nah, we just need to co-opt the current blue party and drag liberals along for the ride. Just need people willing to run on progressive policies.

[-] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago

And people to show up and vote in the primaries for the above mentioned candidates!

[-] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

If I had a dollar for everyone who complained about Dem candidates but didn't vote in the primaries, I'd probably deserve the guillotine.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Nah, it’s cuz of that other thing you did in junior high.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Honestly, if someone decided to execute me for any of my behavior in Middle School, I'd take my punishment without complaint. It'd be a just sentence tbqh

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Teenage turds make the best adults.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

And a party willing to not put all its resources to preventing them from winning. Mamdani's example is inspiring, and he's likely going to win, but part of this is because his opponents are all toxic. In a more serious contest this sort of party meddling can and will tank progressive candidates to the benefit of Republicans.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

They're going to tank the progressive candidate regardless of whether or not they run as a Democrat. You have to take away power here, not just try to beat it. Winning primaries, and also actual party positions, both makes them weaker and us stronger. That's way easier than trying to take both the Democratic Party and the GOP in a general.

I think we just need to outwork those fuckers and 20% turnout in the primaries just isn't going to cut it. The number of people who support progressive policies dwarfs the number of people who vote in the primaries. Until that changes, a 3rd party isn't going to do shit.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Yep, primaries and special elections are where grassroots grit can have the biggest impact. In my jurisdiction, there was a special election related to home rule. It was a MAGA power grab, no question.

It was defeated with almost 70% saying no to the formation of the Commission that would draft a home rule charter. About 30% of eligible voters in the county turned out, which is really high for a special.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

They're going to tank the progressive candidate regardless of whether or not they run as a Democrat.

True, which is why it's important to have a free hand to fight back. It's a lot harder to attack the Democratic Party as the hopelessly corrupt institution it is from the inside than from the outside. It's easier to organize as a third party than as a group of individuals in a big tent organization that wants you gone, and that way you can take more radical action and use more radical rhetoric than when you're in one way or another beholden to the party apparatus. For example a third party would be able to do things like organize protests, civil disobedience and strikes (which should be a hallmark tactic of any self-respecting leftists opposition party), attack establishment Democrats for being sellouts, run even when party sabotage tanks your primary campaign, put a whole organization's weight behind favored candidates rather than individual endorsements and play hardball when you don't get your way in government like centrists like to do so often. Of course splitting the vote under FPTP can lead to Republican victories, but with smart risk control this can be mitigated at less cost than cooperating with Democrats. Now technically most of these things can be done even as part of the Democratic Party, but they just aren't, so founding a new party with principles and organization conductive to leftist action will result in a generally more effective party apparatus. Meanwhile trying to take over the DNC certainly offers a more attractive prize, but it comes with a whole spider web's worth of strings attached.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Do both. People on the inside bolstered by support from outside groups. We are Legion. We can execute such a strategy.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

This edible construction material gets it!

[-] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago

We get it by taking over the Dems and forcing all the Goldwater Republicans in charge currently to join what remains of the Republican Party.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Exactly. They’re already going to get the votes of the people who only pay enough attention to vote Working Families in the general election. We just need to replace those candidates with progressives in the primaries. It’s shouldn’t be too difficult with the current <15% attendance. Mamdani saw a whopping 30% turnout.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

The establishment pushing against him is a good thing. Think about what happened the first time Trump announced his candidacy. Voters love to vote for candidates that the establishment hates.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago

Respectful distance? They been trash talking that boy nonstop since his primary.

TBH, the rift in the Democratic Party has not been laid so bare since Gore.

I really dont know what AOC, Swalwell, any of these left-of-center dems think they are going to do sitting in a party that routinely sabotages any pro worker, pro humanist, any effort at competent and efficient social programs.

They should have announced a new party the second the presidential election was over. Already to late to prop up midterm candidates.

I see their only option now is registering as independent, -or else continue to be humiliated, invalidated, and silenced by the wall street cabal.

[-] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago

No third party will ever have a chance of being successful. The Dems and Repubs wrote the laws to make sure of it. That's why they can't.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Not even just that they wrote laws to protect their status: A two party system is in and of itself prone to issues like what is currently going on. George Washington knew that, and warned about its dangers. Because it has happened multiple times throughout history.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago

What? Nader? Perot? Stein?

Truth is, nobody has ever tried. And we just saw in New York that a populist message can actually beat the money..

[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

I don't know that What guy, but the other three lost. Stein repeatedly (if we pretend she was trying to win and not leech votes from Democrats). You are providing evidence against your case.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Three historic losers are probably not the best examples of success...

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Christ some of you are dense. OF COURSE ALL THREE WERE LOSERS, THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PARTY SABOTAGE CANDIDATES.

Ergo, nobody has really tried.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

I think you should study the US political system more. They see the most realistic path to making change. If the Left can't wield one of the two parties it will never wield the state.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

*Democrats refuse to change policies in order to continue profiting off the suffering of constituents.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

They don't work for us.

this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
114 points (96.7% liked)

politics

24404 readers
2074 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS