Mayor says progressive peers who swept primaries speak to Americans ‘coast to coast’ as moderates have reservations

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”.

  • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
    213·
    6 days ago

    For real, I don’t know how else you explain people voting for whomever they’re told.

    • queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      6·
      6 days ago

      People hear candidates’ arguments and make their own (informed or otherwise) judgements about them. How exactly do you think this system of yours works? Do you think Americans count how many political ads they see and vote for whoever aired the most? or do they just check the box next to the last name they heard before they walked into the voting booth?

      What you’re saying makes no sense. Of course people are going to vote for one of the candidates that wants their vote, those are the only kind of candidates on the ballot. How they choose which one is more complicated.

      • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
        36·
        6 days ago

        People hear candidates’ arguments and make their own (informed or otherwise) judgements about them.

        So you think it’s a coincidence that all those voters arrived at the same decision as Mamdani, entirely of their own volition, and they completely ignored his endorsement to oust establishment Dems? This is the line of logic you want to go with?

            • queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              61·
              6 days ago

              People hear candidates’ arguments and make their own (informed or otherwise) judgements about them.

              Tell me how you get from this to “it’s just a coincidence”

              • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
                23·
                6 days ago

                Tell me how you think people use rational thought processes to collectively come to the same decision as Mamdani, against establishment Dems, and its not coincidence…

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                  3·
                  5 days ago

                  Because the same people who elected Mamdani because they liked what he said also like people who share his broad political persuasion?

                  Where do you think Mamdani came from in the first place of it’s all just endorsements? Endorsements are advertising, not commandments.

                  • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
                    12·
                    5 days ago

                    Because the same people who elected Mamdani because they liked what he said also like people who share his broad political persuasion?

                    You just said what I said with different words.

                • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
                  2·
                  5 days ago

                  You’re debunking your own argument. Yes, they voted against establishment Dems, so clearly they’re not just voting for whomever they’re told.

                  People use rational thought processes to collectively come to the same decision as Mamdani because democratic socialist policies are actually the most favorable to society and the working class so people like that and they vote for it.

                  These people are literally seeing through the propaganda that “socialism = bad,” so I can’t see how you think that makes them the mindless automatons who vote how they’re told.

                  • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
                    11·
                    5 days ago

                    That is my argument. They’re voting against establishment Democrats, because they’re being told to.

        • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
          2·
          5 days ago

          No, people care about democratic socialism because it helps average, ordinary, working class people. Mamdani is a democratic socialist, and he endorses democratic socialists. So it makes sense that people who would vote for Mamdani, also vote for the people he endorses. That doesn’t mean his endorsement was the sole determining factor in their decision.

          If people were just mindlessly voting for whomever they’re told, then why wouldn’t they have voted for the people Jeffries told them to? Why would he be so butthurt right now that people didn’t vote for the ones he picked?

          • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
            11·
            5 days ago

            If people were just mindlessly voting for whomever they’re told, then why wouldn’t they have voted for the people Jeffries told them to?

            Because they voted for the one Mamdani told them to?

            • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
              2·
              5 days ago

              Are you saying that they chose to value Mamdani’s opinion over Jeffries’ opinion? That they chose to vote for Mamdani’s picks rather than Jeffries’ picks?

              Bear in mind, Mamdani is the underdog here, and Jefferies represents the party establishment. So criticizing people for siding with Mamdani over Jeffries just means you’re pulling water for centrism and the status quo…