this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
613 points (98.7% liked)

politics

25436 readers
2162 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
 

Politico reports that at a Hamptons fundraiser last Saturday, Cuomo told his well-heeled supporters that, contrary to all available evidence, he could win the New York mayoral race as an independent—because he was likely to have the implicit support of President Donald Trump.

The imperative of defeating Mamdani justified the new coalition Cuomo is trying to create of his die-hard loyalists (who are Democrats) with Trump Republicans.

Some of that latter group might be tempted to back Curtis Sliwa, the actual GOP nominee in the race. Cuomo told these donors, “We can minimize [the Sliwa] vote, because he’ll never be a serious candidate. And Trump himself, as well as top Republicans, will say the goal is to stop Mamdani. And you’ll be wasting your vote on Sliwa.” Cuomo went on to emphasize that he’d be a mayor who could find common ground with Trump:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Actually, the NYT published the results of an investigation last week, and it showed that in the states that track voter registration by party affiliation, democrats lost 2m voters and republicans gained 2.4m. taking into account the states that don't track voter registration by party, that means the 6m people who didn't vote for Kamala last fall were democrats that switched party because there isn't a real difference between the two parties on most things, and they wanted something new.

So maybe if the democrats want to win, they can stop jumping ship and voting for fascists.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So if that's to be believed (which, to me it looks like an enormous red flag of vote manipulation, but okay) - then 6m registered democrats decided to vote for trump instead of Kamala. And your take is if they want to run someone more progressive than Kamala those voters will vote Democrat again?

Given that progressives made a huge garment-rending show of NOT voting for Kamala, and apparently the trump-loving people registered as Democrats, who did in fact actually vote, went the other way, you're suggesting the Dems could win by moving left, and I'm saying why would they not think the opposite?

The numbers show they can win if they move more right. The numbers are bullshit, but that's what we're working with. And what the DNC is working with. Run a candidate that will lose in Iowa and win in California, and will lose nationally by a lot or have a close race nationally.

Non-voting progressives are up a creek. With only a year to go til midterms.

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And your take is if they want to run someone more progressive than Kamala those voters will vote Democrat again?

No, my take is that they stop trying to appeal to the fascists in their party and start adopting populist policies. Which, as the name implies, are popular. Things like universal healthcare and a bump to the minimum wage.

The democrats lost the election because their conservative members fled to the republicans. They’ll lose the next election too if they continue trying to appeal to republicans. Bitch about it all they want, nobody is responsible for that except the party and their stubborn refusal to be anything more than “republicans, but sometimes with gays”.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The democrats lost the election because their conservative members fled to the republicans.

So if they run someone more conservative, they'll win the election. You see that, right?

Like, I'm not hoping they do that - very much the opposite - but that's what they're getting told by shithead consultants and that's the "smart" play if they want to win elections.

If they run more progressive candidates, they'll lose more voters. Because the left has just proven in the most disastrous election in anyone's lifetime that they can not be swayed to vote Democrat no matter how dire the circumstances - in fact, the more dire, the more they dig in that they will not not help republiQans destroy everything.

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

LIf they run more progressive candidates, they'll lose more voters. Because the left has just proven in the most disastrous election in anyone's lifetime that they can not be swayed to vote Democrat no matter how dire the circumstances - in fact, the more dire, the more they dig in that they will not not help republiQans destroy everything.

Name one fucking democrat who has run for president in the last three elections what was not a fascist, and I'll show you a democrat that got the progressive vote. Who are you going to pick? Kamala The Cop, who laughed on TV about throwing mother in jail for smoking pot while she was doing it at home? Maybe one of the DNC members who was laughing at pro-Palestine protesters?

Stop being fucking nazi scum, that'll get you a ton of votes.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Name one fucking democrat who has run for president in the last three elections what was not a fascist

I mean, No, because you won’t be dissuaded.

So here we are with midterms barreling down, Dems will have someone to vote for - what’s your plan? Is there any - I mean, seriously, any national progressive party presence at all? Is any group even close?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Yeah I didn’t think so. And that’s the rub, as they say.