this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
164 points (100.0% liked)

electoralism

22183 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to c/electoralism! politics isn't just about voting or running for office, but this community is.

Please read the Chapo Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.

Shitposting in other comms please!

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Zohran youth mandate remains 🔛🔝

all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Carl@hexbear.net 47 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

pretty much the read on the majority of Americans right now is that they just want something, anything to change. If the Dems aren't offering change then they'll go to the Reps who will at least lie to them about their problems and their solutions.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 29 points 2 weeks ago

"Our strategy of saying 'You can eat shit and die' is losing to the other guys' 'we'll tell immigrants to eat shit and die.' Clearly we'll have to incorporate their strategy into ours; there's no way there's another solution" the-democrat

[–] SootySootySoot@hexbear.net 25 points 2 weeks ago

Given that Dems literally campaign on promises like "nothing will change", yeah. Proles are materially suffering, they know something has to change.

[–] HamManBad@hexbear.net 32 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I am increasingly convinced that the Democrats are facing the same crisis as the Whig party in the 1850s. They are nominally the party of progress, but their material interests are too rooted in the current system. So, they collapse under their own contradictions and a new party that is explicitly progressive (in regard to the primary contradiction of the time) emerges to replace them. The issue of the 1850s was slavery, the issue of the 2020s is capitalism. I would not be surprised to see an explicitly democratic socialist party come to replace the Democrats, made necessary by the fact that the Democratic party is structurally incapable of moving in that direction. Of course, the short term outcome of civil war seems like an inevitable consequence of that (even if we act in the most reformist way possible) so we need to plan accordingly

[–] CoolerOpposide@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

gold-communist incredibly accurate historic materialist analysis regarding the whigs. I have also said this a few times before

[–] UmbraVivi@hexbear.net 31 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They know that Zohran is popular, they just don't want to adopt any even vaguely left-leaning policies. They want to reach men/young people/those across the aisle without getting in the way of their donors squeezing every last penny out of the working class. It's not incompetence, it's pure corruption. The Democrats serve capital and only capital.

[–] Des@hexbear.net 26 points 2 weeks ago

dems: we want to win over young men with promises of brutal austerity and zoning codes

[–] laranis@lemmy.zip 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Democrats are not asking themselves how they can reach young men across the aisle. That answer is easy, as Mamdani is demonstrating. Democrats have a much more challenging problem of how to trick people into voting for them without actually doing anything that would upset their bribery racket.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago

they've given up on the trick part too, biden and harris ran on not changing anything

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 18 points 2 weeks ago

Zohran cracked the code, but the dems (and some leftists) will let it slip through their fingers

[–] vegeta1@hexbear.net 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They're gonna learn nothing from this and become more racist instead

[–] CthulhusIntern@hexbear.net 17 points 2 weeks ago

There's an implied "...while still getting our big corporate donor money" at the end of the "how do we reach them" question.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago

“how do we reach men/young people/those across the aisle?”

My bet is they'll put out a ~10 minute Youtube vid where Hakeem Jeffries passionately talks about healthcare subsidies. Because how can that fail?

[–] livejamie@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Is this impressive because 19 is a lot for a leftist among that group?

[–] barrel_of_a_gun@hexbear.net 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

he's a brown muslim socialist, the only thing that would make him scarier to the average conservative is if he was trans me thinks, so yes it is very impressive for him to have even that much just in general, but the fact that it's more than who finds him unfavorable is actually out of this world

[–] blobjim@hexbear.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

tbh he's not very brown. Looks and sounds white enough to not scare the super-racists.

[–] barrel_of_a_gun@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

there's no way you're american and saying something like this

[–] blobjim@hexbear.net 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

you think the beard is enough to scare 'em?

[–] sourquincelog@hexbear.net 8 points 2 weeks ago

Trump called him a "liddle' communist" earlier this week, so 19% favorable is pretty good