3 ms·

> Because San Francisco progressivism doesn’t win on a national stage. If the message that Democrats take from this is NY progressivism wins on a national stag

> Because San Francisco progressivism doesn’t win on a national stage. If the message that Democrats take from this is NY progressivism wins on a national stage, we'll certainly lose the next presidential election, and maybe even fail to gain a majority in either the House or Senate during the midterms. That's my biggest fear.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> That's my biggest fear Mamdani is a disciplined New York progressive. He’s left of the median voter. But the Mamdani that won the D primary was also left of the median NYC voter. One can take a shallow policy lesson from this election. Or a deeper political lesson in the value of pragmatism and respect for the voter (versus the holier than thou crap that has polluted the far left).
- AbstractH24 11mo ago
  > Mamdani is a disciplined New York progressive. He’s left of the median voter. But the Mamdani that won the D primary was also left of the median NYC voter. I hope you are right, that he is more like Obama than Trump. Time will tell. Personally, I haven't seen any evidence to support that hypothesis. If you have, I'd love to feel more assured you are right so please share.
- AbstractH24 11mo ago
  >Mamdani is a disciplined New York progressive. Also, who are these current or former elected officials that fit the description "disciplined New York progressive" you refer to? I'm truly not sure.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > who are these current or former elected officials that fit the description "disciplined New York progressive" you refer to? The guy named in the comment.
    - AbstractH24 11mo ago
      So an n of 1 that has yet to take office and prove that he will live up to the label? The day after election day 2016 I recall trying to reassure myself that another candidate who won had to be more disciplined when governing than when campaigning. That the rhetoric his campaign put out was only because his supporters were to the right of him. How sad I was to find out that wasn't true. Hope I'm not let down again.
OkayPhysicist 11mo ago
Frankly, the Democrats have done nothing but pander to people who hate them, who will never vote for them, and fucking LOVE their opposition for years now. If there is one thing to take away from the Trump campaigns, it's that pandering to an imaginary moderate is not nearly as effective as being really exciting to your base. All ceding ground to the opposition does is lead to disillusionment and apathy amongst the people who might vote for you. You win over no one with morally bankrupt, least common denominator bullshit. What you are advocating for is the same bullshit that cost the Democrats the election in 2016, and in 2024. We've tried it your way and it is nothing but a losing strategy. People want progress, people want change. If a candidate can't at least have balls to lie about wanting that too, then they are unfit to win an election.
- AbstractH24 11mo ago
  In that case, the base of the Democrats, as you seem to define it, is destined to be a permanent minority in national elections. And maybe you are right. I'd love to see America move to 4 or more major parties. With the far-left and far-right of each separated out into their own parties. Would even settle for 3 parties.
  - OkayPhysicist 11mo ago
    They're really not a permanent minority, though. Obama's campaign promises (not to be confused with his actual politics once in office) demonstrate that positive, progressive change is a perfectly popular political position. And frankly, that's all besides the point: The reason exciting candidates do so well (Trump, Obama) is because voter turnout in the US is abysmal. It's gotten better (because the Fascists are excited for Trump, and everyone else is at least a bit energized by "oh god we can't have the fascists win"), but it's still very true that if you could convince at a quarter of the nonvoters (half of the half that might vote for you) to show up to the polls, you'd have a blowout victory the likes of which haven't been seen since the Bill Clinton campaigns. The Democrats have been playing a strategy that tries to win over the rational fringe of the Republican party, but it's becoming increasingly obvious to apparently everyone but the DNC that those people don't exist. The kind of person who can be convinced to vote for Trump (ESPECIALLY TWICE) are not the kinds of people the Democrats will ever win over without royally pissing off most of their voter base.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago

> That's my biggest fear Mamdani is a disciplined New York progressive. He’s left of the median voter. But the Mamdani that won the D primary was also left of the median NYC voter. One can take a shallow policy lesson from this election. Or a deeper political lesson in the value of pragmatism and respect for the voter (versus the holier than thou crap that has polluted the far left).

AbstractH24 11mo ago
> Mamdani is a disciplined New York progressive. He’s left of the median voter. But the Mamdani that won the D primary was also left of the median NYC voter. I hope you are right, that he is more like Obama than Trump. Time will tell. Personally, I haven't seen any evidence to support that hypothesis. If you have, I'd love to feel more assured you are right so please share.
AbstractH24 11mo ago
>Mamdani is a disciplined New York progressive. Also, who are these current or former elected officials that fit the description "disciplined New York progressive" you refer to? I'm truly not sure.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > who are these current or former elected officials that fit the description "disciplined New York progressive" you refer to? The guy named in the comment.
  - AbstractH24 11mo ago
    So an n of 1 that has yet to take office and prove that he will live up to the label? The day after election day 2016 I recall trying to reassure myself that another candidate who won had to be more disciplined when governing than when campaigning. That the rhetoric his campaign put out was only because his supporters were to the right of him. How sad I was to find out that wasn't true. Hope I'm not let down again.

OkayPhysicist 11mo ago

Frankly, the Democrats have done nothing but pander to people who hate them, who will never vote for them, and fucking LOVE their opposition for years now. If there is one thing to take away from the Trump campaigns, it's that pandering to an imaginary moderate is not nearly as effective as being really exciting to your base. All ceding ground to the opposition does is lead to disillusionment and apathy amongst the people who might vote for you. You win over no one with morally bankrupt, least common denominator bullshit. What you are advocating for is the same bullshit that cost the Democrats the election in 2016, and in 2024. We've tried it your way and it is nothing but a losing strategy. People want progress, people want change. If a candidate can't at least have balls to lie about wanting that too, then they are unfit to win an election.

AbstractH24 11mo ago
In that case, the base of the Democrats, as you seem to define it, is destined to be a permanent minority in national elections. And maybe you are right. I'd love to see America move to 4 or more major parties. With the far-left and far-right of each separated out into their own parties. Would even settle for 3 parties.
- OkayPhysicist 11mo ago
  They're really not a permanent minority, though. Obama's campaign promises (not to be confused with his actual politics once in office) demonstrate that positive, progressive change is a perfectly popular political position. And frankly, that's all besides the point: The reason exciting candidates do so well (Trump, Obama) is because voter turnout in the US is abysmal. It's gotten better (because the Fascists are excited for Trump, and everyone else is at least a bit energized by "oh god we can't have the fascists win"), but it's still very true that if you could convince at a quarter of the nonvoters (half of the half that might vote for you) to show up to the polls, you'd have a blowout victory the likes of which haven't been seen since the Bill Clinton campaigns. The Democrats have been playing a strategy that tries to win over the rational fringe of the Republican party, but it's becoming increasingly obvious to apparently everyone but the DNC that those people don't exist. The kind of person who can be convinced to vote for Trump (ESPECIALLY TWICE) are not the kinds of people the Democrats will ever win over without royally pissing off most of their voter base.