> Dems didn't support Mamdani because he's a liability outside large, progressive cities. I'm not arguing with your summation of the realpolitik the way the De

> Dems didn't support Mamdani because he's a liability outside large, progressive cities. I'm not arguing with your summation of the realpolitik the way the Dem establishment sees it, but this worry of theirs needs to die in a fire. Turmp has shown that people are willing to vote for abjectly terrible, extremist, even outright anti-American candidates as long as they stand and fight for something. The Democrats' strategy of continually compromising to middle of the road milquetoast candidates that vaguely gesture at mild bargaining reforms is a losing one with voters. (of course part of the incentive to do this is their corporate sponsors, but they need to get over this addiction to easy money if they want to win elections)