Andrew Cuomo concedes New York Democratic mayoral primary to Zohran Mamdani
a year ago by GFGJewbacca to c/news
Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo conceded New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary to Zohran Mamdani as the 33-year old member of the state Assembly had a significant lead in the race Tuesday night.
Cuomo’s concession came as the race’s outcome will be decided by a ranked choice count after neither Democrat got a clear majority in the vote.
Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist member of the state Assembly, started to pull ahead with more than an estimated 80% of ballots counted.
Democrats hate progressives. The two would be separate parties in a sensible democracy, but in the legacy first-past-the-post American system, splitting the party while Republicans exist is political suicide. There are more progressives than center Democrats, but they are not as united as the core establishment Democrats are, which made any one of them irrelevant in primaries up to now. RCV has given them a real chance for the first time. For example by giving Lander votes to Mamdani in the instant runoff. The moment RCV got implemented, long-serving Democrats started suddenly getting kicked out in the primaries. This terrifies them, so Democrats will continue to fight against RCV in the future. Just look how both Cuomo and Adams will try to commit political murder-suicide now by running as independent in the general just so that the "official Democratic party nominee" would not win.
Democrats hate progressives
Democrats hate socialists. Their job is to ensure that the leftward fringe of the party, and of acceptable mainstream discourse, never moves past progressive/social democracy. The Democratic Party serves capital by ensuring a neutered American left
Hopefully this can be changed
At least RCV is a single and measurable cause to ralley around. I feel like public pressure tends to be more effective when focused on causes such as these.
Ha ha, whoops I should read the articles.
TBF it's possible that RCV created an incentive for Democrats to nominate a better candidate. They're smarter than they look.
I suspect that a party that ran a ranked choice primary to select a candidate for a FPTP election would have an advantage over an opposing party that didn't. I haven't got the math or statistics to back it up, but everything I've read about ranked choice discouraging scorched earth politics sounds like it would be healthy in a primary.
Thank fuck
Hopefully he wins the general
Wtf happened to Adams? Sure, he was under criminal corruption indictments, then cozied up to Trump and got "pardoned" (charges dismissed). But then he was supposed to be on the Democratic primary ballot, his picture was even in the official voter guide from a month ago, but on election day his name wasn't even in the list? Now he's apparently running as independent incumbent instead? What a booger!
EDIT: Both Cuomo and Adams are intending to run as independent in the general? WhyTF do we even have primaries then! If they are not going to play by their own rules of their special little club, let's just extend Ranked Choice Voting to cover the general and scrap the primaries altogether!
WhyTF do we even have primaries then! If they are not going to play by their own rules of their special little club, let’s just extend Ranked Choice Voting to cover the general and scrap the primaries altogether!
Because the US doesn't really have a true democracy. It's always going to be weighted against the actual interests of the people. The more success candidates the Zohran have, the more the established politicians will stack the deck against them. The good thing is that the more the game is rigged the more obvious it all becomes.
He's probably trying to save face; he's on record in May saying he's running no matter the result of the primary.
Don't understand why it wasn't done this way in the first place. RCV was approved as a New York City Charter amendment by a voter initiative in 2019, but only applies to primary city elections, not general. You'd think procedurally it would be easier to justify altering the general election process that the Constitution actually applies to, rather than what is technically internal business of independent private organizations (the Democratic and the Republican parties).
centrists are still the wing of puma pac.
And they had the temerity to say "no matter who" for three fucking election cycles.
WhyTF do we even have primaries then!
So progressives don't get any ideas. As I said elsewhere in the thread: I better not hear another liberal saying we can't split the vote again.
I assume you mean in reference to the general last year? I raged against the way the left brought disaster upon the Palestinians despite their best intentions. This outcome, however, is exactly what I argued the left should be doing: fight FOR the left in primaries, vote AGAINST fascists in the general. You are damn close to sham elections as it is, giving the facisits any opportunity to shut down democracy is self defeating.
As I said elsewhere in the thread: I better not hear another liberal saying we can't split the vote again.
Do you actually understand the difference between FPTP and ranked choice?
So you don't have to spend millions on a liberal Joe Rogan, or attack trans people, or support genocide to win a race in America? God damn, that's incredible!
I'm very happy to hear this news. Genuinely one of the best news I've heard all year round. Maybe there is a sliver of hope.
I don't mean to blunt your enthusiasm, but this was just a primary election, so only registered Democrats were voting here. So a much different demographic than 51 separate Presidential elections. But still, it's a sign that the voters in the city are fed up with the politics-as-usual the party is force-feeding them.
There are a lot more Democrats than Republicans there, though, so this should give him the inside track for the job, especially if Cuomo backs down from his threat to run Independant. (I think he knows that if he did that, he will never win an endorsement from any other Democrat, ever, so that may give him pause.) Adams is running as an independant, but I think the city is done with him. Curtis Sliwa is the Republican nominee, but he hasn't been relevant since the 80s and 90s, and is kind of a cartoon now.
You are way understating his odds at winning the general.
Your implicit argument that so-called "centrist" Democrats are better at winning purple states because voters all exist along a simple left to right spectrum is absolutely wrong. The people in this country are fed up and they want revolution. Republicans offered it, and Democrats didn't. The rightward lurch was just an artifact of people rationalizing their vote and conforming to the stereotype on offer.
One big excuse the Democratic establishment gave was that the world is in an anti-incombancy mood. That's a correct observation, but what is really happening is the death of neoliberalism everywhere. The one big outlier to the trend was Mexico where an aging male President successfully handed the reigns over to his protege, a younger woman. The difference is, they were progressives. Mexico is also arguably a more religiously conservative country than America.
The wonky framing of the US electorate has been the standard Democratic perspective for decades. It's what led to the income inequality we have now. It's what led to Trump, and the complete routing of Democrats in both federal and state governments. For the love of God, wake up already.
The Democrats don't win because they aren't real people, they are characters on TV that people are sick of. Neoliberalism drains the blood and passion that people want to see in leadership. Republicans have it, and Democrats don't. It's past time that changed.
I have seen articles saying that a Zohran win would force the Democratic Party to face change, and acknowledge the rising progressive movement. Let's see if they accept the changes, or they fight against it. I suspect they'll fight, but if other elections start moving left, they'll be forced to change.
The next big test will be the mid-term primaries. Hopefully, this win will encourage progressives to run, and hopefully they'll win enough primary races to become a serious threat, especially against Establishment Dems.
And I hope one of them is AOC primarying Chuck Schumer. That spineless, whining bitch has got to go. He holds a lot of the blame for the rise of MAGA.
I keep writing my reps about how much I approve of Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and I'll now mention Zohran too!
I live in a blue state near NY. Im tired of the Dem party not backing actual progressive candidates.
Let your reps know how much you approve of their messages! We need hope!
My mid-20s son is energized for the first time. He's been voting all along, but he's been very unmotivated by his choices. This is the first time I've seen him excited to vote (for Zohran).
We are finally seeing progressives, especially YOUNG progressives reaching their breaking point. They are justifiably pissed off at the establishment Democrats who are complicit in the rise and dominance of MAGA, and they are determined to make a change. They fully believe that their futures depend on it, and they now understand that they will get absolutely no help from the Establishment Dems. They know it's up to them to sculpt their own future at the ballot box.
Give them candidates that they can believe in, like Zohran, and Young Progressives will come out big.
Middle age progressives have been pissed off since 2009 or so, when Congress scraped the public option from the ACA. We won a few victories (yay marriage equality) but the ghouls can lie, like they lied about keeping roe. So they will keep winning until they are met with honest people willing to change the system.
Socialism or lose.
yeah, middle aged progressive here. I can't tell you how jazzed I am to see Cuomo take up his new job of Gently Used Airport Scarecrow. I really hope the establishment is seeing the writing on the wall.
Give them
Again with this passive shit. Nobody is supposed to give you anything, it's politics, people present their worldview and gather votes of those who agree. Regressive democrats vote, progressive don't, that's why you are "given" candidates you generally see. If you want to see better candidates, vote for better candidates.
It pisses me off for no end, you go to any lefty space, all that you see is perpetual "voting is pointless, don't vote, I voted once 20 years ago and look what it brought us, you should firebomb wallmarts instead. By the way, why all the candidates that win are so bad, it's like they don't listen to us".
Yes you do. I hate to be a pessimist, but Trump and all he’s doing is a major contributor souring people about extremists and establishment. If Harris had won, I don’t think this would have been the outcome because people wouldn’t be nearly as riled up about politics, in general.
When rumpy won in 2016, after my initial shock I thought, well maybe he will make it so bad, we will collectively be forced to see the truth, forced to come together and actually have a positive change for the working people.
I didnt know then, that I'd be fearing for the loss of democracy as a whole in 2025, but I think my initial thought still stands.
Maybe this wouldn't be the outcome if Harris won, but if the silver lining is people start paying attention, I'm happy for it.
Yeah, I certainly hope they do as well! It’s high time people started to give a fuck about what our elected leaders do.
"Nearly a quarter of early voters had not voted in a Democratic primary at any point between 2012 and 2024."
Here you go folks- GET INVOLVED! Go vote! Every single election, especially primaries.
Alternately: people actually fucking vote when you give them something, anything, to vote for!
I'm suspicious that sociopaths are a parasitic subspecies. Like there are these alien creatures that look entirely human walking around among us. They look like us, talk like us, but think that the general human species is inferior to their own.
What if they could identify other sociopaths, and were working in concert. Hmm, this is ridiculous.
Anyway, yeah. I don't think Clinton is capable of that level of introspection.
I'm suspicious that sociopaths are a parasitic subspecies.
That's an interesting perspective. I wouldn't go so far as to dehumanise them, though. I think they're just another type of human — that's particularly well adapted at fucking shit up in such a way that they, and potentially their ingroup, come out on top.
It's a highly unfortunate type of person of course and a very likely cause for the premature death of our biosphere if it comes to that.
Evolution - at a species level or a societal level - has no "guiding hand". It throws shit at a wall to see what sticks, and the best-adapted variants tend to propagate.
Selfish behavior is very powerful in a large and strong society where most people are producing more value than they're consuming. There's so much wealth to be found that if you don't care about the enemies you make, you can just jump from victim to victim as you amass power faster tab the people you leave behind. The problem is, this drives the society towards no longer being one of such surplus.
In a smaller society where people are largely just surviving, selfish behavior will cripple your own ability to survive. If everybody has only a modest surplus, they only want to share it with people they can trust to return the favor when they're the one in need. If you make enemies with everyone in a small community, you're going to have a hard time finding community support.
Let's see if Chelsea runs.
Who knew making it easier for voters to pick a candidate makes the candidates easier to pick?
CGPGrey is that you?
Looks like the lower income is the Bronx and a bit of Brooklyn. Higher income is Manhattan and the Brooklyn/queens riverfront. The middle income map is more like what I'd expect to see overall based on the neighborhoods. More Cuomo for Staten Island/False New Jersey as well as east Brooklyn/Queens/Don't call it Long Island (even though they act like Nassau county is out in the country). There's a bunch of conservative, racist pricks that insist on NYC being the greatest (so they're definitely part of it) but off in homeowning urban areas pissed that they're making suburb money but paying urban prices. All while refusing to enjoy the fun parts of the city because they don't like the people there.
It depends where the cut off is. But there's a lot of educated people that fall into the higher income category that all too aware what rampant poverty and inequality can do to cause instability. His policies might not benefit them the most but it would still benefit them in some way.
The Democratic Machine whatever the fuck you think it is, is a magical machine of the gaps. When voters don't show up, The Machine does whatever it wants. When voters vote, The Machine has to listen.
The voters voted DESPITE the democratic party
The democratic party didn't canvas those neighborhoods, the democratic party didn't knock over a million doors, the democratic party didn't win this election
DEMOCRATIC SOCALISTS OF AMERICA WON THIS ELECTION
And you should GET FUCKING USED TO IT. Your machine is broken and worthless, you just witnessed an actual campaign for the people, by the people, and look at the results. Fuck the DNC.
You have a lot riding on a single election in one of the most democratic parts of the country. While I agree that Democratic Socialists did make a push here that could well set the tone of politics for the next 20 years on the left side of America, I'd hesitate to say it with certainty, given how crass American voters can be. Let's let ZM actually get elected mayor, and let him prove he can get a DS platform passed in NYC before we crown him America's saviour.
I agree with this perspective. In Colombia, 3 years ago, we elected the Most leftist president in our history (regretfully, I voted for him in second round.
He turned to be a completely chaos. He made our country to retrocede 20 years. We experience more violence that many years ago. He helped our government to go broke. He didn't deliver the "Change", but made things worst
You should be as demanding as you are with republicans
How uncharitable do you want me to be in my response to this? If you agree with my point about DSA winning this election in spite of the democratic party's best efforts then everything else in your comment can be deleted
You just described what coalition politics actually is. When your candidate can gather support, or when a group of people can gather together and push a candidate, that group of people can do political activism, and elect their candidate. Do it enough time, and you get yourself a political force that can then communicate with other political forces to achieve their goals. The way US democracy operates, there can be only two viable coalitions, but the rest remains.
Americans have this weird perverted view of the political process, they believe some kind of higher force should produce them a magical person that is favoured by all, and then they can benevolently think about maybe supporting them or not, and they got irrationally angry when political groups they aren't parts of, don't deliver them this magical person.
Unfortunately, politics doesn't work like that.
Thats how everyone who has been arguing with me about zohran kept acting when I would tell them that im organizing for a real change in the world. Like he should just be the candidate ordained by the party if he was actually good for people.
Its nonsense, you have to organize and you have to have an actual political goal to strive towards. You go out and knock doors and have conversations and open people's minds about what politics should be.
Zohrans biggest opposition was peoples disillusionment with the two party system. They got out and voted because they rightfully saw zohran as an actual third choice, and liberals did whatever they could to convince us otherwise. They're still doing it. Trying to say that this doesn't change anything and nobody should expect this to have ripple effects. Tell them to shut up and put in the work. None of them are going to volunteer for someone like Cuomo, so they're just going to sit online and tell leftists that we cant win because organizing massive popular movements won't win elections outside NYC. It's laughable.
People are sick and tired of being told to stay home and do nothing but vote. They're demanding change. They're willing to go out and actually do something to make it happen. Weeks ago our streets were filled with people furious at the state of our country. Americans are ready to organize for a better system. Anyone who is opposed to building that movement might as well be a trump voting fascist like the rest of them. We will win, and we will keep winning.
FIRST ROUND KNOCKOUT! 🤛
Incredible result for him and NY, and I hope this signs the death knell of Cuomo’s career. Step off, creeper.
Yeah, that's what we all thought when Biden won.
I called the 2024 election when Biden won in 2020. He was a shitty corporate centrist candidate who was never going to address our deep structural inequality, and so frustrated uneducated people voted for change in 2024. Obama won 2008 because people wanted "Change". Trump won 2016 to drain the swamp. We're all so sick of this crony corporate bullshit.
Socialists or we lose. It should've been obvious all along that the "centrists" and "Libertarians" are just embarrassed Republicans. America has been sick and tired of corporations overtly ruling for decades and moderates don't want to own that.
Voters weren't scared of a dictatorship on day one by a guy quoting Hitler. And at this point, they aren't scared of socialism, not anymore. The only way we win elections is by supporting candidates who are actually good. Even if a moderate wins this election, they'll lose us the next election and the good half will be undone. We can only discount the value of the next election iff our candidate will address our broken elections.
TL;DR: Socialists or we lose.
Biden was right when he said "Nothing will fundamentally change"
The crazy thing is that nothing will change unless someone takes control to stop the corporate-controlled stalemate that runs our society. The far right is awful, and the fact that they are the only ones capable of getting it done is probably the most terrifying notion this country has experienced in my lifetime. It's just going to be splitting all the wealth with another group of nerdy billionaire assholes and making a worse gov. I just want to wake up and realize it's a nightmare.
explodicle didn't mention Trump running on draining the swamp because they believed he would do that or because they support Trump in any way. The point (very clearly) is that even people as uneducated, uninformed, and oblivious as MAGAts can tell that there is something very wrong about how America was being ran, and even they wanted something to change. The fact that Trump lied about draining the swamp and the fact that his intentions was to bring in a sewer to replace it is irrelevant. The fact that they were naive to believe him is irrelevant.
The point is that most of us want actual change, not centrist corporate stooges like Biden and Harris. Whether the people put their faith in the wrong ones to change things in the past is beside the point.
And no, the fact that people showed up in record numbers to vote for Biden in 2020 does not prove this trend is incorrect. At that point Biden was a significant change from Trump in the eyes of many people. He deceived people that he was going to be significantly different in the same way Trump did.
If you are still confused try reading the TL:DR again, "Socialists or we lose." They were 1000% not expecting Trump to actually drain the swamp.
Judging by our last conversation where you blamed the people who voted for Harris for Trump getting elected, this nuance is going to fly right over your head. The fact that you took a comment calling for people to vote for socialist candidates as someone supporting Trump pretty clearly shows you aren't the sharpest potato in the sack.
I also know you are a pro-capitalist, anti-socialist, corporate boot-licker, so it's no surprise people calling for socialist candidates to be elected is against your ideals and you would like to muddy the waters as much as you can, but I think it's clear to everyone you aren't arguing in good faith.
You proving me right in 3...2...1...
That is irrelevant to their point and such blatant deflection makes you look immature.
Yeah I didn’t think that. Biden was a bandaid that let the wound fester.
Sure would be nice if this is a sign of things to come
Mamdani destroyed Cuomo in the first round of RCV, when it was expected to be much closer. This gives me a hesitant hope that nationally the voters want real change within the Democratic party. Let's just hope this isn't a fluke, and the technofascists have really awoken a huge progressive voting bloc.
The squad was born in the original Trump administration so it shouldn't be that surprising to see a return of these kinds of progressive candidates.
That's why there's such fervent pushback against any RCV proposals across the country (from both sides of the duopoly). Many places have already outlawed it because they see it would actually affect real change, and they just can't have a challenge to their financial streams and power.
Bu- bu- but is he gonna visit Israel? /s
context
In a debate they asked where candidates would visit. Once one of them said they'd visit Israel, a lot of others said they would too. Mamdani basically said he'd stay in NYC because he'd be the mayor and it's important to focus on his constituents. So then the moderators are like "Just to clarify, you wouldn't visit Israel?" And he's like I wanna focus on New Yorkers then they're like "Do you support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state?" 🙄 Absolutely insane. The man just answers "where would you visit" by saying he wouldn't travel so he can focus on constituents and it turns into a purity test about his views on Israel's existence? Just shameful. Like imagine if someone is like "I'll have a salad" and then the waiter asks "Do you support cattle farmer's right to earn a living?"
There are a lot of Jewish people in NYC, though, as Jesse Jackson once famously (and crudely) noted....
Oh this news made me smile. Let's go NYC!
He is. It's confirmed
Depending on if NY elections are closed or open.
Closed? Not if the same people that voted today vote again.
Open. Likely Republicans will vote across the isle to stick it to the "radical socialist" and vote for Cuomo
Not necessarily. NYC is left-leaning enough that Republicans are firmly in the minority, and also you have Cuomo, Adams and the Republican nominee splitting the asshole vote.
How long util he gets couped by the CIA?
And I am proven correct.
It's not out of the realm of possibility, Mamdani was born in Uganda and was naturalized in 2018. If Trump really wants to test his ability to do whatever the fuck he wants, he can try to denaturalize Mamdani for some bullshit reason (even though thats not really a thing) and order him to be sent to CECOT.
No, it will end up your way, but to keep the brown natural-born citizens who voted for him from realizing he will go after them next, he at least needs to pretend to denaturalize him, even if that's not a thing he can do.
Expect a social media post something like "I, Donakd Trmup, hereby declare that your citizenship application was deficient, and you're gone!"
(Haha, it took effort to write that, my spell check was having fits. And maybe it needs to be in ALL CAPS to be more authentic)
You know? Mebbe 60/40?
Maybe he gets shot in his home like they did Hortman. Maybe just quietly goes to gitmo?
On one hand you have spectacle, on the other hand you have fear. They're pretty fond of both.
There is nothing any of us can come up with that Stephen Miller hasn't dreamed up already.
(And I mean that literally, his sleep is filled with nocturnal emissions generated by imagining he is forcefully deporting people with too much melanin).
I'm honestly surprised Mamdani is still alive in the US, given his name.
It's like hearing about a mayor in a town in Nazi Germany named Abram Mankowitz.
Democrats need to be unapologetic in their stances to critics on both sides.
I mean, yay, but...
an estimated 80% of ballots counted.
That's just the first round, right? Does he not understand how RCV works? Unless his team already knows who everyone's second and third choices are, it's not remotely over yet. What am I missing?
From https://www.thecity.nyc/...:
In this ranked-choice primary election, Lander cross-endorsed Mamdani as his number-two pick, meaning that many voters who selected Lander are likely to send additional votes to Mamdani in the final tally.
So I'm guessing Cuomo didn't think round two was going to do him any favors.
A historically massive over performance of the polls and how the candidate (Lander) who is third on the first round is also a progressive
Few polls had Zohran winning. Even the polling that had Zohran winning had him losing the first round vote by a fair amount and only flipping to win in the 7th round. No polling had him winning the 1st round. He's just won the first round by like 7% of the vote. He's not far from 50% of the vote outright on round one
We won't have the official results from the later ranked choice rounds until July 1st, but just ~60% of Lander's #2 votes alone would push him above 50% even if all candidates below Lander went 100% Cuomo for #2. Lander cross endorsed Zohran and told his supporters to rank Zohran #2
Cuomo was projected to be ahead after the first round. The election was going to be a question of whether or not Mamdani's certain gains in subsequent rounds would be enough to catch up. Mamdani being so far ahead after the first round meant Cuomo was done.
He saw the writing on the wall and decided to make a strategic exit. A definitive defeat now would permanently end his career as a politician, but by conceding he leaves the door open to possible future efforts like a presidential bid.
He's not going to avoid the definitive defeat, the votes are still going to be counter, he's just not holding out to the bitter end refusing to recognize reality. That might help make the final tally a less interesting news story.
A definitive defeat now would permanently end his career as a politician
Based on the results reported that's already in the bag. There's no doubt he can't govern with what his current support looks like.
LET'S FUCKING GO!
Guessing there will be a new appointment announced soon
Woot woot! M-a-m-d-a-n-i, Mamdani baby!
I better not hear another liberal saying we can't split the vote again.
What does vote splitting have to do with a Democratic primary?
The liberal candidate who lost (Cuomo) has announced he is going to run in the general as an independent (which is in OP's link), instead of supporting the nominee. So Cuomo primary voters may split from the Democratic nominee in the general for Cuomo.
I wonder if the party will fund the candidate its voters wanted or if they will fund cuomo.
The "party" will, they'll just get an immediate drop in donations from the rich and a new organization not obligated to the party will spring up flush with cash. Sort of like how the establishment abandoned the Nevada DNC after progressives won the election to take it over.
The gist is what the other person said, but to expand on the the point I wanted to make: Whenever you (or, well, I) suggest that the left should antagonize the DNC, liberals come out of the woodwork saying that splitting the anti-conservative vote will only lead to conservatives winning and that instead leftists should vote in primaries. The idea is that if the leftist candidate wins the liberals will respect party norms and support the winner of the primary, providing a safer path to progress. Here we have the liberal favorite completely shitting on party norms and running as an independent even though he lost the primary to a leftist, so the whole proposition of a united front against the right through primaries falls apart. This would fatally discredit the idea that primaries are a viable substitute for a leftist third party if liberals cared about facts.
Yeah except you using "liberals" like this makes zero sense.
There are plenty of people who think leftists should back the "centrist/liberal" candidate in the general if they win the primary. There are also plenty of people who think Cuomo should fuck all the way off in the exact same method now that the leftist candidate has won. I'm sure there are some centrist voters who obviously buck that trend (same as some leftists when their primary person doesn't win) but I feel like the solid majority would rather win and move things left regardless of pace than give it to Republicans (or Adams, which is close enough.)
Just because Cuomo is a terrible person doesn't mean all "liberals" support him in running.
Here's to hoping Zohran destroys Adams and if he is shithead enough to run, Cuomo too.
It's funny- your guy won and you're still mad. Take some time to celebrate. JFC. This is a GOOD thing man.
I'm using this primary to illustrate a wider point about strategy here; I can do that and be happy that Mamdani won.
Liberals: No one can even run in the primary against our geriatric dear leader since it could cause a rift in the party
Also liberals: This anti semite is too dangerous, we must save the voters from there decision with our favorite sex criminal.
Not the mayor I want, but then again I didn't particularly want Cuomo either. I wish there had been a viable centrist candidate who hadn't resigned in shame from his last position.
Insisting on "Viable centrist candidates" no matter how far right the GOP moves the Overton Window is how you get fascism.
At this point, a "Centrist" in the US is far right by the standards of democracies in general.
checks comment history of ArbitraryValue
Yup, sure seems to be a zionist at any rate..
People can also fall for and parrot a dog whistle without understanding it.
At any rate it is ridiculous how the New York City mayor race was centered around whether the candidates "support Israel" or are "antisemites".
There are no serious GOP candidates for mayor in New York - that's why the Democratic primary rather than the general election is such a big deal. And the local Overton window is moving so far left that a man who supported Defund the Police back when it was cool (he says he doesn't anymore) is probably going to be the next mayor.
Getting a liberal with ethics. Good luck.
Watching the commentary would be hilarious.
If you think fence sitting is the way to pull us out of the situation we're in, maybe just sit out the next few election cycles, champ.
I'd say that Adams ran as a centrist candidate. Bloomberg too.
You're only counting how they ran, not how they performed as mayors?
Because Adams has hardly performed as a mayor the way he campaigned. He certainly didn't campaign on taking lots of bribes. And, for some reason, when he ran he managed to pretend he wasn't a former cop, but when he took office his coppiness sure came back out.
Yes, and I'm certainly unhappy about Adams' performance (as are most New Yorkers). However, I think you're wrong about his status as a former cop - it was not something he hid or downplayed when he was campaigning, and many people voted for him because he was the law and order candidate.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
This is why ranked choice has been banned in a lot of places. It breaks the duopoly.
save