Mamdani challenges Democratic leaders ahead of primary elections: ‘The Democratic Party must change’
2 days ago by gAlienLifeform to c/politics
Not long ago, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was demonized by leaders of both political parties. On Thursday night, the 34-year-old democratic socialist was celebrated as a political force, the face of the region’s sports renaissance, even the leader of “Mamdanistan.”
In a rally with Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that drew thousands to a Brooklyn theater, the emboldened mayor delivered a fiery message to Democratic leaders in Washington — and even those considering 2028 presidential bids — as he worked to elevate a slate of likeminded candidates in Tuesday’s New York primaries.
“People often ask me what I think of the state of the Democratic Party. This slate here today is our answer,” Mamdani declared. “The Democratic Party must change.”
“The party of the past will not be what leads us into the future. We need a Democratic Party with backbone.”
He shared the stage with three congressional candidates, including two running against Democratic incumbents. All three identify, or have identified, as democratic socialists. They promised to “abolish ICE,” condemned the “genocide” in Israel and vowed to “tax the rich” if elected.
...
Mamdani endorsed political organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier over Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, in New York’s 13th District, which includes parts of upper Manhattan and the Bronx.
Mamdani is also backing former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is running against incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in New York’s 10th District. And in New York’s 7th, he’s supporting democratic socialist state Assembly Member Claire Valdez against outgoing Rep. Nydia Velazquez’s handpicked successor.
Archived at https://web.archive.org/...
Democrats always pull the it's time to come together card when they get into power.
I used to naively think that is because they wanted to be adults and lead by example, but I've come to realize they do it because they are paid by the same donor class that doesn't want them to push populist ideas.
They'll throw us bones from time to time like literarily just letting gays get equal rights, but actually fighting for the working class, they almost never do.
We need to get rid of corporate Democrats, fuck they are basically Republicans from 2005, and replace them with leftist.
there was one good component of the healthcare law they offered: if you offer healthcare insurance, you have to offer the same plans at the same price to everyone. I used to have to pay COBRA pricing just to get insurance. it's slightly higher than paying annual premiums every month. one of the joys of being extraordinarily disabled.
DSA or GTFO IMO.
DSA?
Democratic Socialists of America. They're a radlib progressive organization that supports progressive democrats
A cursory glance says that this is radical in the idea that infrastructure should be owned by the people instead of sold to them at the highest cost they can afford. This does not appear to be an org that uses threats and violence to persuade people.
So, radical like different, not radical like guns and bombs.
Yes, that's how I meant it. Radlibs are not revolutionary, but tends to be part of the pipeline towards revolutionary anticapitalism.
Radlib is a term for someone who holds socially progressive views and adopts leftist and radical esthetics, but supports free market capitalism. The picture I have in my head is someone wearing a pussy hat and blue hair celebrating Meloni was elected because she's a woman. Is this how you mean it?
EDIT: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/radlib If you disagree with me and have a wiktionary account, you might want to edit this page.
I do agree that DSA, as a whole, aren't generally socialists, but I also think it's a little disingenuous to say they're they same as the Hilary cadre which is more what you went on the describe. They're certainly to the left of them. If the entire Democratic party was aligned with DSA vs the more staunch neoliberals in the mainstream, what a wonderful problem we'd be faced with compared to where we are now...
DSA == radlib? That's not the impression I've gotten.
DSA has a hundred thousand members which is about 0.0333% of the US population.
A snowball has a higher chance of surviving in hell then that party becoming relevant in the next hundred years.
They're already relevant. That party of a hundred thousand has become a household name among the Democratic voting base because of the insurgent campaigns they've been running and winning against the DNC establishment.
No what I’m saying is we should concentrate on the DNC like how MAGA took over the republicans.
Nah, fuck the DNC. The current failures of the democratic party are specifically because of the DNC. They're more interested in serving corporations than the people who vote for them.
We don’t need the whole US to be members of the DSA, we need members of the DSA to take over the Democratic Party
DSA has a hundred thousand members which is about 0.0333% of the US population.
Membership was only ~6,000 members in 2015 compared ~100,000 now. Almost all of that gained in recently direct response to Donald Trump. But you can dismiss a massive and sudden grassroots change if you want. That's what the DNC has done for the last 30+ years to instead just do whatever their donors want, and dangle various social issues as their sole differentiator, unless those conflict with corporate donors.
the democrat party is made of many subgroups that people affiliate with officially and unofficially. that ~100k is definitely underrepresented. of any accepted group, the DSA represents my interests the best. I ain't never seen any enrollment paperwork for it.
As far as I can tell, American politics can only be fixed by the supreme court. You need to flood it with justices who are willing to rule that campaign donations from corporations are not free speech. And then, to rule that the very concept of democracy is incompatible with campaign contributions from corporations and other organizations like PACs. And by that logic, contributions coming from anywhere except registered voter constituents is fundamentally unconstitutional.
Congress under the existing rules will never pass a campaign contribution law because the owners of our congresspeople don't want those laws passed. We will never elect enough people to congress who are not financially backed by large organizations. We're stuck as a country. And I think only SCOTUS has any possibility of fixing it.
But if SCOTUS did fix it, I think few in Congress would have a problem with it. They personally seek power, so this would actually give them more power. The problem is that if they seriously support campaign finance reform today, most of those would lose their next election and lose all of their power.
I mean even if you factor in a seriously alarming number of Americans being braindead stupid, if you lose to a felon rapist pedophile, you have to acknowledge your party needs to change and adapt.
They promised to “abolish ICE,” condemned the “genocide” in Israel and vowed to “tax the rich” if elected.
I mean... The DNC already do two of those things regularly and already beat the GOP on the other, but uh...
Why didn't he say all this before the primaries were held in most states? Or after the General Elections?
EDIT: Because this is specifically about the NYC election and not any broader "democratic leadership" which is weird because Mamdani is among the ranks of democratic leadership in NYC.
Why didn't he say all this before the primaries were held in most states? Or after the General Elections?
Because you have to build political capital before you can spend it. If he had said it in December, corporatist Dems would've been able to use the excuse "why should we care what he has to say? All he did was get elected; he hasn't done anything yet."
I think more accurately the whole event was Mamdani prepping for the NYC primaries which have not occured yet, and the article being a bogus inflammatory hit piece trying to shame his party.
is sarcastic idiot taken? I'd like to apply for that job
Uh, most Americans are in favor of abolishing ICE. By your pure popularism political philosophy you're now on board too, right?
In an NBC News Decision Desk Poll released Wednesday, 72 percent of respondents supported abolishing or reforming ICE, while 29 percent said it should “continue in current form.” A larger share of those surveyed said the agency should be reformed, at 43 percent, rather than abolished, at 29 percent.
Setting aside that you're just pretending your poll is right and mine is wrong, what do you think this poll says that supports "people won't support abolish"? Because giving a third option with reforms doesn't change that outright abolish is more popular than not. It's not an electoral loser. Especially in the demographics that vote for Democrats.
The DNC had effectively cut all funding for the ICE and related departments from February until last week when a GOP-only reconciliation bill changed that.
Any Democrat who supports abolishing ICE would end up the same as those who support defunding the police. Republicans would argue that Democrats want open borders permitting criminals to enter.
This isnt conjecture they literally already did the thing.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
This is a quote from the speech that I got from a different article, but here is the entire problem in a nutshell. The Democratic Party always has excuses, even when they have total control of government. Fucking losers.
We've been through Clinton, Obama, and Biden, and not one of them tried to give us a decent health care plan. Obama came closest, but that was a REPUBLICAN plan, and it sucked. The only time they tried to throw us a bone, and it was a Republican bone.
After the Midterms, there better be a new attitude at the DNC, or they're all going to the guillotines, too. They don't have to worry though, we'll do the MAGAs first.
save