politics
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
view the rest of the comments
and all the blue no matter who dem's are rushing right now to condemn this right?
Course I do wonder if there's a republican in this race that can add to the "corrupt asshole" competition.
Blue no matter who, in this case would mean Mamdami. He is the Democratic primary winner. So yes. I'm pretty sure almost all of them would be. What did you think blue no matter who meant? It's all about keeping someone even worse like a republican from winning the seat.
I can't speak for new york, but where I am. Third parties are non-existent realistically. I'm sure New York City in particular has a heavy Democratic turnout. Though maybe they actually have some viable third parties. But in this case all these corrupt ghouls aligning against mamdani are doing their best to split the vote for the blue so the Republican can win. I think Democrats would be wise in this instance to vote blue no matter who. Though especially because it's mamdani this time. That's all blue no matter who really meant. Standing in solidarity against the fascist. If we had done it in 2024 we would be in a much better position now.
My point mainly is made half jokingly but, I will bet a significant portion of the democratic leadership that scolds progressives, blaming losses on people that even tried to fight in the primaries (IE say people who blamed Bernie on Hillary's defeat), will also be the ones saying "oh no this is serious... we should vote for coumo because he's the real democrat). Say people like Bill Clinton that endorsed him in the primaries.
Fair enough. Though in 50 years of watching this I don't think I've ever seen it used that way? Definitionally. In a Democratic primary for the Democratic party. Everyone is blue no matter who. Now the establishment definitely loathes being challenged. Which is all more reason to do it.
Blue no matter who generally only means anything in the general. All the better now that actual people can use it against the party establishment for once. And I would argue that any member of the establishment or New York Democratic party leadership who would vote for anyone other than the parties candidate, mondami. Should be ousted from leadership. Any leadership that doesn't have the courage of conviction for the Party's candidate. Certainly doesn't represent that party.
I do agree, though we'll see when the road gets closer... I have a very bad feeling we are going to see a lot of big names throw their weight behind Cuomo.
Money will definitely present an obstacle. But the fact mamdami is the parties candidate carries plenty weight itself. Outside the primaries people are largely clueless. Name recognition will count for something. Though I don't think Cuomo's is that good. IIRC he's dirtied of plenty. So hopefully party recognition will outweigh.
I too think he will win... but I think it's going to shine a light on the democratic parties hypocrisy. We'll see more when the general goes into gear... But I think that some big names in the democratic party are going to either stay silent or flat out oppose Mamdami.
I mean it's already happened/is happening. Plenty have refused to endorse and some have outright opposed him because of Israel and his skin color (see NY gov Hochul, Senator Schumer, and Senator Gillibrand). However, both AOC and Bernie have endorsed him. Unless Obama comes out against I'm not sure that what democrats outside of NY much less NYC say will really sway anyone more.