Politico reports that at a Hamptons fundraiser last Saturday, Cuomo told his well-heeled supporters that, contrary to all available evidence, he could win the New York mayoral race as an independent—because he was likely to have the implicit support of President Donald Trump.
The imperative of defeating Mamdani justified the new coalition Cuomo is trying to create of his die-hard loyalists (who are Democrats) with Trump Republicans.
Some of that latter group might be tempted to back Curtis Sliwa, the actual GOP nominee in the race. Cuomo told these donors, “We can minimize [the Sliwa] vote, because he’ll never be a serious candidate. And Trump himself, as well as top Republicans, will say the goal is to stop Mamdani. And you’ll be wasting your vote on Sliwa.” Cuomo went on to emphasize that he’d be a mayor who could find common ground with Trump:
Are we all going to sing kumbaya my lord around the legacy of Bush, and how he is just a sweet old grandpa, and run a campaign with Cheneys again? No? Just full on Trumpism this round, eh?
I don’t really understand what you’re saying, are you implying the DNC Candidate Mamdani should try to capture the moderates away from Cuomo? That’s really stupid, the DNC are absolutely mopping the floor with independent Cuomo with the current strategy, we shouldn’t change course.
My criticisms are of Cuomo. I feel that’s rather clear. The Democratic Party did a whole song and dance and was in an absolute negative uproar over Mamdani defeating their establishment candidates. Not sure where you’ve been? You can consider the DNC acceptance of Mamdani reluctant at best. Lending the DNC credit for his success is wild imo.
Bill Clinton himself publicly congratulated Mamdani for winning the DNC candidacy. Cuomo is NOT a part of the DNC.
Tbh the lefties seem to be unreachable intractable lazy fuckwits who would rather scratch their ass and type insults on a tiny phone keyboard than be part of a national party that actually wins offices sometimes.
I disagree completely with ‘reaching out’ to moderates, but it’s obvious why the algorithm keeps spitting that out as a viable strategy.
And equally obvious that it’s a strategy that has outlived its usefulness for Dems.
The more I think about this it’s increasingly clear that D is at a threeway crossroads.
A: Continue to blame voters for not buying what they are selling, and for wanting more than “Not Trump, sorry Gaza.” This is the “Let’s become the party for the Republicans that still like to use nice language for their policies of oppression, like the Cheneys and the Romneys” choice. (This is where I fully expect them to head, because it’s clearly what Kamala was told she would be ushering in, and it’s clearly why they have worked so hard against Bernie, Mamdani, AOC, etc.)
If they hold out long enough, this will probably work to buy them votes since the non-maga Republicans are going to want someplace to go eventually, and maga isn’t letting go of R. Non-maga R will see progressives becoming increasingly alienated from establishment D, listen to Cuomo (and plenty of others) talking like a Republican with D behind his name, and it will be an obvious destination for them.
We can go back to 1980 or earlier with regard to social issues and civil rights, and conservatives can declare victory.
B: Realize that anyone who could have brought themselves to vote Trump in 2024 (and frankly, in late 2020) and decided to pull the lever for him was never ever ever going to vote Kamala, no matter what she did, and for the love of god stop trying to win those voters, and instead integrate some progressive platform positions into core D principles, then fight for them instead of always falling back on the pearl-clutching about moderates who might go vote for Goebbels if we let kids get free lunches or give serious effort to police reform, or whatever badly needed improvement we’re being told has to be thrown on the altar of appeasement this week.
edit - and on the topic of appeasement, police reform seems to be the first thing a Democrat is pressured to abandon. Next will probably be Trans rights.
C: Keep doing what they are doing, be useless to everyone but centrists, and watch R dominate and destroy and tear down everything we as a nation have always claimed we believe in and replace it with what it turns out we actually believe in, which is apparently profits above all, self above others, and oppression before charity based on what I’ve seen in recent decades. We can all get tossed in a mass grave in a few decades when we can no longer do something that helps the oligarchs obtain more wealth, but that’s OK because we’ll be in production mode with no abortions and a compliant, uneducated, working class.
Edit: I realized that arguably C is potentially a fork of A, not a separate choice, but I’m leaving it anyway. It will remain true that there’s only one choice where I will vote D in the future, and also true that A and/or C are the only plausible future destinations for the country if they don’t choose B, IMO.
My Kamala vote was my last R-lite vote after far too many in my life.
I feel so happy to not live in the US where apparently the only choices are between a guy who wants to put me in a concentration camp and a guy that has no qualms about putting me in a concentration camp if it got him a few additional percents of votes.
Not sure what your source is for that, but no.
The guy that currently gets hyped up as a possible next democratic presidential candidate, Gavin Newsom, is a transphobic neoliberal that would gladly sell queer people out if he thought that this would help him at the polls.
And he will put trans people in concentration camps? Really?
Why make shit up? Newsom is bad enough already.
Please explain your strategy to address your party repeatedly blocking popular candidates, such as their massive campaign against Bernie in 2016 (who was beloved by moderates and middle classers who ultimately voted Trump) and their tireless work to block candidates like the mayoral candidate for Minneapolis or the mass attack on Mamdani in NYC (just to mention some fresh wounds)?
Not to mention using donations to vehemently block left-leaning parties with all kinds of legal action and disruptive moles while squashing any entry into their own ranks? They spend their time attacking greens and social democrats, meanwhile they break bread with racists and bigots.
If you’ve ever done any activist or grassroot work for labor, direct democracy or mutual aid/community initiatives you know democrats smile to your face and twist a dagger into your back. Trust me. I used to think it was the party of the little guy until I started brushing elbow with the big boys (and gals) at conferences and luncheons. They’re squirmy af and they will lie right to your face.
If you’re not openly advocating for change within your national party you can kindly sit tf down and let those of us who have worked directly with elected officials and their offices to talk. I’m sick of this assumption that leftists only exist online and I hate this categorization. You might as well call anyone who values their community a libtard and an “academic” when you use leftist as a slur. Some of us come right out of trade union labor frontlines and leftist is way too broad a brushstroke to slap on the dynamics of people working to better their communities.
Also, if you’ve never worked in those spaces you have no idea how complicated it is to organize people and how often they’re infiltrated by hostile parties. Dems will also siphon off people on false pretenses and try to absorb them. It’s not just a flat out failure by the left- the hurdles are massive and well funded.
I am SO OVER IT
Sounds like you already know what the strategy is.
What I’m SO OVER is dipshits who think calling a Democrat a libtard is super aware and oh so class-conscious. We get a lot of people from around the world (yay) who want to weigh in on American politics (okay) and come in swinging about “liberals” as if that isn’t what every person to the left of fucking Eisenhower was called their whole lives. (Oh you live in the PNW? Okay, not you.)
Then we get to being bourgeoise and comrade and I gotta say if you’re talking about American politics like that and you don’t understand why you can’t even get enough signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states maybe you should shut the fuck up because you’re sure as shit not helping anyone but yourself.
You wanna talk about raising the minimum wage? Cutting military spending? Restoring green energy investment? Restoring education, science, and public media funding? Great! We already agree so why are you wasting your goddamned genius PoliSci insights bitching about corrupt Democrats by lambasting them all? Fucking morons. Get your ism out of our face, we’re trying to fix what you refused to prevent last November.
Dude, exactly… I’d love to have a viable leftist party in this country, but that doesn’t just magically materialize.
Do you value "your party " “winning” or do you have actual policies you want enacted?
Well the latter isn’t going to happen without the former, right? I mean that seems pretty obvious, but I’m starting to think maybe it’s not.
If the assumption is you want policies enacted; who’s “your party”? Is it not the Democrats? Who, then?
No definitely not a pro capitalist imperialist party that represents the bourgeois. No that is not my party. If you support them despite not following “policies” you claim to support you aren’t going to "move them ".
I couldn’t disagree more, but more to the point what party do you support?
Or if you don’t support a party, what’s the big idea to get progressive policies enacted?