A new Yahoo/YouGov survey finds that about twice as many U.S. adults say they would vote for a candidate with Mamdani’s platform (50%) than say they would not (26%). Could it be a blueprint for Democrats elsewhere?
A new Yahoo/YouGov survey finds that about twice as many U.S. adults say they would vote for a candidate with Mamdani’s platform (50%) than say they would not (26%). Could it be a blueprint for Democrats elsewhere?
So their dislike of him is just because he isn’t white.
Well that and he’s for socialist policies. You see Americans want socialist policies, they just need to get them rebranded first so they don’t have socialist policies.
deleted by creator
Probably also a lot of propaganda.
You get told by every mainstream news everywhere on social media that this is an “evil socialist”.
It’s been a trend for atleast the past 30 years that policy wise the average US voter has been way further to the left than the average party they vote for.
Exactly, the wording is extremely important when talking about policies. People like “helping the poor”, but people hate “welfare”, because that’s communism or something.
Also, the term “welfare” has had so much work done on it over the decades so that it is so racially coded at this point. I bet anything that is measurable in focus groups. A lot of whites tend to not know/conveniently forget that the largest group of welfare recipients are…white.
There probably are ad-men who pride themselves on being able to make any word filthy, or make people love even the filthiest of things. The only obstacle is in who has the most money to spend on the best ad-men and can hire the smartest sociopaths. Checkmate socialists!
I don’t get why this is a mystery to people on the left. They’re going to go to their graves never realizing the policy doesn’t matter. It’s the spread of a message that matters. Most right leaning people I know do like left leaning policy. But the left are so fucking grating and have their heads so far up there own asses that they never actually problem their views effectively. I fully believe that even the stuff that the left focuses on is actually encouraged by the right because it’s the most in your face contentious stuff mixed with “don’t communicate with the right they’re Hitler’s all of them”
You can’t get your policy enacted without support. The right focused on support first then policy but the left did the opposite.
Can you give a more specific example or two of some grating behavior or contentious claims/statements that demonstrate this problem?
While I don’t believe the right is all Hitlers, are we able to agree that at least some small subset of them and of their leadership have truly disturbing ideals and goals that could fairly be compared to those of Nazis?
How do you address individuals who support those people - whether knowingly or in ignorance - without upsetting them, offending them, or putting them on the defensive?
Who cares? How does that have anything to do with the elimination of profit motive in all social goods.
Odd. I could have sworn I was responding to someone else entirely.
I’ll let you on to a secret.
Both left and right leaning political “people”…
Are exactly the same and can have their heads equally shoved up their asses in echo chambers. So much so that they can even be described like they’re two different “people”
I would not say all, or even most of them. But some of the most vocal and the ones with some of the most influence on some platforms certainly are. Endless lecturing and gatekeeping. Struggle sessions, Oppression Olympics, and a cloying sense of superiority about ticking off certain identity boxes. [1]
No wonder some people peel off and start getting red-pilled by the likes of Rogan, FFS. The left has got to get back to the basics - and honestly, some of these most strident cases should be marginalized. I think many are afraid to do so or else the entire circus will be pointed at them next.
The fact that Zohran Mamdani resonates with a whole lot of people has little to do with him being who he is (male, Muslim, Asian, I’m supposing cishet, etc.) and more about his ideas. Same goes with Bernie [2] and AOC. The left should keep this in mind at all times, IMHO.
[1] As always, I point to the former comment section (BBS) of BoingBoing as an example of this. It was cartoonish-level. Xitter is really fucking bad whenever I dip into it, but on BoingBoing, the moderators were completely in the tank for this nonsense. Some of the BB subreddit threads cover the clusterfuck that was the BBS…
Having the term “socialist” in his description “Democrat socialist of america” is gonna turn off a lot of people. It’s a dirty word in the US.
I want mandatory vacations, nationalization of the shorelines, nationalization of all oil reserves, if some companies drills - they need to be paying tax on what they extract.
That would mean the US would have to invade itself to restore democracy, much like when other countries wanted to nationalize their own fucking resources…
Good thing they’re not part of the ICC!
Not necessarily, the US now has a long track record of progressive policies being super popular when they’re not associated with Democrats.