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?
Abstract policies are a notoriously poor way of polling for voting patterns.
But it seems most people don’t have a strong opinion on our New York boy, which is honestly the best we could ask for at this junction. May
Zohran the DESTROYER’S enemies be DESTROYEDMamdani succeed and, for our sakes if not necessarily his, go on to national politics after. Gods know we need him.The poll says 46% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats outside of New York don’t have an opinion on a guy running to be Mayor of New York.
Clickbaitey article headline implies not having an opinion on a politician running for mayor in another city means the same as being unfavorable towards that politician. Yes he has a low favorable number but a massive “no opinion” number because should people give a shit about a politician in another city?
New Yorkers may like to to think they’re the center of the world, but shockingly over 40% of people outside of New York probably don’t know who this guy is because why should they?
It’s kind of dumb, because politicians don’t really matter aside from their policy.
I guess that means that most of the attack ads probably had some impact and that US voters are against this guy, but can’t remember why?
I swear sometimes it feels were in an disinformation dark ages. Like dehydrating on a boat in the ocean.
Lack of credible news sources. It’s all entertainment now. Those in power are afraid of a well-informed electorate. However, as Americans, it’s our duty to cut through the bs
yeah but fooooooooooooootbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall!!! woooooooooooooooooooooooo
Policies mesn nothing without trust
Yeah, thing is Democrats are on the same side of the class war as Republicans.
The ghouls, sewer-dwelling demons, and subterranean goblins are all assembling their forces to defeat Mamdani.
Don’t forget the bridge-residing trolls, splitter!
So their dislike of him is just because he isn’t white.
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!
make people love even the filthiest of things
This is why Karl Rove’s nickname was “turd blossom”.
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.
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
Can you give a more specific example or two of some grating behavior or contentious claims/statements that demonstrate this problem?
mixed with “don’t communicate with the right they’re Hitler’s all of them”
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?
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?
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”
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 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…
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
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.
Don’t need to be a certain color or gender to get the job done correctly to help the people.
This survey seems to suggest otherwise.
Many, including myself, see Trumps wins as backlash by legacy European settler descendants for to a part African man serving two terms as president.
One thing that drives me crazy is when Progressives insist on talking about Socialism.
Talk about the policies and ignore everything else.
I understand what you’re saying. Unfortunately the amount of right-wing propaganda out there will label any real challenger as being socialist whether that’s Mamdani or the “radical marxist socialist commie” that was… Kamala Harris?
So progressives must decide whether they hide from the term, enabling the fearmongering, or openly embracing it to show there is nothing wrong with it.
Second to that, I feel they should be pivoting the questions not just to policy but to definitionally explain the notion of socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracies; how in reality — as in actual, realized, tangible results, not utopian fantasies — some of the happiest and most successful countries by the data are ones who embraced a properly mixed economy; that is, social democracies or the Nordic Model.
I recently had what was maybe one of my biggest wins in a conversation with a maga by explaining it this way. They’re so damn confused and believe all trade and bartering, all markets, and any scale of monetary income will vanish. That big bad guv’mint isn’t necessarily so bad when it’s protected from outsized corporate and billionaire power and firmly in the hands Of the People.
I mean, if someone wants to call themselves socialist, maybe it’s fine, but I think most of their discussion should be about the policies they are for, how they would work, etc., and what that would mean for everyday Americans.
Once the qons throw out that tar baby Red Scare stuff, and the target(s) start engaging with them on this, tacitly accepting the framings and the definitions that the qons have chosen? Game over. Now the target(s) are on the back foot, trying to prove they aren’t the demons a lot of normies and qons have been trained to think anyone with those labels really are, and they get to wrestle the tar baby endlessly.
Instead of doing that, I suggest these people make the qons justify THEIR positions. How is it morally defensible that the likes of Taco and fElon got out their chainsaw and have already murdered hundreds of thousands of children and jeopardizes millions more in the future? As an example on the national stage.
If progressives waste tons of time defending themselves, arguing over the absurd framing and definitions and terms that the qons have spent decades sharpening, they are already losing. Their narrative should be about painting a brighter future for every American, while demanding the qons defend THEIR reprehensible actions and political platforms.
So progressives must decide whether they hide from the term, enabling the fearmongering, or openly embracing it to show there is nothing wrong with it.
I’ve been wondering, what if they just ran in the opposite direction? Don’t call it “state-owned industry” or “collective ownership”, but instead “Hypercapitalism: every citizen is a shareholder!”
Work should provide ownership. Worker-owned co-ops should be the default form of business organization. We should write it into corporate charter law that any business over a certain number of employees must gradually transition to a worker-owned co-op. For example, maybe every company over 30 employees must transfer 2% of its equity to its employees each year. This would mean after about 35 years, the business would be majority owned by its employees. Business founders and investors can still make plenty of profit, but you prevent the accumulation of generational wealth. You prevent the formation of an aristocracy by slowly transferring the ownership of company’s from their founders to their employees over time. (And obviously you have a lot of other policy details to make this work, such as not just having a flat threshold. Always have to point this out as the “umm aktually” brigade likes to confuse aspirational policy descriptions for actual legislation.)
“This is a policy Eisenhower endorsed in 1956. Are you saying Ike was a Communist?”
I just realized Ike was our last (openly) bald President.
Or… they just completely ignore it?
If you’re going to be labeled a socialist and commie sympathizer no matter what you do, why not just run on your platform and brush off the accusations as political hubris?
As far as my decision-making on that would go, I think it would depend on if the actual electorate is believing that mischaracterization, and if I have access to actually respond directly to those people or not.
In a debate for instance, I’d aim to hand-wave that away in dismissal but then pivot and say, "let’s talk about what I really envision for our country and you can tell me if that sounds good to you…[explains]… And so for these great things, you’ll probably end up asking, “but how will we pay for it? [explains ROI, our excess costs now, the amount of wealth of the billionaire class and corporate coffers, etc.]”
If after that the debate moderator or opponent continues to push hard on, “but are you a socialist. Are you a communist!?” I’d take that as an invitation to say explain the differences and how the happiest countries of the world are properly mixed economies between the spectrum of socialism to laissez-faire capitalism.
So, your plan is to waste debate time and call yourself a Socialist.
Why not do something like say “This is what Ike backed back when he was President. Are you calling Ike a Communist?”
So, your plan is to waste debate time and call yourself a Socialist.
No. That is a mischaracterization and oversimplification of what I wrote (like how did you get that from my second paragraph?). I’m already going to be called a socialist; and until the word and others like it are unpacked, they will always be used to fearmonger. Best to address it head-on and take away the power to demonize. I mean just see how many times Mamdani was asked about it during his latest interviews, including with NPR. You have to confront it because it’s a curiosity with the unknown for so many people.
At its core, you must rewire the literal circuitry of people’s brains to link policies -> socialism, or better yet, Nordic model. But if you don’t strongly link these policies to a ideological package, people will feel adrift. It’s why political parties are so attractive. People like pigeon-holing things. Granted, I would also say that I am not a socialist, but a social democrat and strong advocate of a mixed Nordic Model economy— which itself is overwhelmingly more palatable for swing-voters, and even some Trump supporters I’ve talked with.
Why not do something like say “This is what Ike backed back when he was President. Are you calling Ike a Communist?”
I’m open to saying that; but neither is that mutually-exclusive to what I intended to say. And if it was Trump I’m debating, he probably would say “yes, that Ike was a communist” or “no Ike couldn’t be a commie, he was a Republican!” And then ramble on incoherently about cats & dogs.
No doubt, you need quick-witted quips back in debates that go on the attack, I agree. In fairness my response is probably better suited for a town hall or interview.
NGL, the Birchers were rather famous for declaring him as a conscious agent of the “communist conspiracy”.
The people we are dealing with are either current/former Birchers, or their ideological result.
But it’d be good to out just how extreme these people really are by getting them to go on the record about just what they believe. I mean…Eisenhower, commie? LOL.
I mean haven’t the likes of Chomsky and Cenk been pointing this out for decades? When polling Americans on the issues, they tend to be progressive?
That’s in spite of a helluva lot of propaganda that is nonstop, 24/7, in favor of corporations, by the way…
Yes this has been a known fact for like 30 years. But somehow it feels like no one internalised it so I keep sharing examples.
Please do continue. The usual trope that “most people are cons” is common currency, nearly everywhere, even though it’s false.
Just say that he wants the Epstein files released.
Could it be a blueprint for Democrats elsewhere?
Democrats elsewhere: “For messaging right? A blueprint for our messaging? Right?”
