|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 21 2025 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2025 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2025 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2025 03:44 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2025 02:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Clyburn (who you may remember from saving Biden's 2020 primary run) endorsed Cuomo as representing the future of the Democrat party.
That's bad. The answer is still the same, primary them. Wonder if the Democrats that give a shit can be bothered to get out to actually replace these people rather then complain online. Who do you mean? Give a shit about what? EDIT: Should be noted Cuomo is Democrats current favorite for "replacing these people", referring to the current corrupt Democrat getting shamed out of his position. I should have phrased it differently. Lets see if the voters who give a shit can be bothered to get out and vote to replace these people. Still unclear on what they're supposed to "give a shit" about? Cuomo donors/voters/endorsers give shits about things. fine, if you wanne play dumb I see no point in engaging with you further. gz, you once again managed to alienate people who agree with you. it really is a gift. I'm not playing dumb, you're being stubbornly vague about what you mean for them to "give a shit" about for no apparent reason. Let's also not pretend your "can be bothered to get out to actually replace these people rather then complain online" wasn't an intentionally antagonistic and alienating response from you in the first place either please. EDIT: Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 05:16 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like every single person of course understands what they meant by "give a shit" Articulate it for me then please?
Democrats that ostensibly dislike people like Cuomo being in a position of power
|
On June 21 2025 05:30 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2025 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2025 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2025 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2025 03:44 Gorsameth wrote:The answer is still the same, primary them. Wonder if the Democrats that give a shit can be bothered to get out to actually replace these people rather then complain online. Who do you mean? Give a shit about what? EDIT: Should be noted Cuomo is Democrats current favorite for "replacing these people", referring to the current corrupt Democrat getting shamed out of his position. I should have phrased it differently. Lets see if the voters who give a shit can be bothered to get out and vote to replace these people. Still unclear on what they're supposed to "give a shit" about? Cuomo donors/voters/endorsers give shits about things. fine, if you wanne play dumb I see no point in engaging with you further. gz, you once again managed to alienate people who agree with you. it really is a gift. I'm not playing dumb, you're being stubbornly vague about what you mean for them to "give a shit" about for no apparent reason. Let's also not pretend your "can be bothered to get out to actually replace these people rather then complain online" wasn't an intentionally antagonistic and alienating response from you in the first place either please. EDIT: On June 21 2025 05:16 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like every single person of course understands what they meant by "give a shit" Articulate it for me then please? Democrats that ostensibly dislike people like Cuomo being in a position of power
That's more or less what I was thinking until the "correction" from "Democrats" to "voters".
Might be easier for someone to articulate it as "people that vote for Cuomo don't give a shit about _____"
|
I dont think hes referring to people who are voting for Cuomo, hes referring to everyone who doesnt want Cuomo but doesnt often vote in primarys, basically asking if Democrats that dislike Cuomo dislike him enough to actually go out and vote without ranking Cuomo (adding the nuance of how the NY mayoral election works into this on my own.)
|
Progressive voters have long complained about how awful the democratic party is (and they are right), yet despite the tea party giving a public showing of how to change the direction of a political party, it seems progressive voters are not coming out to primaries to force the party further left by pushing more left leaning candidates.
This latest example of yet another case of the established democratic party being shit by pushing for Cuomo gets the same response. All these US progressives on the internet complaining about how bad the democratic party is need to actually go and vote in primaries to push the party left. And either they can't be arsed to do so, or they don't actually exist because best as I can see from across the pond here is that there is no movement to the left and in fact the party is going further right.
Presumably these people on the internet complaining about Cuomo give a shit about politics, because they are on the internet complaining about it.
They need to go out and vote in primaries at the local and state level and not just (fail to) show up for the general election.
|
To be fair I dont think any of us live in NYC
|
I said something similar to the following a few pages ago, but: There's this curious narrative common among progressives that the American people are overwhelmingly progressive, it's just elected Democrats and their donors that are fully into neoliberalism, and any time progressives don't win Democratic primaries it's because of the nefarious influence of the DNC and dark money.
It just flatly isn't true. There are tens of millions of people out there that were genuinely excited for Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden, thought Bernie Sanders was too radical, would prioritize tax cuts over single-payer healthcare, want stricter police accountability more than deep reforms, etc. Spend some time with older (Gen X and boomer) black and Latino Democrats and you'll likely see it for yourself first hand. There's a reason Cuomo is dominating those demographics.
Centrist Democrats do a lot of shit that infuriates me but let's not kid ourselves into thinking progressive Dems would wipe them out in a fair playing field.
|
I mean, a lot of progressive policy is very popular though. Im not sure the argument is that Americans are progressive so much as an enormous amount of Americans are in favor of a lot of progressive policy which would help the Democrats win elections if the Democrat party apparatus wasn't so hellbent on prioritizing their donor class.
Like, a MAGA type who lives in a blighted helltown that was strangled by the death of American manufacturing, they're probably reachable via progressivism compared to the neoliberalism that was one of the hands strangling their town to death and that they identify with mocking and scorning them and their concerns. Yeah, theyre statistically probably socially awful, but if they can be made more comfortable, more confident in society maybe we can pull them back out of right wing reactionary bullshit.
Policy that focuses on materially improving the lives of the common person is fairly popular, if it was implemented strongly I would wager it would be super popular.
|
United States43949 Posts
Hillary promised coal miners retraining and investment in new industries. Trump promised them black lung disease. He said that the reason coal wasn’t profitable was because paying for the prevention of black lung was killing profits. He promised them that he’d roll back protections and that they’d have lungs as black as their grandfather’s. They voted for the black lung.
|
On June 21 2025 07:01 KwarK wrote:
Hillary promised coal miners retraining and investment in new industries. Trump promised them black lung disease. He said that the reason coal wasn’t profitable was because paying for the prevention of black lung was killing profits. He promised them that he’d roll back protections and that they’d have lungs as black as their grandfather’s. They voted for the black lung.
Noone trusts a Democrat to do anything
|
On June 21 2025 06:45 Zambrah wrote:
I mean, a lot of progressive policy is very popular though. Im not sure the argument is that Americans are progressive so much as an enormous amount of Americans are in favor of a lot of progressive policy which would help the Democrats win elections if the Democrat party apparatus wasn't so hellbent on prioritizing their donor class.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you ask "do you support single payer healthcare?" you'll get very high numbers, like 60 to 80%. But if you phrase it like "would you rather vote for someone who vows to pass single payer or someone who vows a tax cut for the middle class?", it's going to be a lot more divisive, even if you can mathematically prove that single payer is a better value for your vote than a tax cut.
If progressive policies were really as wildly popular as you'd imagine, Bernie would've been president in 2017 by a landslide. The fact is though that people really don't turn out to vote for those supposedly popular policies except in places that are already relatively blue.
|
On June 21 2025 07:19 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 06:45 Zambrah wrote:
I mean, a lot of progressive policy is very popular though. Im not sure the argument is that Americans are progressive so much as an enormous amount of Americans are in favor of a lot of progressive policy which would help the Democrats win elections if the Democrat party apparatus wasn't so hellbent on prioritizing their donor class. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you ask "do you support single payer healthcare?" you'll get very high numbers, like 60 to 80%. But if you phrase it like "would you rather vote for someone who vows to pass single payer or someone who vows a tax cut for the middle class?", it's going to be a lot more divisive, even if you can mathematically prove that single payer is a better value for your vote than a tax cut. If progressive policies were really as wildly popular as you'd imagine, Bernie would've been president in 2017 by a landslide. The fact is though that people really don't turn out to vote for those supposedly popular policies except in places that are already relatively blue.
That first sentence is whats important, progressive dont advocate for increased taxes on the middle class, progressives advocate for increased taxes on the tippiest top classes, for them to pay their fair share, so even ignoring that policies arent polled against one another in elections, especially ones that ostensibly have very little to do with each other, I dont find this example to be particularly sensical.
I dont have to imagine, there are polls, the issue isnt the policy being popular, the issue is getting people energized to vote, to get them to have faith in a system that has, over our lifetimes, proven itself corrupt and incompetent.
Democrats often say things that people should like, but people dont believe they have any intention of doing what they say theyll do because we have seen that Democrats arent competent or theyre liars who dont actually want to do what they say theyll do. Its not that Democrats have super unpopular policy "wants," they're more mixed-bag, its that people dont have any faith or trust in them to do anything they say that is in conflict with what their donors want.
So its not a simple issue of policy popularity, its about restoring faith in institutions, restoring faith in elected officials, restoring people's faith that they actually do have a meaningful voice in their government too.
One of the reasons Bernie was able to make progressivism as popular as it is is because hes completely authentic and consistent, hes not a waffling husk with thoughts and opinions dictated by whatever poll has more recently been downloaded into his brain by a cadre of campaign staff dumbasses, hes had a long lifetime of consistent beliefs. If someone like Hillary or Kamala was the face of progressivism it would be the smallest fraction as popular as it is now because trust and authenticity and very much linked at this moment in time.
|
So, since you seem to have given basically zero credence to everything I've pointed out, what's your explanation for why Cuomo is outperforming Mamdani by double digits among older BIPOC voters in NYC?
|
On June 21 2025 07:49 LightSpectra wrote:
So, since you seem to have given basically zero credence to everything I've pointed out, what's your explanation for why Cuomo is outperforming Mamdani by double digits among older BIPOC voters in NYC?
Because Mamdani came out of nowhere and Cuomo is extremely famous?
|
On June 21 2025 02:55 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2025 12:39 Zambrah wrote:On June 20 2025 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2025 10:24 Zambrah wrote:On June 20 2025 09:43 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2025 23:52 Zambrah wrote:On June 19 2025 23:47 KT_Elwood wrote:On June 19 2025 23:17 Zambrah wrote:On June 19 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:
More nukes is worse. People acting like Iran is some rational actor who only wants a nuke for self defense should look into how that regime treats their own people and how expansionist they have been. Basically every leader of every country, even some of Iran's allies agree. The disagreement is on how to stop them from getting it. Is the implication here that basically every leader of every country thinks that Iran wants to nuke Israel and whoever else regardless of the obvious annihilation it would bring upon the entirety of Iran? It's the Leadership of iran constantly telling the world that they totally would nuke israel if they could, even unprovoked by a war or attack, if israel doesn't dissolve itself, their mission statement is to destroy it. So I guess their FAFO is in the FO phase. Using more acronyms.. it also seems like TACO holds true for everything since diaper bombs don't translate well to bunker breaking bombs. My guess is that they aren't sure about GBU 57 being able to break the facility, and Trump doesn't want big beautifull bomb to be a bummer for him. I guess I just dont actually believe weirdos when they bluster about how they totally would destroy their enemies even at the expense of their own lives and comfort. But they literally do attack Israel already in a way that has absolutely led to the expense of their own lives and comfort. So why would you not believe it? It already happens. Because a nuclear weapon attack is different? By a lot? In your eyes, what reason does Iran have to attack Israel? Personally I think Khameini knows how this story ends and he’s just expressing his resentment while trying to end up in more history books. Tehran won’t ever have air defenses again either way. So there isn’t really a future where Iran can get back to business as usual without Israel’s consent. Because Israel is aggressive and everyone in the middle east seems to mostly hate each other's guts? I also find a future where Israel is the hegemonic power of the middle east a grim future given the way Israel has behaved itself wtih regards to the Palestinians. If Iran's missiles are not weakening Israel's ability to attack Iran and they are not deterring Israel, what is the result of Iran shooting missiles at Israel? Also, generally speaking, a non-nuclear military is usually not able to completely dominate another military pursuing nuclear weapons. North vs South Korea, Pakistan vs India, US vs USSR are all examples of military powers who were roughly equal and didn't have the capability to prevent the other from getting nukes without risking their own existence. Iran is a huge outlier in terms of overall military strength relative to their nuclear ambitions. They have been totally humiliated by Israel. I still think people are not quite giving enough attention to the fact that Israel has controlled Tehran's airspace for 3-5 days already. Ukraine keeping control of Kyiv in the early days of the Russian invasion is widely cited as the main reason they managed to hold on. Everyone agrees the war was totally over if Russia took Kyiv. Iran pretending this is still a war or a negotiation is purely the jihad talking. I mean it's pretty clear from a military perspective that Iran is trying to exhaust the Israeli capacity to defend from the salvos, more and more stuff has been getting through and they might be waiting to throw something big in order to say "OK, so we can do this again so let's talk ceasefire". My guess is that soonish they'll try to trully overwhelm the missile shield to do serious damage, perhaps coordinating with Houthis and Hesbolah with shorter range stuff in order to do that. They might think that will make US or Israel think twice but it's more likely it just ends up in all out war and a lot of dead people, mostly Iranians, but they are kind of backed into a corner.
I think the one variable you are missing in your assessment is that Iran's ballistic missile launching capability is drastically reduced. Once they gained air superiority they basically just blow up the launchers every time they attack Israel. Israel has also destroyed a bunch of the trucks they use to transport the missiles. So I don't think Iran will be able to launch in a way that would completely over run Israel's air defenses. And then the ballistic missile defense is different from the Iron dome which shoots down the shorter range rockets, I'm sure all at once is more complicated but they won't really overwhelm each other.
Israel fields three tiers of missile defence systems, Rumbaugh said. “At the lowest tier is Iron Dome, which has gotten more popularity just because it gets used a lot more often against rocket and maybe lower-tier cruise missile attacks. Every time that Hamas shoots rockets at Israel, that’s where Iron Dome comes in.”
Article content
Recent exchanges with Iran “are more illustrative of some of the higher tier systems — that’s The Arrow missile defence system or the David’s Sling missile defence system,” he said.
Article content
“Those systems intercept longer range missiles coming from Iranian territory. The Arrow system intercepts them” outside of the earth’s atmosphere, Rumbaugh said.
On June 21 2025 05:16 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like every single person of course understands what they meant by "give a shit"
Yes obviously, it is when someone gets so mad they go full primate and throw their poop, or in shortened vernacular "give a shit".
|
On June 21 2025 07:51 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 07:49 LightSpectra wrote:
So, since you seem to have given basically zero credence to everything I've pointed out, what's your explanation for why Cuomo is outperforming Mamdani by double digits among older BIPOC voters in NYC? Because Mamdani came out of nowhere and Cuomo is extremely famous?
Do you have a better explanation than the condescending insinuation that BIPOC voters only care about name recognition?
|
On June 21 2025 07:52 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 07:51 Zambrah wrote:On June 21 2025 07:49 LightSpectra wrote:
So, since you seem to have given basically zero credence to everything I've pointed out, what's your explanation for why Cuomo is outperforming Mamdani by double digits among older BIPOC voters in NYC? Because Mamdani came out of nowhere and Cuomo is extremely famous? Do you have a better explanation than the condescending insinuation that BIPOC voters only care about name recognition?
Its not condescension that name recognition is a huge boost in an election, if Trump didnt have his crappy TV show and wasnt a very recognizable figure we'd probably have President Hillary Clinton (or maybe Cruz, but Cruz seems even less likeable than Hillary which is a high bar to clear.)
You seem to want to boil things down into simpler terms, but this shit is multifaceted and complicated.
My view on the mayoral election are,
1. Zohran Mamdani has done an exceptional job for a young unknown progressive, he is a prime example of the kind of talent that the DNC should be cultivating. He doesnt have institutional investment, he doesnt have name recognition, he doesnt have basic-bitch-Democrat beliefs, what he has is being within a political movement that is good at generating grassroots enthusiasm, on top of generally being pretty charismatic and smart, and having policies that people want.
2. Cuomo sucks, hes a sex offender, but he is very famous, he was the NY governor, he has institutional backing and institutional money, he has the standard package of big advantages, he isnt an insurmountable challenge for Zohran, but its a lot to overcome and Zohran is doing an exceptional job.
3. We just had a hideously corrupt middle of the road brand corporate pro cop Democrat that people insist is the smart choice for elections, he was awful, he was famously terrible and corrupt, hopping on the MAGA train when it turned out he was grossly corrupt publicly. This is another disadvantage for Cuomo, in my opinion, because he shares the same political brand as Adams.
4. This makes a very competitive race, which is very impressive for an unknown rando with a more radical platform (including government run grocery stores and free childcare) vs. the general brand of shitty Democrat. That people see this as progressives being weak is weird to me, the movement is relatively new and the success its seen has been pretty damn good, it would probably be even more effective if Democrats did a better job of supporting these smart, young, energetic candidates instead of keeping them on the back burner for the Cuomos and Connollys and Bidens of the world.
|
It's somewhat difficult to have a conversation about this when you ostensibly start to answer my question but soapbox about something unrelated and never actually answer it.
|
On June 21 2025 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:Progressive voters have long complained about how awful the democratic party is (and they are right), yet despite the tea party giving a public showing of how to change the direction of a political party, + Show Spoiler +it seems progressive voters are not coming out to primaries to force the party further left by pushing more left leaning candidates.
This latest example of yet another case of the established democratic party being shit by pushing for Cuomo gets the same response. All these US progressives on the internet complaining about how bad the democratic party is need to actually go and vote in primaries to push the party left. And either they can't be arsed to do so, or they don't actually exist because best as I can see from across the pond here is that there is no movement to the left and in fact the party is going further right.
Presumably these people on the internet complaining about Cuomo give a shit about politics, because they are on the internet complaining about it.
They need to go out and vote in primaries at the local and state level and not just (fail to) show up for the general election.
Which Koch brother is the progressive one?
Honestly though, do progressives have an organization like the Tea Party with billionaires funding and networking for them? If not, then their example isn't exactly transferable to progressives, is it?
On June 21 2025 07:52 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 07:51 Zambrah wrote:On June 21 2025 07:49 LightSpectra wrote:
So, since you seem to have given basically zero credence to everything I've pointed out, what's your explanation for why Cuomo is outperforming Mamdani by double digits among older BIPOC voters in NYC? Because Mamdani came out of nowhere and Cuomo is extremely famous? Do you have a better explanation than the condescending insinuation that BIPOC voters only care about name recognition?
Welp
On June 01 2025 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2025 04:01 Legan wrote:
Seems really embarrassing for democrats to have Andrew Cuomo be the leading candidate for them in New York. Such a fresh face for them. Wait for after the first debate (which is on June 4). Right now most people are just answering polls based on name recognition.
I think Zam's explanation is pretty good, what's yours now?
|
On June 21 2025 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Welp
"Welp" what? The debate took Cuomo from an overwhelming landslide down to what looks to be a nailbiter finish, so that was a huge win for Mamdani compared to where he was weeks ago.
I think Zam's explanation is pretty good, what's yours now?
I explained above. The idea that an overwhelming majority of Democrats quietly yearn for progressive policies but they keep getting tricked into voting for centrist liberals by the dastardly DNC is simply not real life. If you go out and talk to a wide range of Democratic voters, especially older BIPOC ones, they genuinely do have closer social and economic beliefs to 90s Clintonism than Bernie Sanders. There are actually a huge number of people who love Clinton/Obama/Cuomo-style politics and it's not because they're stupid.
I say this as a progressive who voted for Sanders in both the 2016 and 2020 primaries. Yes, there actually is a large centrist liberal demographic, they aren't just multimillionaires deceiving people into voting against their wishes.
|
On June 21 2025 08:20 LightSpectra wrote:
It's somewhat difficult to have a conversation about this when you ostensibly start to answer my question but soapbox about something unrelated and never actually answer it.
Your question was answered, it was worth precisely one sentence,
Its not condescension that name recognition is a huge boost in an election,
and I offered you an example of a politician whose rise to power hinged heavily on his name recognition,
if Trump didnt have his crappy TV show and wasnt a very recognizable figure we'd probably have President Hillary Clinton
You brought up BIPOC for some reason, I didnt mention it, I also didnt insinuate it because I didnt bring up BIPOC voters or anything particular to BIPOC voters.
Because Mamdani came out of nowhere and Cuomo is extremely famous?
You'll notice that that of the words in this sentence none of them are BIPOC, I dont understand where youre reading BIPOC voters into these words, in this instance any BIPOC voters in the NYC mayoral primary are people I am considering part of the broad electorate for this election, and name recognition is not something I can identify as having a unique effect on BIPOC people. I dont know why you think it does, but people being broadly famous in a state because they were that state's governor and also notorious for a sex offending scandal does not strike me as having anything unique to do with BIPOC voters.
Do you have a better explanation than the condescending insinuation that BIPOC voters only care about name recognition?
The idea that an overwhelming majority of Democrats quietly yearn for progressive policies but they keep getting tricked into voting for centrist liberals by the dastardly DNC is simply not real life
Not my view, and I dont believe I've said that.
especially older BIPOC ones, they genuinely do have closer social and economic beliefs to 90s Clintonism than Bernie Sanders.
There are a lot of older americans, black americans in particular, who remember a time when Democrats did things and their lives were bettered for it (there are still plenty of people who are alive now that were born during a time when they werent allowed to go to the same school as white people) and maintain that loyalty to the party that once helped them. If you ever wonder why the young generations dont fuck with basic bitch Democrats so much its because basic bitch Democrats havent done anything for them, people dont trust Democrat policitians because we've lived lives of seeing them ostensibly "try" and fail to do even moderately good things.
The world gets more expensive, rents spike, food costs more, there is a constant stream of once-in-a-lifetime crises, we suffer the effects of de-industrialization and we watch as that suffering is transfigured into massive wealth inequality, and all of this has been presided over by Democrats as well as Republicans. There is a reason people are becoming so vehemently anti-establishment. The older BIPOC demographic remembers a time when that establishment was competent, the younger generation doesnt have that experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
