|
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 09:23 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote: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: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: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? Do you need it? Yeah sure the Kochs are pumping money in, but there’s already a demand for those politics to begin with. Momentum is self-perpetuating, you don’t throw money at a lost cause, you invest it wisely so it’s a worthwhile investment. I find there’s a tendency from the left to ascribe far too much on the right to astroturfing. These aren’t shitbags because the Koch’s threw some money around, they were shitbags already and you share a country with them.
Also the idea that progressives don't have money flowing everywhere is just wrong. It's amazing though that somehow the Koch's still come up. Again, stuck in the 2000s and 2010s. If the Koch's were in charge Trump wouldn't be president.
|
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? In cases like this I legit wonder how many of those supporting Cuomo are even aware of the extent of the allegations against him.
You would think it would be impossible not to be as a resident of NY but reality might surprise you. We here are all pretty active on politics but tons of people barely read the news and absolutely do not engage with politics, yet go out to vote on largely name recognition.
|
On June 21 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 07:52 LightSpectra wrote: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? In cases like this I legit wonder how many of those supporting Cuomo are even aware of the extent of the allegations against him. You would think it would be impossible not to be as a resident of NY but reality might surprise you. We here are all pretty active on politics but tons of people barely read the news and absolutely do not engage with politics, yet go out to vote on largely name recognition.
It could also be a mix of "not being up to date politically / not being aware of the sexual harassment allegations" and "not caring / not thinking that should be a relevant factor in voting for a leader / hearing about the issue but believing it's a conspiracy designed to wrongfully assassinate his character", similar to why people still voted for Donald Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
|
On June 21 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 07:52 LightSpectra wrote: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? In cases like this I legit wonder how many of those supporting Cuomo are even aware of the extent of the allegations against him. You would think it would be impossible not to be as a resident of NY but reality might surprise you. We here are all pretty active on politics but tons of people barely read the news and absolutely do not engage with politics, yet go out to vote on largely name recognition.
yes. however I would add that the standards have been lowered dramatically, I mean Trump is POTUS. again.
weighing it like that - I am aware it is despicable and insane but alas looking at what is going on...
why can't Cuomo come back when Trump can? that is the unfortunate reality. winning > all.
even if you created hell by doing it.
"when they go low we go high", Michelle O. said.
"we are not going back", Kamala H. said.
well turns out they could not have been more wrong.
as long as this insane equation makes sense for the political class(politicians/donors/media lackeys/consultants...) and voters do not correct course and demand better, nothing will change. at least not for the better as it turns out.
|
|
|
On June 21 2025 11:10 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 10:12 WombaT wrote:On June 21 2025 10:02 Zambrah wrote:On June 21 2025 09:23 WombaT wrote:On June 21 2025 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote: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: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: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? Do you need it? Yeah sure the Kochs are pumping money in, but there’s already a demand for those politics to begin with. Momentum is self-perpetuating, you don’t throw money at a lost cause, you invest it wisely so it’s a worthwhile investment. I find there’s a tendency from the left to ascribe far too much on the right to astroturfing. These aren’t shitbags because the Koch’s threw some money around, they were shitbags already and you share a country with them. Its hard to deny that a big part of why the right has so much media pull is because of right wing investment though, like not many left wing billionaires out there for obvious reasons, so there are fewer people to just pour money into the left wing propaganda machine (the proper left wing propaganda machine, not the CNN wing propaganda machine.) The left just needs the kind of organic bottom-up grass roots style of support more since its not going to be financed by right wing billionaires or center-right wing billionaires. Its why people like Zohran Mamdani's successes are aspirational, its paving a new (to us) pathway to electoral power, and while I dont exactly have faith in that system, as someone who will take any wins I can get, I think its a win. Even if he loses, he shows that theres a lot of power in being young, energetic, smart, and authentically wielding popular policies. I basically entirely agree, I just disagree with how some frame it. The right wing propoganda machine isn’t effective because it’s throwing shitloads of money into converting reticent people. It’s effective because they’re already pretty receptive to those ideas. A leftist response that’s predicated on the assumption that all of these things are astroturfed is bound to fail. Yeah, Id agree, I would characterize most people as fairly fundamentally malleable, especially during the younger years, right wing media has very much abused both the general air of despair in American society alongside algorithms pushing the manosphere content bullshit to attract a lot more people. Id argue that the cohort that is really into the manosphere could have wound up as leftists/progressives but the general content ecosystem is flooded with right wing freaks funded by monied right wing freaks. Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 10:08 LightSpectra wrote:On June 21 2025 08:55 Zambrah wrote:
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. OK, so you agree there is a market for centrist liberalism and that there are many people who subscribe to this ideologically? And moreover, that for progressives to win they have to capture this audience as well, so consistently describing them in pejorative ways like "low information" and whatnot is probably counterproductive, right? On June 21 2025 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
Pretty clear you made the argument that the majority of his support comes from name recognition, so your attempt to act like someone else pointing that out is condescending (with the implication being it is racist) disgusts me. The question was why, at the time, was Cuomo polling at 80% despite being highly controversial. He was, at that time, winning pretty much every demographic. Name recognition explains why this was true at that point in time (i.e. polls are almost meaningless at that stage of an election), but does not explain why he's still around ~50% after Mamdani owned him in the debates and has had a viral social media campaign. If you are still asserting at this point that Cuomo is winning older black and Latino folk overwhelmingly just because they recognize his name, then surely you understand the condescending presumptions behind that, right? Now, in case my point isn't clear, I'll restate it once again. The progressive rhetoric about how "mainstream Dems have consistently failed us because they're slaves to big money donors" works for a certain demographic, but it's noxious to the type of people that genuinely like Clinton and Biden. These people are not idiots being duped into voting against their own interests, so talking about them as such is not helping progressives win any elections. It's more helpful to learn what their perspectives are so we can appeal to them in engaging ways, rather than simply repeating the same failed strategy of "energizing the base" that hasn't worked for anyone except AOC. Theres a market for basically every ideology, especially ones that are extremely mainstream like basic bitch Democrat centrist liberalism, yes. Yes, many Democrats would probably subscribe to this sort of ideology, though I dont believe theres actually a lot of principled attachment to that particular ideology, I believe people generally subscribe to it because its what the Democrats are and people identify themselves as Democrats.
This is the thing I keep trying to tell you is not the case. Half of Democrats would vote for a tax cut before they'd vote for universal healthcare.
I dont actually think progressives need to capture that audience, I think that audience is actually extremely Vote Blue No Matter Who, and that is a vote that, by its own admission, requires no appeals or concessions.
You certainly need to win them if you want progressives to win Democratic primaries and not be stuck with people like Cuomo.
Can you please find me where I said centrists were being duped into voting against their interests?
I don't know if you personally have ever suggested this, but it's an extremely common sentiment expressed by Internet progressives.
|
On June 21 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 07:52 LightSpectra wrote: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? In cases like this I legit wonder how many of those supporting Cuomo are even aware of the extent of the allegations against him. You would think it would be impossible not to be as a resident of NY but reality might surprise you. We here are all pretty active on politics but tons of people barely read the news and absolutely do not engage with politics, yet go out to vote on largely name recognition.
Ok, but my point was name recognition explains why Cuomo had a 80% lead months ago but how he's at about 50%. But that doesn't explain why certain demographics tend toward him over others, unless you're insinuating that those demographics vote based on nothing except name recognition, which is lazy and prejudiced. There actually is a reason and it behooves us to understand their thought process instead of dismissing them and then being bewildered when your preferred candidate loses the election.
|
On June 21 2025 23:24 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2025 07:52 LightSpectra wrote: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? In cases like this I legit wonder how many of those supporting Cuomo are even aware of the extent of the allegations against him. You would think it would be impossible not to be as a resident of NY but reality might surprise you. We here are all pretty active on politics but tons of people barely read the news and absolutely do not engage with politics, yet go out to vote on largely name recognition. Ok, but my point was name recognition explains why Cuomo had a 80% lead months ago but how he's at about 50%. + Show Spoiler +But that doesn't explain why certain demographics tend toward him over others, unless you're insinuating that those demographics vote based on nothing except name recognition, which is lazy and prejudiced. There actually is a reason and it behooves us to understand their thought process instead of dismissing them and then being bewildered when your preferred candidate loses the election.
This just isn't what happened.
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.
That's not months ago. That's a few weeks ago.
Cuomo was never at "80%", but ~20 days ago when you were making the argument that "most people are just answering polls based on name recognition" Cuomo's polling was basically the same as it is now.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/nyc-mayoral-primary-election-polls-2025.html
I don't know how you're going to try to explain away your bullshit here, but it will be literally incredible.
|
I clicked on your link, Cuomo went from about +15 to +30 before the debates (except for that Data for Progress outlier, which wasn't public when I made my initial comment on June 1 anyway) to between +13 to -5 now. Which part is the bullshit?
|
On June 22 2025 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2025 00:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2025 23:24 LightSpectra wrote:On June 21 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2025 07:52 LightSpectra wrote: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? In cases like this I legit wonder how many of those supporting Cuomo are even aware of the extent of the allegations against him. You would think it would be impossible not to be as a resident of NY but reality might surprise you. We here are all pretty active on politics but tons of people barely read the news and absolutely do not engage with politics, yet go out to vote on largely name recognition. Ok, but my point was name recognition explains why Cuomo had a 80% lead months ago but how he's at about 50%. + Show Spoiler +But that doesn't explain why certain demographics tend toward him over others, unless you're insinuating that those demographics vote based on nothing except name recognition, which is lazy and prejudiced. There actually is a reason and it behooves us to understand their thought process instead of dismissing them and then being bewildered when your preferred candidate loses the election. This just isn't what happened. On June 01 2025 05:03 LightSpectra wrote: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. That's not months ago. That's a few weeks ago. Cuomo was never at "80%", but ~20 days ago when you were making the argument that "most people are just answering polls based on name recognition" Cuomo's polling was basically the same as it is now. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/nyc-mayoral-primary-election-polls-2025.htmlI don't know how you're going to try to explain away your bullshit here, but it will be literally incredible. I clicked on your link, Cuomo went from about +30 before the debates to between +13 to -5 now. Which part is the bullshit? What I said.
Cuomo was never at "80%", but ~20 days ago when you were making the argument that "most people are just answering polls based on name recognition" Cuomo's polling was basically the same ~55% as it is now.
|
I edited my comment before you replied, sorry about that, but yeah, Cuomo dropped about 20 points in the polls consistently in the past three weeks. Not sure what the issue is. When he was winning every demographic (conservative, liberal, and progressive) I think it was fair to say that early polls are not indicative of anything since nobody else had significant name recognition yet.
Now that we're closer to the actual primary election, the question is why people keep breaking toward Cuomo, and the thing I was talking about is that a significant portion of Democrats (over half nationwide it seems) actually do ideologically agree with centrist liberalism, they aren't just voting on name recognition alone, they genuinely think Cuomo would make the best governor.
|
On June 22 2025 00:35 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2025 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2025 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:On June 22 2025 00:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2025 23:24 LightSpectra wrote:On June 21 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2025 07:52 LightSpectra wrote: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? In cases like this I legit wonder how many of those supporting Cuomo are even aware of the extent of the allegations against him. You would think it would be impossible not to be as a resident of NY but reality might surprise you. We here are all pretty active on politics but tons of people barely read the news and absolutely do not engage with politics, yet go out to vote on largely name recognition. Ok, but my point was name recognition explains why Cuomo had a 80% lead months ago but how he's at about 50%. + Show Spoiler +But that doesn't explain why certain demographics tend toward him over others, unless you're insinuating that those demographics vote based on nothing except name recognition, which is lazy and prejudiced. There actually is a reason and it behooves us to understand their thought process instead of dismissing them and then being bewildered when your preferred candidate loses the election. This just isn't what happened. On June 01 2025 05:03 LightSpectra wrote: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. That's not months ago. That's a few weeks ago. Cuomo was never at "80%", but ~20 days ago when you were making the argument that "most people are just answering polls based on name recognition" Cuomo's polling was basically the same as it is now. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/nyc-mayoral-primary-election-polls-2025.htmlI don't know how you're going to try to explain away your bullshit here, but it will be literally incredible. I clicked on your link, Cuomo went from about +30 before the debates to between +13 to -5 now. Which part is the bullshit? What I said. Cuomo was never at "80%", but ~20 days ago when you were making the argument that "most people are just answering polls based on name recognition" Cuomo's polling was basically the same ~55% as it is now. I edited my comment before you replied, sorry about that, but yeah, Cuomo dropped about 20 points in the polls consistently in the past three weeks. Not sure what the issue is. When he was winning every demographic (conservative, liberal, and progressive) I think it was fair to say that early polls are not indicative of anything since nobody else had significant name recognition yet. Now that we're closer to the actual primary election, the question is why people keep breaking toward Cuomo, and the thing I was talking about is that a significant portion of Democrats (over half nationwide it seems) actually do ideologically agree with centrist liberalism, they aren't just voting on name recognition alone, they genuinely think Cuomo would make the best governor.
I'm not going to play this game with you.
Anyone with any integrity can see what you did, are doing now, and understands why I find it disgusting. At least one of them should call it out. I'll leave it there.
|
Lol aight, that's swell by me.
|
|
|
|
|
Republicans have been conditioned to approve of whatever their leadership wants to do.
They were super anti Russia until the head of their party was a Russian assest, now they are pro Russia.
They are anti war until a Republican wants to go to war, then they are pro war.
|
Doesn't calling them Republicans imply that there's some set of values to which they stick?
Seems to me more like they are Trumpists.
|
On June 22 2025 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:Republicans have been conditioned to approve of whatever their leadership wants to do. They were super anti Russia until the head of their party was a Russian assest, now they are pro Russia. They are anti war until a Republican wants to go to war, then they are pro war.
Nobody wants war with Iran. Not Trump. Not even Lindsey Graham and Blumenthal want war.
|
On June 22 2025 02:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2025 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:Republicans have been conditioned to approve of whatever their leadership wants to do. They were super anti Russia until the head of their party was a Russian assest, now they are pro Russia. They are anti war until a Republican wants to go to war, then they are pro war. Nobody wants war with Iran. Not Trump. Not even Lindsey Graham and Blumenthal want war.
Yeah I’m in the same boat. But after Iran even rejected an offer to be provided with the uranium they need for non-weapons purposes, I’m entirely on board with doing whatever is needed for their enrichment to be wiped out. I think Israel should deal with all the other stuff themselves. But I’m cool with the US stepping in to deal with deep underground facilities to prevent any chance of Iran getting nukes
|
Uhm, guys... Hate to tell you, but if a countries military is bombing another country thats called war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
