this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
592 points (98.8% liked)

politics

25368 readers
2460 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

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.