this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
744 points (93.8% liked)
Memes
53340 readers
892 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because the system currently only supports 2 parties for president. We would need current politicians to be selfless enough to make the necessary changes that would allow for a 3rd party to receive enough funding and media coverage for the vast majority of the American voters - who pay no attention at all to politics - to hear about them. Our politicians only work for themselves, and have no reason to work against their own interests by introducing a 3rd party - hell, they've almost condensed down to a single party, but at least one side of it is still keeping up appearances enough to only terrorize its people a little bit so that they can say they're better than the other guys.
Presidential voting is just trying to use the system to change the system, which only works when the system itself works. The current system is broken to the point that presidential voting won't fix it - the best we can do is make sure the lesser of the evils wins until we can garner enough support for an actual overthrowing of the system, then begin the work to make one that would allow for politicians that actually care about us. A presidential vote to make actual change is a wasted vote, because a vote no longer holds that much power in America. The best it can do on its own is hold back the greater evil.
For local elections you should absolutely vote for the most progressive person you can, because the voters that don't pay attention don't even show up to those votes, making them much more volatile to the point where a true leftist can win. Maybe we'd even be able to get a new generation of politicians to change the system from the ground up over the course of several decades, if the country lasts that long. But the presidential election is far too padded by people who would vote for their party's candidate even if they killed their own mother - it can't suddenly change, not in its current state.
You cant build popular support for dismantling the system as it is while you're actively advocating for people to accept the lesser evil.
Imagine if Sanders got up on the senate floor and said "i believe we cannot compromise on ACA subsidies and let millions of americans lose health coverage, be forced to ration their insulin or die because they cant afford a doctor, but I'll be voting to reopen the government without them anyway because i have no choice".
Democrats rely on the inherent violence of a 2 party system. Playing into it isnt pragmatic, it's denial. Either we're in this together or we aren't, and democrats have made it perfectly clear that they aren't.
You can't build shit for shit, when you're being actively hunted by ICE for thought crimes, and like third of the Americans don't know where their next meal will come from.
In order to build something you need to have a foundation, which you can't do in a crisis. Democratic party as it is is not a party that people are exited about, and they need to be changed one way or another, but you can only do that if there is no Republicans actively hunting you for sports, and the way US is setup right now, you can either have one or another. Denying that is actively dangerous, acting as if it's not the case brings objectively horrifying results.
When the fascist boot is coming down on people's necks is possibly the best time to be building popular resistance
There is nothing that can be improved by majority fighting tooth and nails to survive. What you need is generations of people who know what the better world looks like, and who's will wasn't destroyed by absolute power of a fascist boot on the neck. Accelerationism never was a viable idea, it was always a ruse to make less empathetic among the left to fight for the same cause fascists are fighting for.
This isnt accelerationism - the fascist boot is here already. The only silver lining to being where we are is that the problem and the dividing lines have never been more clear, and that makes organizing marginally more possible
There may be some liberals who still believe that compromise is still the only way forward when it was compromise with capital that got us here, and they're the ones that must be brought into the resistance by force or be treated as collaborators.
I'm not advocating for people to accept the lesser evil, I'm asking them to understand that their vote is no longer a form of acceptance - it doesn't hold enough power for you to use it that way anymore. Your acceptance or rejection of the system comes from your actions outside of the polling place, in the form of protests and what inevitably comes after protests if they're ignored for long enough.
A vote in the presidential election currently only holds the power to slightly shift the current power between bad and worse. It's like the trolley problem - there's no real 3rd track right now, no matter how much we want one. If we start building one now at the local level, maybe there will be one for someone later, but we've gotta make our own lever choice without it for now.
This is a fun rhetorical trick, but I'm not interested in playing a semantic game over the definition of 'acceptance'. This:
is absolutely advocating for the lesser evil. Fine if you don't want to call that 'acceptance', but what I'm pointing to is not the choice itself, it's the act of advocating for it to begin with. Spending any amount of energy trying to convey the importance of voting for the moderate wing of fascism is a distraction from the message that both parties pose an existential threat to the working class. If your goal is to build support for radical systemic change, then there should be no ambiguity about what actions are necessary to achieve it. To use your bullshit trolly problem analogy- the 'two tracks' forced choice is a distraction from the fact that we need to stop the fucking trolly. Even if we end up pulling that lever in the end, you will never get enough people to get off to help derail it if you keep ensuring them that the worst will be averted even if they chose not to.
You can't build a popular movement against the democratic coalition while openly admitting that you have no choice but to support them no matter how aligned they are with the fascists. Liberals will continue happily existing in the status quo until it's made clear to them that their privileged position within it is threatened along with everyone else's if they choose not to act.
I don't understand your point. Voting is not a form of protest or revolution - you either overthrow the government, or you don't; voting is just the thing you do in the meantime to hopefully keep living to eventually overthrow the government. If the system worked, sure, voting would keep it working, but thinking of voting as a way to change the system at this point is like thinking an oil change will fix a broken engine. I vote for the lesser evil not because I accept them or want them to be in charge, but because I know the person I want in charge will never be placed in charge by the current system. I advocate for revolution because I know we need it, and that the system cannot be fixed in my lifetime without it, but voting is an entirely separate thing, and can only be used as a tool to keep the world from falling apart quite as quickly as it would under the greater evil.
At the risk of repeating myself, i'll try restating the point- the problem isn't the choice of voting in-itself, it's the choice of placing rhetorical weight on it at all in a system that is designed to diffuse the political power of the working class to begin with.
The overwhelming majority of liberals will do nothing more than whinge about how unfortunate it is that we live in such a broken system so-long as they remain secure in their personal status within that system. It isn't just about 'overthrowing the government' - it's about stirring the masses into action by raising the issue to such a volume that they can no longer ignore it. That means making it quite clear that democrats writ large risk becoming victims of the fascist movement they helped to create if they continue 'biding their time' until a more convenient moment. It isn't even about boycotting general elections - it's about making it perfectly clear that they cannot count on voters holding their noses indefinitely, and that they do not have a winning coalition without the working class. That will eventually be true no matter what we say as leftists - under late stage capitalism conditions will continue getting worse until eventually enough people will have lost all faith in democracy itself that the only people voting are various factions of the capitalist class and the petty-bourgeois (if we aren't there already, frankly).
Democrats believe that voters may not like the way they govern, but they'll still vote for them anyway to avoid a hostile opposition party. Any popular movement for radical change will be predicated on the notion that nothing short of drastic action will avert that inevitability
The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it makes well-meaning people believe that justice will eventually arrive simply on its own merit, when liberal democracy itself is designed to ensure that popular reform can never happen without organized resistance.
Ah, I see. You think that democrats will change if we just stop voting for them. They wont. As I said, they're essentially just Republican lite. We'll either have 2 parties that are almost the same, or the democratic party will simply dissolve and we'll just have 2 identical republicans running for office. Either way, yes, we will have to bring about change with organized resistance.
However, in the case that the ruling class still allows for the republican-lite party, it's better to let the democrats keep only mostly destroying the world instead of letting the republicans openly see how quickly they can tear everything down, because that leaves less rebuilding we'll need to do when the time comes for that. Refusing to vote for the lesser evil is like refusing to eat what meager rations you get from your jailers as you work toward your jailbreak - you'd be a fool to deny it simply because it's part of the system you plan to dismantle, because your task will be harder for it.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this point for you to wrap your head around it:
Democrats will continue losing on their own as conditions for millions of Americans continue getting worse and the democrats continue obstructing popular efforts to fix it. That isn't me organizing against them or boycotting elections - that's a very simple statement of fact. Millions of Americans will lose enthusiasm for the democrats if they do nothing. They will continue doing nothing if they think they can still win their elections by appealing to the center. If the people who are screaming at the democrats to take drastic action proudly keep proclaiming that they will dutifully keep voting for them anyway, there's a very good likelyhood that they will both lose due to voter attrition and mis-diagnose the problem as having not appealed to the center enough. They assume (because the left keeps telling them so) that they aren't losing support from the left, so they must just be unsuccessfully appealing to the center right.
Clarity of message is everything. Democrats have rock-bottom approval because they continue to obstruct systemic change. Full stop. They will continue losing votes to voter apathy if they continue undermining the popular momentum in the base. Full stop. There is no amount of 'lesser-evil' proclamations that will reverse that trend, but it will absolutely mislead liberals into conflating a lack of enthusiasm for democrats for an abundance of appetite for reactionary policy.
You are making that mistake right now. "You're just republican lite" is the same type of damaging conflation as when Zionists accuse anti-zionists of being antisemitic.
Democrats in office right now will never, never put up a fight. Ever. And neither will republicans. People can scream all they like - nearly all high-level American politicians today got into politics for their own benefit, and are happy to continue receiving "lobbying" money in exchange for the destruction of the world. Vote for them, don't vote for them, they don't care.
The lesser evil proclamations are not at all about reversing the trend, because it won't be reversed. The only thing that will reverse the trend within this generation will be outright revolution. Voting for the lesser evil is about minimizing the damage in the meantime while we organize the revolution.
If we decide to go the route of changing the democratic party slowly from within, like with Mamdani, then it will also work, but only by the time local city council and mayoral candidates advance in the government enough to become presidential candidates, which will be decades. And even in that case, we need to minimize the damage to make sure the country survives until then.
The democratic party won't ever put forth a leftist candidate until there are literally no other candidates for it to choose from, so we either wait until we've swapped everyone out, or we revolt.
Aside from a few notable exceptions, I agree. That's the reason why it's important to have a clear message - "Democrats cannot be trusted to represent our interests, they are our opposition to radical change....."
Immediately following that with ".... but we must continue voting for them anyway" confuses that message. It also serves as evidence that there is no popular movement for radical change because those people advocating for it keep voting for status quo anyway. Again, it's not about how you actually cast your ballot, it's about spending all your time proselytizing about how important it is to support them anyway, even if begrudgingly. It turns your leftist principles into nothing but a performance.
You can't do either of those things by gaslighting liberals into thinking radical change isn't possible because radical change isn't even popular enough to overcome soft-power legacy media, so you must continue participating in lesser-evil politics until the revolution comes.
The civil rights act didn't get passed because liberals patiently waited until there was a critical mass of popular support - it passed because the movement and MLK specifically agitated liberals repeatedly and threatened to interfere with their political standing if they continued obstructing the change they pretended to care about. Liberals then, and liberals now, threaten the destruction of the union by obstructing that change which is being demanded.
This is almost true, but just a little misleading - it's not the democratic party that won't allow it, it's liberals who make up the party that will selfishly obstruct radical change until their place of privilege within the existing system is materially threatened, either by the fascists they have been collaborating with or by hemorrhaging the working class they have abandoned. Any protest, direct action or """revolution""" will amount to how large of a threat that is, and if the online 'radical leftists' can't even agree on an uncommitted stance in public then those aren't really leftists at all, they're just liberals in denial.
The message isn't “Democrats cannot be trusted to represent our interests, they are our opposition to radical change…..” it's "Nobody within our government gives a shit about our interests." And they won't until we get new blood in, but that doesn't happen at the top, it happens at the bottom, and we force it to the top through years and years of consistent voting. The liberals who make up the democratic party aren't going anywhere until they're replaced, but even their replacements are liberals. Again, we need to change the bottom to change the top.
But, what do we do as we're getting to the top? Do we just abstain from voting and let the Republicans pump more and more money into ICE for the next decade or two? Or do we vote for the weak, spineless liberals who won't fix anything, but also won't make things as bad as the Republicans would? Or do we vote for the 3rd party voters who 90% of the country hasn't even heard of, much less intends to vote for? We've seen what happens when people do that, and it's just as bad as voting for the Republicans themselves.
So please, tell me who I should actually vote for for president in the coming years, between the times where positive change hopefully starts to grow in the local elevations, but before it can reach up to the top and actually put forward a viable presidential candidate that even the people who aren't paying attention will vote for. Because the people whose family members got carted off to the next Alligator Auschwitz will want to know if we let the tyrants in on a technicality, or if we at least voted for their asshole younger brothers instead, since nobody else stood a chance of being in charge otherwise in the meantime.
I don't care if some liberal, who is never going to change one way or another, gets a big head because people voted for them, I care if they're going to be as bad as their republican counterpart during the time it takes for us to make the changes that we need to make that will actually change our government for the better, because the government itself is never going to do so.
Even that message is confused by following it with "but we must vote for them anyway". Either the system is broken and we must rebel, or the system can be mitigated by dutiful participation. There's no middle ground where we can minimize the decent into enslavement by biding our time until the revolution comes.
Vote for whoever the fuck you want. You wont change anything by voting for liberals, because liberals will increasingly lose regardless because people are that much more apathetic about them every cycle. If you want to prevent republicans from tearing everything down, then don't waste your time with lesser-evil bullshit. Spend that time agitating other liberals - make them see how complacently participating in a system that enslaves them only serves to ensure it will always enslave them. The only candidates worth voting for are those that the democratic establishment actively opposes.
By all means, vote for your favorite benevolent fascist. Just stop pretending like the strategy is to quietly comply with democratic obstruction until exactly the right moment when we all suddenly stand up and rebel against them, while simultaneously complaining about how leftist candidates just aren't popular because none of these liberals ever vote for them (see how circular this bullshit is?). That isn't how leftist organizing works. We gain momentum by showing how broken liberalism is, and we can't do that if we're sheep-dogging other leftists into committing themselves for the shitlib du jour 3 years in advance. Democrats get our vote only if the represent our interests. full-stop
You might think of yourself as a leftist, but from where i'm sitting you're just a liberal in denial.
Nobody is "biding their time" for a revolution; we're getting angrier and angrier by the day - it's nearly inevitable. Unless a political change happens, and quickly, it's coming. But still, it takes time, and voting will happen in the meantime. To ignore the entirety of the voting system simply because it's going to be overthrown anyway is dumb - these is a modicum of good we can do by making sure the country is in the least-terrible position that we can when we finish preparing (note: not waiting) for the revolution, and it's pretty clear that one side is better than the other.
However, the original poster I responded to has made me aware that the 2018 election in Mexico was actually a lot more similar to a US election than I first thought, and it's made me wonder if rallying people around a new party may actually be a viable choice. I'm still looking into it, but there may be a 3rd way to get ourselves out of this. Regardless, ignoring tools at our disposal simply because they won't fix things on their own is not going to make things any better. Even if the world is only a fraction of a percent better with a democrat in charge over a republican, it's a better choice than nothing. Hopefully a 3rd party option is more viable than I initially thought, though.
What is?... Revolution? I mean way to be an optimist I guess...
I'm advocating that we roundly object to liberal democracy - e.g. democracy revolving around individual capitalist principles. Vote, but vote for working-class representation. I roundly reject the idea that 3rd party voting or uncommitted votes are pointless or ill-advised, so long as liberals refuse to acknowledge the popular momentum of their base. If an acceptable candidate from the left flank does emerge, vote for them, by all means. Participate in primaries, canvas for quality representation. In the end, vote however you want. But certainly don't be running around whipping support for a milquetoast shitlib just because it's a lesser-evil to a republican, and don't be shaming others for sticking to their principles and holding democrats to a higher standard. *You cannot organize on lesser-evil electoral politics.
presidential elections do seem like a really lofty goal, but history has given us plenty of examples to prove that it's possible; with mexico being the most recent one with amlo & shienbaum.
i think it's a testament to the power of american propaganda that a 3rd party candidate won a presidential election in not only one of the largest and most populous countries of the world; but one of the closest possible to the united states and most of americans are still completely unaware that it actually happened and that it happened in our lifetime.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Our media has the vast majority of the voters' sole attention - they don't know and don't care that other options exist. If a presidential candidate doesn't have equal media coverage to the other 2 parties, they immediately lose more Americans than they would need to win the election.
the media and republican/democrat duopoly are powered by the same source, the american oligarchy; expecting the media to ever give airtime to 3rd party is unrealistic.
it's self-fulfilling propaganda that we're inflicting upon ourselves.
Correct, which is why the 3rd part is itself unrealistic. We need to change things from the ground-up at a local level, which will take decades, or overthrow everything and start over, which will lead to a huge amount of deaths regardless of whether or not we even win the battle. Regardless, to win the presidential election with a 3rd party right now, we need the media, and that's not going to happen, so to put your vote in that hole is the same as not voting.
or you can just jump into it like mexico and the other historical examples have done and witness a dramatic improvements in your lifetime without the huge amounts of deaths.
that is until the americans reverse it... again.
You seem to understand that the vast majority of Americans simply vote for what they see in the media, meaning that only a candidate backed by the media can win, and you seem to understand that we can't shift the media with our current government, but you don't seem to understand that, given those 2 facts, there is no way for us to recreate the phenomenon seen in other countries with a larger proportion of people willing to look outside of their televisions and smartphones.
For a 3rd party candidate to win a modern-day American presidential election, either the media would have to validate them, or tens of millions of Americans would have to, in unison, spontaneously decide not to follow the media that they trust implicitly without question.
the mexican example happened in 2018 and proves that it's possible without attention from the media and the number of people who didn't vote in 2024 because of gaza; but did vote in 2020; as well as 3rd party voters combined already exceeds this tens of millions of american threshold.
the elections last week and the popularity of the no kings protests prove that we're ripe for this sort of change; but we keep repeating this sort of propaganda to such a degree that it becomes self fulfilling prophecy.
we need to change our mindset; not a change in unchanging institutions like the media or the political duopoly.
Oh, so you do think we can overcome the media? I see. From your comment about how most Americans don't even know about Mexico's recent election, much less care, I thought you understood that we're much less tapped into the state of the world than any other country. I wholeheartedly believe that we are far more reliant on the media to do our thinking for us than any other country save for maybe North Korea or China, but even those would be a stretch. I don't think a success in a country like Mexico, whose citizens clearly have the ability to look beyond the media, could be recreated here, in a country whose citizens would rather cover their ears than listen to news from elsewhere in the world.
I agree that we need to change our mindset, but I also believe that the Americans who are already slaves to the media will never change their ways, and so long as they're around, the media will control our elections. We need to wait until those people are gone, and hopefully replace them over time with people who are more mindful of politics. Then maybe we can overcome the government through democracy instead of violence, but even if it works it won't be happening any time soon.
the mexicans didn't overcome the media. mexico's status at the periphery of the global north ensured that enough of them had shitty enough material existences that their protests took on a genuine form and it galvanized the public to try voting for morena instead of pri or pan like they had been doing for almost a century by that point.
in fact: it was social media giving attention to these protests that made the younger mexicans aware that they weren't alone in their suffering and they turned out in droves to vote like they sometimes do in the united states.
"overcoming the media" is another manufactured threshold like that other manufactured threshold of tens of millions of voters and only serves to re-enforce this self fulfilling propaganda when something a simple as basic media literacy will do the trick.
the global north has come to recognize the impact that social media has on the youth and that's why isreal & the united states now have full control over tiktok and why europe is trying to impose age verification mechanisms on social media.
waiting for some mythical time when people stop relying on the media for change to happen is no different than repeating other fallacies like spoiler-voting or throwing-your-vote-away.
it happened in our lifetime under the same conditions and it's living and breathing at our southern border.... for now.
Nobody's waiting. People won't stop worshiping the media if we just wait for them to stop. We have to galvanize the younger generation into being interested and engaged in politics so that they don't become just like the lost-cause bloat of current voters. It's a lot of work, and it will take decades, but yes, it can work. In fact, it's been working. While everyone I know over 50 thinks that Trump is just a normal president, everyone I know under 20 recognizes him as the tyrant he is. Soon those younger minds will outnumber the older ones who think it's still business as usual, but that shift still does need to change for us to have a chance at winning a presidential election with an actual leftist.
Mexico was in a tough enough spot that even the older people demanded better, but life's still pretty good for the baby boomer generation that dominates the American voting pool. They don't have a reason to protest and organize through tik-tok for change, they like their life and want it to stay the same, government and all. We need our younger generation who, like those in Mexico, only see a bleak future for themselves under the current government, and will do what's necessary to change it.
But if we're fixing the system from within the system, that change will only come when one of the 2 parties is indeed leftist. Mexico has a multi-party system, enacted by a government who listened to the people enough to enact that policy, but we don't - without changing the entire system, we'll still need to fix one of the current parties to the point where they put forward a real leftist candidate before we'll see one win democratically. That happens from the bottom, with local elections like the one for Mamdani. Otherwise, we'll need to overthrow the system to see a leader of our country as good as Mexico's anytime soon.
until 2018 mexico only technically had a multi-party system in the same way that the united states also technically has a multi-party system with the green, psl, libertarians, independence, etc. parties; with only the two of the parties overwhelmingly dominating the rest of the parties like democrats and republicans do in the united states. the policies that i think you're referring to were only put in place to give legitimacy to mexican elections and even then they only did it because the americans pushed them into doing it to alleviate criticisms of their support for the pri.
during his first campaign, obama espoused a progressive agenda like amlo did and both politicians proved how effected they were at getting young people to vote, which means that we already know how to get young people engaged. clinton did the same thing back in the 1990's for the united states, so it also means we're pretty good at getting young people to vote whenever we feel like pulling that lever; but we chose to appeal to "moderates" instead because they don't challenge the status quo.
obama's lower second election results proved what happens when you drop that progressive agenda and sheinbaum proves that the youth will reliably come out to support your party if you don't drop that progressive agenda like obama did.
i think you're right in that too many people are too comfortable in their living situations to ever effect change and i also agree that this sentiment is mostly shared by older generations; the same is true to a very large degree in mexico so that's only part of the problem.
however, the change didn't come from fixing the system from within one of the dominant parties; it happened when people ditched the "liberal" party that was co-opting progressive movement like the democrats do in the united states and voted 3rd party instead.
this overton ratcheting effect that the democrats enable coupled with their unwillingness to push back against republican voter suppression is the yin to the yin-and-yang of our political reality and that, along with the self fulfilling third party propaganda is the yang that keeps americans vacillating between democrat and republicans with things continuing to get worse for the world.
the american system's inherent contradictions will be the only thing to degrade people's material conditions enough to vote third party if we don' t change our collective mindset and; by then; the world will be in a very sorry state that i'm glad i won't get to live through.
Damn, I looked into it further, and you're absolutely right. I knew it was an upset win, and when I saw that there were 4 major parties in the election, I dismissed it as a more variable political system, but it's first-past-the-post, just like the US. This will definitely change my thought process on what our chances of making real current-day changes to our political landscape would be. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and for powering through my hardheadedness.
one of the good things about american propaganda is that it's sometimes easy to spot because so many americans repeat it to each other despite multiple examples to the contrary that keep popping up every other decade or so; maybe i'm getting better at calling it out. lol.
this isn't the first time mexico has managed to shake off colonial control and; if the historical pattern holds; the united states will invade again like it did the last 3 times to force the political situation to change back, as it's done dozens of times throughout the world to other countries. this time however, american soft power as at an all time low thanks to the freedom of information available online (and especially so with live-streaming the gazan genocide on social media) and it's hard power is currently stretched thin due to ukraine, taiwan, isreal, and venezuela at the same time, as well as president that's souring relations with our allies (and fellow colonial masters); so there's a chance that mexico might be left unscathed.
developments like the new ownership of tikok and censorship happening on facebook, reddit, bluesky, etc. and the europeans capitulating to trump's economic and military demands make me pessimistic.
It's so strange to hear this self-defeating propaganda not more than a week after a demsoc was elected mayor of the financial capital of the fucking world after a record-setting billionare spending spree against him.
It's not self-defeatist: Mamdani is a perfect example of the point I originally made about local elections. Yes, if we keep doing voting for people like that in local elecations, we might be able to dig our country out of this hole in a few decades. But he won because the "not into politics" voters don't go to local elections - as far as they're concerned, voting day only happens once every 4 years. If we want to win a presidential election with a similar candidate, we need to replace the entire democratic party with progressives, starting at the lowest level and waiting until they rise up to the top. It will take a long time, and it certainly requires no longer having a country full of people who just vote for their news company's favorite, but it could definitely work.
Mamdani won because a record number of those people came out and voted for him, dumbass.
Yes, a record number for a local election, a huge amount of which were the younger voters who care much more than the "not into politics" boomers.
I think you're confusing "not into politics" voters with 'disaffected' voters. Those are the ones Mamdani won - it isn't as if a flood of young 'into politics' voters popped out of nowhere in new york - those voters have always been there but simply never vote because democrats keep dumping cold water on populist reform.
Correct, and that's what the democratic party is about. We only change that when we've swapped every candidate out from the bottom up. The democratic party had Cuomo. That's who they backed, and it will be who they back every single time. We need to vote in the Mamdanis of the world at the bottom, then in the middle a few years later, then at the top years after that. Then we will get a leftist presidential candidate, because there won't be any centrists left for the DNC to put forward. If even one centrist remains, that will be their candidate, and that is who all of the "not into politics" voters who think Mamdani is going to turn New York into a "socialist hellhole" will vote for.
Lmao, this is just cope my man. Mamdani won against the exact establishment and system of billionaires you keep claiming as the mechanism that will never allow a leftist candidate from reaching popular support
Cope? I'm ecstatic! I'm so glad that we managed to get politically-minded people to rush in under the larger group of "keep everything the same" voters' noses! But to ignore that group, who accounts for the majority of voters in every presidential election, and is the reason 3rd parties never make it even close to being viable, is nothing short of ignorant.
You're misunderstanding the turnout. The record number of voters that turned out are exactly those typical non-voters that you're talking about.
Dems have been hemorrhaging their base because people don't think they do anything for them, and a populist candidate like Mamdani is how democrats bring those disenfranchised voters back.
He is exactly the case in point i'm talking about. Calling those voters 'politically-minded' is the cope.
The non-voters for local elections that I'm talking about are the people who turn up for every presidential election to vote for the people their news show told them to. They're the tens of millions of 50+ year-old people who think Trump is just another republican who needs to be replaced by just another democrat, and the world will be perfect again. Those people don't care about local elections, because they specifically enjoy the current political system, and don't care what new faces enter the political scene.
The people who turned up were the 20-somethings who are politically-minded and are going to change this world for the better if they can keep showing up to polls that the 50+ people ignore.
When voting turnout exceeds expected numbers, we call those additional voters 'low-propensity'. It doesn't matter if it's a national election or a local one - when turnout blows out expectations, that's a high-enthusiasm election. Trying to describe those low-propensity voters as 'politically-minded' seems intentionally misleading, since I can only assume that's based on the fact that they turned out when they were expected not to (i.e. they turned out because they responded to a typically low-turnout election, thus they must be 'politically-minded').
Setting aside the circular definition - any time a candidate is able to turn out more voters than expected, that's a definitionally good candidate by any electoral standard. The question isn't really 'who would non-voters have voted for if it were a national election?', but, 'does this election translate to a national voter base?'. And while that's not something you can easily generalize, Mamdani did run on policies that are resoundingly popular in all 50 states. There's very little reason he wouldn't have performed better-than-average on a national stage given what we know for certain.
All this to say: anyone trying to downplay the significance of an Indian-American, Muslim, Democratic Socialist sweeping an election against one of the most famous political dynasty names in the US, where corporate media across the entire political spectrum were united against him, and where opposition spent tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollar more than him - and in of all places the financial capital of the world and in a city that was the sight of the most famous terrorist attack conducted by Arab Muslims in the western world - is absolutely coping. That kind of candidate winning in a place like New York would have been inconceivable since at least 2001.
You can deny it as a significant moment of socialist achievement if you want, but you'd be fooling only yourself.