this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
292 points (98.3% liked)

politics

26293 readers
2523 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] leadore@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

When the Democrats do offer an alternative like Mamdani, people show up.

I'd like to rephrase that to make a point: When progressive voters show up and vote in the primaries for the more progressive candidate, there's more likely to be a more progressive Democratic candidate on the ballot in the general and people will show up for them.

Point is the Democratic Party powers that be did not willingly "offer an alternative like Mamdani". They hated that he was the candidate and tried to get Cuomo elected instead. Mamdani was only "offered" thanks to the voters who showed up and voted for him in the primary.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think that downplays how good of a candidate Mamdani was and how differently he ran his campaign. It also blinds us to new lessons.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I don't see how it downplays at all how good a candidate he was, if anything it shows how good he must have been to overcome his own party's elite trying to stop him. My point is that they might have stopped him, if it weren't for the people who turned out in the primary. Just think what quality candidates we could get if people would support them in the primaries, instead of waiting until the general and seeing who other people chose in the primary and then being disappointed. My point is we need to turn out for the primaries. When potential candidates see voters supporting progressive candidates more will decide to run because they'll know they have a chance.

You're telling me people have to get off their ass and not just bitch online? Cmon now... /s

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And that is the real problem progressive voters are not reliable as a block. So nobody caters to them.

And in general they continue to bitch regardless even if they get what they want. They'll turn on their own politicians in an instant and dislike it even when they get what they were asking for- ie. Hochul or whomever to endorse.