79
Mamdani Holds Huge Lead in NYC Mayor's Race, But Top Democrats Still Won't Back Him
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
79 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
11005 readers
79 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
centrist Democrats have a slogan, "vote blue no matter who" - the idea being that if you're progressive or leftist, you have an obligation to vote for the Democrat, even if the Democratic nominee is a centrist.
that slogan has always been bullshit, but Mamdani's campaign is providing the ultimate example of why. "vote blue no matter who" is a one-way street - you can use it to browbeat progressives into voting for a centrist, but it vanishes into thin air if you're trying to convince centrists to vote for a progressive.
I know some centrist Democrats, and I've literally never heard them say this for any reason. I've only ever heard it said on Lemmy by people who are applying it sarcastically.
It's not so much a quote, as it is a voting strategy that is promoted among DNC insiders, to encourage progressives to vote for the "lesser evil", every time.
And yeah, if you're talking to progressives, they will almost always refer to it sarcastically, since it means always voting for a candidate that doesn't actually represent their views, simply because the alternative is objectively worse.
For people on the actual left, it represents a form of socio-political extortion.
Ctrl-F "dead fish" if you want my response to this line of argument
And unfortunately, your response literally embodies the nature of this imposed "obligation" to vote for the dead fish. It's basically a form of political peer-pressure, intended to shame people into supporting a candidate that does not represent them, simply because "the reality" is, the other guy is worse. You're actively engaging in it, right now. I get that there is also some nuance to your viewpoint...but the underlying message is that whoever didn't vote for the dead fish, will be considered responsible for whatever comes next.
Except it only ever goes one way when it comes to centrists. They will gladly use this leverage against progressives when it's their candidate running against a Republican...but will refuse to follow the same strategy when it's a leftist. They will either run a spoiler campaign against them like Cuomo is doing, or straight up throw their support behind the Republican, in order to see the progressive lose.
And then they complain when leftists refuse to participate next time. It's a disingenuous argument.
If you want someone to blame for why Democrats are hemorrhaging support right now...blame the Democrats who are currently refusing to respect the will of their own voters in New York. They are determined to show progressives that they are not welcome in the Democratic party...so why would progressives continue to vote for them?
To borrow your analogy...it isn't the parents fault that they're refusing to give their kids vaccines, once they learn that the vaccines being offered are all laced with syphilis. Maybe the people in charge should be offering something that works, instead of a different disease.
The lesser of two evils, is still evil. People want a cure. Not a milder disease.
Vaccines are literally a milder disease that helps to avoid a worse disease in the future.
Not voting hasn't encouraged Dems to improve their approach in decades, not sure why you think it would help now.
It's not about "encouraging Dems to improve". They won't. It's about giving up on a broken system. Why would you keep doing something over and over again, knowing that it isn't working? Or, knowing that it's working against you? It's insane to expect constant support from people that you consistently reject.
Some people will never give up trying. Other people aren't going to bother after enough failed attempts. That number is only going to keep getting worse as time goes on, and nothing changes.
And the vaccine analogy is probably better if you think about it like this...some people will get the real vaccine, while most people will get a placebo that does nothing to help them, and others still will get a poison shot that makes them sick. You can never tell what you're going to get, until after you take it.
The Democratic party is rotten. It is mostly ineffective and occasionally toxic. The fact that there are a few good people in there, trying to make things better for the rest of us, doesn't matter. Those people will never have enough votes to overrule the ones that either aren't willing to help, or are actively working against us. And even when someone seems to be on your side, as soon as they get elected, they turn out to be no better than the average Republican. (Looking at folks like John Fetterman)