this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
81 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22962 readers
224 users here now
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to The Labour Community.
Take any slop posts to the slop trough
Main is good for shitposting.
Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.
Off topic posts will be removed.
Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So many Dems are mad that Mamdani won the primary and it's hilarious. Here's a guy who showed up polling in the single digits and then absolutely annihilated at least two really well known politicians, one an incumbent, and they still won't endorse him. What do they even have to fucking lose? These politicians can't even figure out how to take advantage of his popularity.
They could literally just endorse him, change absolutely nothing about themselves or their party, and then get more votes just for that endorsement. There's no way any lib voter is gonna walk away because of an endorsement for the NYC mayor, but plenty of people would be duped by it.
Mamdani's policies go directly against the Dems interests. Dems are bankrolled by big landlords, insurance companies and every capitalist scum imaginable. Why would they endorse him?
The dems purpose is to present a false alternative to the Republicans to maintain the two party system where both parties serve the big bourgeoisie
Yeah, but an endorsement is meaningless. Nothing about endorsing Mamdani changes the party or the people running it. Even the Nazis understood faking socialism is an easy way to get popular support and then use that support to do heinous shit. I think so many people running the show are just lost in the indoctrination and propaganda to even consider it at this point.
Imagine how popular Dems would be if they just pretended they were gonna do some soc dem shit like they used to. Obama was wildly popular in 2008 for exactly that, but of course he didn't do any of it.
Because he's going to win anyway, and it makes me (a random centrist) appear progressive to some of my constituents. If someone wanted to primary me for the left, they'll have to make the extra effort to explain why I'm not good enough even though I'm outwardly a fan and endorser of all kinds of Democrats including Mamdani (vote blue no matter who). If it were a tight race I probably wouldn't make that play, but since im an empty suit for my donors I'll just leverage whatever is convenient from the left or the right.
Dems would rather lose to a fascist than win with a socialist. This is true every time, even with the most watered down socialism. They are a bourgeois party and will not take one step to the left. This is about upholding an ideology not winning
No yeah exactly, even when it's obvious strategy to just go along with it they don't
Liberal politicians would rather burn their house to the ground than let anyone left of them live in it
house, world, whatever
If they endorse anyone to the left of Hitler, they'll lose most of their big donors. Except who the fuck needs donors when you can just win by having good candidates?
They don't care if they win, it's not like they have any political project, so why even bother. The donors are the only thing they do care about.
Because they aren't good candidates
If they endorse him, that scares their donors, who they care far more about than voters.
It’s not about winning or losing. A loss for a politician is an opportunity to make money the next election cycle. Mamdani making positive changes would only hurt their ability to fundraise from the poors as they’d support more left wing candidates, and endorsing him would only draw the ire of who their actual base is.