this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
931 points (100.0% liked)
Political Humor
1247 readers
1202 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've been asking this for days and have not gotten a clear answer in what way is the DNC fighting the candidate put forth to the generals by the DNC?
He was put forth by the people not by DNC.
You don't get into the DNC primary via petition, my guy. You ask the DNC to join and they give out invitations to the ones who can run on their ticket.
They didn't expect him to win. He was the olive branch to people on the left in order to say "see? We had someone with more pro-social ideas and he wasn't popular enough. Let's try shifting further to the right and see if we get more votes that way."
We had Jeremy Corbyn do that over here. Absolutely romped into the Labour leadership.
Whereupon he was demonised and demolished by the press, ably assisted by the centrists in the party who think that actually giving a shit about the people is far too hardline lefty. Which then gifted us another five years of Tory cunts in power, which The Centrists decried despite the fact that THEY FUCKING PUT THEM THERE.
Cunts.
Anyway, now we have pretty much the most centre right "leftwing" government we've ever had. And that includes the Blair years.
All of which is to say: I hope your man wins, but he'll almost certainly be kneecapped by the Democrats because he runs the risk of costing them money.
They expect every candidate to have a chance of winning when they hold primaries. Bernie came somewhat close to beating HRC in 2016, if he had like 4 million more votes they wouldn't have been able to do anything about stopping him from running the entire nation, unlikely that they would try.
DNC is the left party, the party of progress, now and decades prior.
The DNC is very much a conservative party. To claim the democratic party to be left leaning is a complete lack of awareness or it’s propaganda.
The party that has been running on "Everything is fine, status quo is great, we won't change anything" is the party of progress?
Bernie came close while simultaneously getting sandbagged at every opportunity by the DNC. If he'd gotten the same kind of attention as Hillary, there's a very good chance he would have won.
DNC is only the party of progress because there isn't another viable party that's better at it. It's up to us to push them to the left, because they're really bad at doing it themselves. NYC proved that it's possible; I only hope it mobilizes the rest of the left-leaning populace to take similar action. Vote blue and do what you can locally to enact change.
I repeat, he did lose by over 3 Million Votes. Supposed, uncoroborated, sandbagging aside, Hillary was the more popular candidate.
You're not pushing the party left by telling everyone they're an unviable bunch of corporate shills, you're just convincing people not to vote for them and letting Republicans win.
"Supposed" sandbagging... Right, OK fella.
Okay so you're saying the reason Hillary won 16 Million to 13 Million is because a couple of people behind closed doors said something kind of mean about him once? And how exactly did the millions of DNC voters hear about this and coordinate their votes accordingly, all secretively?
No, that's not at all what I'm saying.
I'm saying the DNC is supposed to be a neutral facilitator of primary elections, but were going out of their way to undermine the Sanders campaign by coordinating with donors and feeding stories and unflattering details of his campaign to reporters.
Could the impact of that interference be measured by some quantity of votes? Decidedly not. But did it have some impact? Almost certainly.
At the very least, the Sanders campaign was having to fight against the committee and put out fires they were starting, while they were supposed to be facilitating a 'fair' primary election. Even giving preferential treatment to one candidate over another calls into question the legitimacy of that primary.
The DNC is not a government entity, it is a private institution, it does not need to be impartial, but it's election was an honest one which did not manipulate votes or prevent Bernie Sanders from running.
Lmao, "they're a private institution they can do what they want"
The democratic governor, for instance, has said she won't fund Mamdani's programs.
That's fine because Mamdani isn't asking for state funding, AFAIK. His $60M grocery store plan reallocates funding which would have gone to business subsidies for grocery stores, his other ideas cost an estimated $3M and $5M out of a $116Bn fiscal budget. Since Property Taxes are not handled by the state he doesn't need permission to raise them on.
Making buses free might actually save them money from investigating unpaid tickets.
I would love what you're saying to be true, but I don't think it is:
I'm not sure how trustworthy that article is, since it also claims Cuomo comfortably won Brooklyn but the results for Brooklyn were Mamdani 48% to Cuomo 31%. Property taxes do not require state congress and the NYC budget is also separate from the state treasury. It does mention 3 dissenting state congressmen out of 150, the party breakdown being 83D 22R 45O.
More sources on the Albany point:
The article doesn't say that. This is what it says:
You're not doing the bare minimum to arrive at an accurate picture of things. This makes this discussion a waste of time.
For anyone who's actually curious, this map shows the results for each election district.