757
In Zohran Mamdani’s Win, Socialism Beat the Status Quo
(jacobin.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
757 points (100.0% liked)
News
37166 readers
1488 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
…you mean the material differences between two different scenarios?
I've already said that the backing of a powerful organization in different election series would render the same advantages and chance of winning – regardless of the candidates political positions (and that I wanted Mamdani to win! I'm not even arguing to not vote for him; I think every New Yorker should) – so this is literally you just insisting that, no, really the reasoning would be different if Mamdani ran as a third party and the Democratic party endorsed him. Then I'd say the reasoning was different and you should vote for the guy who won the primary.
Which, like, if you're going to assume I'm secretly lying, why even bother to have responded in the first place?
The only one that actually matters is that Mamdani is a progressive and the sex pest you want is a centrist.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. Your entire "it's ok to vote for a third party" thing is only because Mamdani is a progressive. "No matter who" crumbles instantly when the centrist candidate loses the primary.
Ohhhhh; O. K. Yeah; you are just totally ignoring what I'm saying.
Thanks for, at least, confirming.
I've said multiple times I wanted Mamdani to win; I've also said multiple times that I'm, very much, not advocating for anyone to vote third party (again, the candidate I would want won). You're just ignoring what I'm saying and substituting your own reality.
O. K. then; carry on. I wasted way too much time actually thinking this was a real conversation.
Except the part where you keep saying that this is different because it's small and local.
Speaking about the likelihood of whether a candidate can win is not the same thing as desiring for that candidate to win.
I explicitly said in my very first reply to you that I wasn't making a recommendation about which candidate to vote for because my point was about the reasoning of the argument and whether OP's argument actually addressed the viability of a candidate, the central piece of contention when it comes to whether a third-party candidate is capable of winning.
That doesn't mean I want Cuomo to win, regardless of how his chances look or his actual viability. I'm not a centrist; I don't want centrists for office; I'm thrilled the socialist won the primary; this is entirely besides the point of my original comment.
It sure looks like you've been arguing this whole time that voting third party is a-ok in this instance but not any of the previous ones.
The properties of a local election where one of the major parties backs the third party candidate does change the viability of that third party candidate in the election. But…
That doesn't suddenly mean that's the candidate I want to win or that I think that's the candidate everyone should vote for. I feel like we should be able to say Cuomo would have better odds without that inherently meaning we should vote for Cuomo.
I was trying to help explain what material properties affect this to help explain why this election would not be convincing evidence to a person who argues against voting for a third party in a presidential election (where neither of the major parties are backing said third party).
I didn't think that talking about the reasoning of such a person to understand their logic would suddenly mean that I thought voting for the third party was the thing to do or especially that I was advocating for voting for the serial sexual harasser.
I…don't know how else to explain that these are separate things. I feel like I've addressed you in good faith repeatedly while you've just insisted I've been secretly lying.
I understand what you're saying. I'm just not buying that you're not saying that it's a different situation for any reason other than a progressive won.
O. K. I'm genuinely not (I tend to vote for the Greens in my local elections and I feel like one wouldn't've wanted Mamdani to win if coming up with this was solely because the candidate is progressive) but, like, I'm just a stranger to you so I can understand the hesitation to take at face value.
Regardless (as I believe this is the point we are both of the same opinion), the great news is still that he won. I think it was sometime last year I remember discussing with my partner how so many people have this idea of NYC as a liberal city yet their mayors have all been neoliberal centrists, at best; I know he hasn't won the main election, yet, but I'm definitely feeling hopeful about the odds.