232
Zohran Mamdani says he and allies he endorsed carry a ‘national message’
(www.theguardian.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 28 Jun 2026
232 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30210 readers
1936 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
They hated you for speaking the truth.
No, I think it's because it's a lazy, facile take. Americans can't think for themselves and only do what they're told? Trump's been blasting shit at us from the country's largest bully pulpit for a decade, why doesn't he have 100% approval and support?
People vote for candidates for a variety of personal, communal, and environmental reasons. Some of that has to do with what those candidates say and do, but reducing it down to "Americans are brainless automatons who do what they're told" is nonsense.
So when folks such as yourselves get downvoted spectacularly as such, does that just reinforce your underdeveloped, edgy opinions? If so, what a vicious cycle to have to deal with.
I don’t see downvotes in my instance so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
For real, I don't know how else you explain people voting for whomever they're told.
People hear candidates' arguments and make their own (informed or otherwise) judgements about them. How exactly do you think this system of yours works? Do you think Americans count how many political ads they see and vote for whoever aired the most? or do they just check the box next to the last name they heard before they walked into the voting booth?
What you're saying makes no sense. Of course people are going to vote for one of the candidates that wants their vote, those are the only kind of candidates on the ballot. How they choose which one is more complicated.
So you think it's a coincidence that all those voters arrived at the same decision as Mamdani, entirely of their own volition, and they completely ignored his endorsement to oust establishment Dems? This is the line of logic you want to go with?
Did you read the thing you quoted? Obviously I don't think it's a coincidence.
LOL What're you talking about!? You obviously do?
Tell me how you get from this to "it's just a coincidence"
Tell me how you think people use rational thought processes to collectively come to the same decision as Mamdani, against establishment Dems, and its not coincidence...