this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
154 points (98.1% liked)

politics

25420 readers
2279 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

On Sunday, in an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union program, Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries refused to answer the question put to him several times by anchor Dana Bash as to why he has not endorsed the winner of the New York City Democratic mayoral primary election, Zohran Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). He dodged the question, saying he was “engaged in a conversation” with Mamdani on a variety of topics.

To date, none of the leading national or state figures in the Democratic Party, including, besides Jeffries, New York senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and Governor Kathy Hochul, have endorsed Mamdani. Gillibrand was recently forced to retract her statement that Mamdani’s position on Palestine is “glorifying the slaughter of Jews.”

The refusal to date of top national and state elected Democrats to endorse the party’s candidate in the country’s largest city, more than two months after the primary, is extraordinary. It is an expression of a deep crisis pervading the Democratic Party.

Mamdani, who refers to himself as a socialist and opposes the Gaza genocide, ran on a program of minor reforms, such as a freeze on rent increases on rent-regulated apartments, free bus service and universal childcare. He won the votes of hundreds of thousands of workers and young people, in a lopsided victory over former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and other contenders.

The oligarchy that controls both big business parties demands that the next administration in New York impose sweeping austerity measures as state and federal funding for education and social programs evaporates.

Moreover, the Democratic Party has swung so far to the right since the Reagan era, working with Republicans to redistribute the national income from the bottom to the top, gut social programs, and wage aggressive imperialist wars, that even nominal opposition to these policies sets off alarm bells. The oligarchic character of American society is such that the class of billionaires that dominates US politics is not willing to sanction even the most modest incursion into its members’ fabulous fortunes.

Both Cuomo and the current mayor, Eric Adams, are running as independents against Mamdani, with varying degrees of support from ruling circles in the city and state. Both are trailing far behind Mamdani in the polls...

all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

AIPAC Shakur is such a spineless little bitch. It’s fucking depressing. Nobody who has the barest shred of real power is doing a fucking thing to meaningful stop the regime. I am genuinely morbidly curious about what needs to happen for them to do literally fucking anything. Schumer and Jeffries are gonna be the death of us. It beggars belief how obviously incompetent they are.

[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.zip 46 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Primary him. It’s the only way to scare these power-hungry assholes into listening to their constituents. Imagine if Jeffries becomes speaker, he’d be even more beholden to the neoliberals and billionaires.

Fuck with the base (the base voted for Mamdani), and lose your seat. Actual real consequences are the only thing that matter these clowns.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

In order for him to be "primaried" we need a leftist candidate from his district to step up. And then that candidate will need a buttload of crowdfunding to overcome his rich backers' ad dollars in order to convince the plebes who just mechanically vote in the incumbent democrat to think before pulling that lever for him again.

Edit: for those outside his district, seek the leftist running against your local billionaire boot licking democrat and help them get elected so we can at least remove him as minority leader in the house.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If primaries worked America wouldn't be in this situation. What's the next step?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 15 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

This is literally an article about a primary that worked.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago

They had rank choice voting its the only reason he won primary. Take that away and Democrats will cheat just like the Republicans especially in their primaries.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 20 hours ago

A primary can work; primaries as a whole evidently aren't. Also this is an article about a primary not fulfilling its purpose because the party leadership doesn't give a shit about democracy when it doesn't suit them. Mamdani has enough independent popularity to win anyway, but since he has that independent popularity it means he never needed the DNC or their primary in the first place.

[–] rafoix@lemmy.zip 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

They work but the problem is that it’s a lot of work and requires a lot of people to organize.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 6 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Those are potential explanations for why primaries don't work, but the fact still remains that "more of the same" isn't an answer to America's problems. I mean hell, right now we have two progressive primary winners (Mamdani and Omar Fateh) that the Democratic Party and its local subsidiaries are refusing to endorse despite that being the whole point of a primary. The "get 'em in the primaries" model of progressive activism has been a resounding failure.

[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago

Right, we're watching them be primaried and they literally ignore the results and campaign as independent, taking the dnc party backing with them. Maybe the problem is the democratic party and their opposition to any working class politics? Or any politics at all that arent "youre a fascist for not voting for our 95% hitler instead of 99% hitler we allowed to exist in order to force you to vote for us"?

Idk, I'm just living in reality and perceiving the world as it is so what do I know

[–] rafoix@lemmy.zip 4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

That’s kind of defeatist. Some of the most popular and well known US congresspeople are The Squad. The current progressive movement seems to have been started after Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squad_(U.S._Congress)

Political change doesn’t happen overnight. It is a marathon. The wealthy donors expect you and I to give up sooner rather than later.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 21 hours ago

Some of the most popular and well known US congresspeople are The Squad.

Yes, and yet nobody is successfully following their example outside local elections. Hell, the Squad has shrunk compared to two years ago with the defeat of Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, so if anything we're looking at a brief wave that's already receding. Also there's nothing that makes this decade (counting from 2016) special compared to 2008 when Obama was elected on a "hope and change" platform, and we've seen how that went.

It is a marathon.

There's a marathon of preparation, but after that preparation the results should come much faster than what we're seeing now. Current US politics don't inspire hope that there's a progressive wave coming to fundamentally change American politics. More importantly, though, political change isn't just a marathon; there's a timeline you have to stick to because you need to effect real change before the right reaches its end goal of fascism. Promising change sometime next century simply won't cut it, as seen from the ongoing collapse of US democracy. There's a reason every positive change for the working class, peaceful or violent, required action a lot more forceful than "run for election."

The wealthy donors expect you and I to give up sooner rather than later.

At the risk of repeating myself, they don't need you to give up; they can simply outpace you. At this point even the midterms are too late; something needs to be done right now.

To be clear, what I'm arguing for here isn't "let's sit on our asses and do nothing;" there are historical and current examples for how to extract concessions from the ruling class, but they relied organization among the working class and direct action (and a healthy dose of violence) a lot more than electoral politics. The civil rights movement, the labor rights movement and abolition are just a few examples of this in action; every single right you have was fought for not through the ballot box, but through the blood, sweat and tears of people who decided they'd had enough.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I think it goes

  • Soap Box
  • Ballot Box
  • Jury Box
  • Ammo Box
[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 2 points 19 hours ago

And the last step, pine box

[–] splonglo@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago

It all comes back to big money in politics. These guys get bought and sold by billionaires because they don't want to pay tax. It stinks and everyone knows it and the longer it goes on the less people vote, the less they believe in democracy and the stronger authoritarians get. Democracy is on the brink because of Jeffries and people like him.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'd say something sarcastic about this being a very surprising development, but I'm legitimately surprised they're this obstinate about opposing even moderate leftwing policy. Like yeah these guys would sooner choose fascism than moderate leftism but still, what?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fucking stupid. They're so good at losing that it's starting to seem intentional

[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago
[–] devolution@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We got creamed in 2024. Let's fix that by doubling down on everything wrong. Maybe the Trumpies will support us then.

The far right wants executions. The far left wants the rebirth of Jesus without him being named Jesus.

Money is easier to support than morals.

Lefties, if there is ever a time to get off of your asses and vote, now would be it. If you don't support Mamdani, don't ever complain about how things are.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you don't support Mamdani, don't ever complain about how things are.

What in the hell makes you think the left isn't supporting Mamdani?

[–] devolution@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The lefts track record of actually voting when it matters or voting period is pretty terrible.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds to me like the Democrats desperately need those votes and should start catering to those voters instead of telling them to fuck off and get in line then.

[–] OboTheHobo@ttrpg.network 3 points 19 hours ago

Lot of the DNC is too stupid to realize that. They see missing votes from demographics that normally would and assume it means that theyre too left and need to appeal more to centrists.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] devolution@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The one-hundred million who do not vote do not lean significantly to the left.

Literally the first sentence of the article.

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 23 hours ago

That time may have passed. Look at the new elections head.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

Bro going to align fully with the fascists to keep his seat, one of the deepest blue seats in the country.

Jefferies is the direct consequence of "BNMW/ Blue MAGA". Instead of a strong progressive in a deep blue seat, competing to be more progressive to keep the seat, we end up with a guy supporting genocide, when its polling at sub 8% within the party.

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

Always talking about standing up and fighting but as soon as their job or paycheck are in danger they back down. If you're not even willing to sacrifice the bare minimum nobody will have your back. People have lost more jobs than Jeffries has even had. I make more compromises at the grocery store than these people have made their entire political careers.

[–] desmosthenes@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

fear of AIPAC that strong..?

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 10 points 23 hours ago

As well as fear of actually starting a winning plan for once and then they'll all have to work for their wealth instead of cashing anonymous checks.

There are few things they fear more than the end of one-party-pretending-to-be-two rule, they would be forced to retire with only millions in the bank and not hundreds of millions.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 19 hours ago

AIPAC is a scourge on American politics, but let's not give them too much credit. They simply hate anyone trying to help the working class.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 9 points 1 day ago

"We are dead set on losing! If we can't help enrich the billionaire class then I want no part in it! The Democrats are the party of Nice Conservatives™©® that's it! Please vote for us."

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Jeffries is simply not a very smart man.