718
So their dislike of him is just because he isn't white.
Probably also a lot of propaganda.
You get told by every mainstream news everywhere on social media that this is an “evil socialist”.
It’s been a trend for atleast the past 30 years that policy wise the average US voter has been way further to the left than the average party they vote for.
Yep. The same thing happened to Bernie in the 2016 primary. He polled better than Trump amongst Republicans in some polls right up until people were told whose policies they were, and then many of those same people said that they would vote against him.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Having the term "socialist" in his description "Democrat socialist of america" is gonna turn off a lot of people. It's a dirty word in the US.
I want mandatory vacations, nationalization of the shorelines, nationalization of all oil reserves, if some companies drills - they need to be paying tax on what they extract.
That would mean the US would have to invade itself to restore democracy, much like when other countries wanted to nationalize their own fucking resources...
Good thing they're not part of the ICC!
Well that and he's for socialist policies. You see Americans want socialist policies, they just need to get them rebranded first so they don't have socialist policies.
Not necessarily, the US now has a long track record of progressive policies being super popular when they're not associated with Democrats.
It's kind of dumb, because politicians don't really matter aside from their policy.
I guess that means that most of the attack ads probably had some impact and that US voters are against this guy, but can't remember why?
I swear sometimes it feels were in an disinformation dark ages. Like dehydrating on a boat in the ocean.
Lack of credible news sources. It's all entertainment now. Those in power are afraid of a well-informed electorate. However, as Americans, it's our duty to cut through the bs
There's plenty of good journalism eeking by out there, it's just buried by feeds and spam.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Policies mesn nothing without trust
Don’t need to be a certain color or gender to get the job done correctly to help the people.
This survey seems to suggest otherwise.
Many, including myself, see Trumps wins as backlash by legacy European settler descendants for to a part African man serving two terms as president.
The poll says 46% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats outside of New York don't have an opinion on a guy running to be Mayor of New York.
Clickbaitey article headline implies not having an opinion on a politician running for mayor in another city means the same as being unfavorable towards that politician. Yes he has a low favorable number but a massive "no opinion" number because should people give a shit about a politician in another city?
New Yorkers may like to to think they're the center of the world, but shockingly over 40% of people outside of New York probably don't know who this guy is because why should they?
Really. I've read quite a bit about him, and I've never even been in North America.
But I also try to stay informed, and our news are infested with US culture war bullshit.
Well you're in a politics community on lemmy, so you're going to hear about all of the leftist populists constantly. But I don't think lemmy is an extremely popular web forum.
The ghouls, sewer-dwelling demons, and subterranean goblins are all assembling their forces to defeat Mamdani.
Don't forget the bridge-residing trolls, splitter!
What is the problem they have with Zo... nevermind...
he's not a white moron. That explains a lot.
One thing that drives me crazy is when Progressives insist on talking about Socialism.
Talk about the policies and ignore everything else.
I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately the amount of right-wing propaganda out there will label any real challenger as being socialist whether that's Mamdani or the "radical marxist socialist commie" that was... Kamala Harris?
So progressives must decide whether they hide from the term, enabling the fearmongering, or openly embracing it to show there is nothing wrong with it.
Second to that, I feel they should be pivoting the questions not just to policy but to definitionally explain the notion of socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracies; how in reality — as in actual, realized, tangible results, not utopian fantasies — some of the happiest and most successful countries by the data are ones who embraced a properly mixed economy; that is, social democracies or the Nordic Model.
I recently had what was maybe one of my biggest wins in a conversation with a maga by explaining it this way. They're so damn confused and believe all trade and bartering, all markets, and any scale of monetary income will vanish. That big bad guv'mint isn't necessarily so bad when it's protected from outsized corporate and billionaire power and firmly in the hands Of the People.
Or… they just completely ignore it?
If you’re going to be labeled a socialist and commie sympathizer no matter what you do, why not just run on your platform and brush off the accusations as political hubris?
As far as my decision-making on that would go, I think it would depend on if the actual electorate is believing that mischaracterization, and if I have access to actually respond directly to those people or not.
In a debate for instance, I'd aim to hand-wave that away in dismissal but then pivot and say, "let's talk about what I really envision for our country and you can tell me if that sounds good to you....[explains]... And so for these great things, you'll probably end up asking, "but how will we pay for it? [explains ROI, our excess costs now, the amount of wealth of the billionaire class and corporate coffers, etc.]"
If after that the debate moderator or opponent continues to push hard on, "but are you a socialist. Are you a communist!?" I'd take that as an invitation to say explain the differences and how the happiest countries of the world are properly mixed economies between the spectrum of socialism to laissez-faire capitalism.
So, your plan is to waste debate time and call yourself a Socialist.
Why not do something like say "This is what Ike backed back when he was President. Are you calling Ike a Communist?"
load more comments
(8 replies)
I mean, if someone wants to call themselves socialist, maybe it's fine, but I think most of their discussion should be about the policies they are for, how they would work, etc., and what that would mean for everyday Americans.
Once the qons throw out that tar baby Red Scare stuff, and the target(s) start engaging with them on this, tacitly accepting the framings and the definitions that the qons have chosen? Game over. Now the target(s) are on the back foot, trying to prove they aren't the demons a lot of normies and qons have been trained to think anyone with those labels really are, and they get to wrestle the tar baby endlessly.
Instead of doing that, I suggest these people make the qons justify THEIR positions. How is it morally defensible that the likes of Taco and fElon got out their chainsaw and have already murdered hundreds of thousands of children and jeopardizes millions more in the future? As an example on the national stage.
If progressives waste tons of time defending themselves, arguing over the absurd framing and definitions and terms that the qons have spent decades sharpening, they are already losing. Their narrative should be about painting a brighter future for every American, while demanding the qons defend THEIR reprehensible actions and political platforms.
I mean haven't the likes of Chomsky and Cenk been pointing this out for decades? When polling Americans on the issues, they tend to be progressive?
That's in spite of a helluva lot of propaganda that is nonstop, 24/7, in favor of corporations, by the way...
Yes this has been a known fact for like 30 years. But somehow it feels like no one internalised it so I keep sharing examples.
Please do continue. The usual trope that "most people are cons" is common currency, nearly everywhere, even though it's false.
Abstract policies are a notoriously poor way of polling for voting patterns.
But it seems most people don't have a strong opinion on our New York boy, which is honestly the best we could ask for at this junction. May ~~Zohran the DESTROYER'S enemies be DESTROYED~~ Mamdani succeed and, for our sakes if not necessarily his, go on to national politics after. Gods know we need him.
The weird part is it shouldn't be, it shows how enthralled every is by the sports team 'us and them' dynamic that they'd rather vote for policies they hate than for someone not on their team.
I think it speaks more to how shallow policy questions tend to be.
Yeah, thing is Democrats are on the same side of the class war as Republicans.
Just say that he wants the Epstein files released.
Could it be a blueprint for Democrats elsewhere?
Democrats elsewhere: "For messaging right? A blueprint for our messaging? Right?"
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
718 points (98.8% liked)
politics
31213 readers
3123 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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