Dems have to ditch their addiction to AIPAC and corpo money.
Otherwise their fucked.
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
1493 points (98.7% liked)
Political Memes
12240 readers
2591 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I would argue that Mamdani, AOC, Sanders, and any others who follow that same path are all parts of a different party that is simply forced to run on the Democrat ballot. Meanwhile the true Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same Corprocrat party who is there to progress the interests of corporations and the only divide is on what to do with the 'remaining' population.
He lost them with "don't take corpo checks"
"b-b-b-but how will I afford a gravy yacht?"
🥺👉👈
Because the DNC isn't actually on the side of the working class. They aren't like us. No matter how much they say they are, actions speak louder than words. I just don't understand why others can't see the pattern that I do. I see Democrats tanking on purpose, accepting money from influences that don't have their voters best interest, and reaping the benefits of Republican decisions that they claim they are against....
Just follow the money.
I mean, the last few elections were proof enough. They put up safe (for them) candidates and barely even try to do anything more than be "not trump". Its infuriating when people preach at me about how great Kamala was going to be and that nobody voted for her out of sexism/racism. I voted for her, but the pre-election was handled like shit and the lack of a primary turned off WAY more voters than they want to admit. The right wingers are constantly calling the democrats communists, and then the democrats respond by selecting their candidate without anyone's input. They just play into the narrative and reap the rewards while trying to keep the illusion of a moral high ground.
NYC isn't the country. However, that being said, a few years of him being successful would go a long way to convince the centrists that it's the way to go.
I mean, most of us here know it is...but we need to get the rest of the country onboard, and showing success is the best way to do that...
Throughtout my life I've encountered the "X isn't Y" thought-terminating cliche anywhere I've ever tried to do any sort of activism or advocacy (When I was doing bike advocacy in NYC it was often "New York isn't Amsterdam" which was especially ironic considering that it once literally was). It's never once been a meaningful or persuasive point. Reality on the ground is always what we make it, and policy can be communicated through the right identity and strategies. New Yorkers really aren't at all that different from Americans anywhere else, the biggest differences are aesthetic.
I've been accused of being a centrist, despite basically being to the left of everyone in American politics, and I think it's because people tend to over-weight the economic left/right spectrum (or project other non-economic issues onto the left/right spectrum), and not place enough effort into thinking through:
- Ideological purity versus pragmatic deal-making.
- Actual governance skill, kinda a technocratic versus populist view.
- When and where it's appropriate to break the law to accomplish goals, like the lawfu-to-chaotic alignment in the D&D memes.
None of that is left/right or centrist in itself, but my positions (pragmatic, technocratic, lawful) sometimes put me at odds with other voices on the left.
Other criteria that don't map onto left/right include authenticity, consistency/predictability, coherence across issues, and plain old network connections, and political effectiveness (influencing the public and other politicians to follow your lead on issues).
Mamdani is awesome because he exudes authenticity (like, I'm not a Knicks fan but he can give a great mayor's speech for his favorite team winning), gets things done (actual stuff around city governance, like snow shoveling), and seems to know how to get policy passed (working with Hochul to get some big ticket legislation on taxing the rich accomplished, even if it will contain some compromises). He is, in other words, an effective politician. We need more people like him scattered throughout different jurisdictions.
I will gladly support a coalition of centrists and leftists to move things to the left, especially if they can flank the current Republican party on plain old competence and honesty/fairness in governance.
I always say, if you vote for the left-most candidate in EVERY election, then that's how we move things to the left. If you stay home because the left-most candidate isn't left-enough for you, that's how the right wins.
I am not from US so I don't know how NYC is going? Is Mamdani really doing good there?
His policies sure are popular, and definitely better for the people there. The 1%'ers don't like it, but I haven't heard of any big names leaving just yet. Definitely passed the test during the last big snowstorm.. had the roads and sidewalks cleared in record time.
The dems "win" for their masters by losing.
Also, it’s incredibly simple. Mamdani is getting stuff done but even attempting to get stuff done makes people happy.
And getting stuff done implies in some part that it could have been done before. So why had it not?
He's the politician that didn't get the memo to try and look like you're doing something, but don't actually do it. As if we'll run out of problems to solve and campaign on. Maybe it's that simple - having to shift to new messages is hard vs. sticking with the old ones.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Because the Democratic Party serves the same masters as the GOP. They exist to make sure that a large enough majority maintains faith in the system to keep the populace from revolting. They serve a secondary purpose of capturing and neutering any social movements that might create a danger to the Wall St agenda.
Note that "governing" and "policy" are not part of their purpose.
load more comments
(6 replies)
The entrenched establishment that still controls the DNC isn't interested in winning elections if it means offending AIPAC or their mega rich and corporate donors. They can't offer any meaningful change for the working class without risking their own paychecks, so they don't have any moves except "not Trump."
load more comments
(28 replies)
It's the billionaires that are pulling them to the right... The money... The greed... The power
Democrats doing their centrist bullshit are captured by corporate lobbyists.
How Money Works explained the saturation of money in politics (here, on YouTube), and it runs effing deep.
Essentially anyone who gets elected at a federal or state level has to decide between two options. Do they:
a) Want to serve their constituency and fight for the common voter? Or...
b) Get really rich and join the ownership class (the 0.1% or higher)?
And during the 90s and Aughts it became normal in both parties to choose option b) Apparently, it's super humiliating, because the official no longer does any actual legislating. Instead, lobbyists come to them with premade bills (and promises of campaign contributions and dark money and stuff) and the lawmaker only gets the prize if the law gets passed verbatim. There is no doubt from the official that they're being played and owned, and that their constituents are going to suffer for their corruption. But then, the money is awesome, and so they get used to it.
We're actually seeing how removed some of our officials have become from the common American experience, with countless let them eat cake moments. We'll hear an official express in a soundbite that they don't understand or care about the concerns of the commoner.
And yes, we're seeing other signs of capture in the establishment Democratic party. News came out not long ago (here from Politico) that centrist Democrats are getting worried now that progressives and SDAs are winning elections and becoming a larger portion of the big tent. Evidently, it's a coalition party so long as the left side offers its votes but not its opinions.
I think Democratic voters are tepid about merely keeping the Republicans at bay (even though the consequences are awful when we fail) but actually get excited about voting in candidates when they have specific platforms they want to do while in office. Taking a page from Ross Perot in 1988, a lot of people got excited because he had a very specific plan. I think voters would like to see detailed plans rather than ambiguous objectives.
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›