In Zohran Mamdani’s Win, Socialism Beat the Status Quo
In Zohran Mamdani’s Win, Socialism Beat the Status Quo
jacobin.com
In Zohran Mamdani’s Win, Socialism Beat the Status Quo
167 comments
-
It seems I'm not able to break down the core basics of the underlying mechanics well enough so we'll probably have to end the conversation but, just in case I'm still being avoidably unclear, I'll try to summarize as barebones as possible:
it's about resources.
More resources behind a candidate materially changes that candidates viability; unless you can explain how a progressive candidate in this scenario invalidates the resources and reach that's actually of concern when weighing whether a candidate can succeed, you – likewise – are opting to ignore the details of the reasoning and not actually address them.
-
It’s weird to be like, “His progressivism makes the difference,” as though I’m hoping the party backs Cuomo or Adams and would rapidly vote third party in this case.
It's honest. Voting 3rd party is literally voting for the worst candidate, in all cases unless there's a progressive as the party's nominee, in which case it doesn't matter.
I'm sick of the double standards and I don't buy the excuses for them.
-
Voting 3rd party is literally voting for the worst candidate, in all cases unless there's a progressive as the party's nominee, in which case it doesn't matter.
See, this is why it feels like your responses are wholly detached from anything I'm actually saying.
I explicitly said that people who make these arguments don't advocate against third party votes in local elections (because the viability/feasibility dynamics of a smaller population are different) and I thought it was clear to extrapolate from the underlying reasoning (but perhaps I was mistaken) that voting for a third party presidential nominee who's been backed by, say, the Democratic party because they opted to not back the winner of their primary during a presidential election (which I didn't mention as it feels highly unlikely, ever, but it's the same premise) would make sense because that candidate would then have the name recognition, reach, and resources necessary to reach a populace as large as the entire nation.
Objectively, you're directly contradicting what I've said the reasoning of the argument is, even when I've pointed out it argues the opposite.
-
See, it's ok to vote 3rd party here. It's not because the nominee is a progressive, it's because of this paragraph of excuses.
-
paragraph of excuses
…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?
-
…you mean the material differences between two different scenarios?
The only one that actually matters is that Mamdani is a progressive and the sex pest you want is a centrist.
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.
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.
-
the sex pest you want is a centrist
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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
167 comments