Skip Navigation

Andrew Cuomo says he’ll run a third-party bid for New York mayor after losing Democratic primary

www.cnn.com

Andrew Cuomo says he’ll run a third-party bid for New York mayor after losing Democratic primary | CNN Politics

You're viewing a single thread.

253 comments
  • To be fair: The Democratic Party isn't a viable political engine for positive social change or a working-class agenda. If Cuomo wins it will be yet another example of how untrustworthy, hypocritical, and vapid Blue No Matter Who voting habits are.

    • Remember when mods coordinated to ban any criticism of BNMW / Blue Maga from all the major subs during 2024? How they the cultivated a community of briggading, sea-lioning, etc.. to try and suppress any criticism of an approach to politics that was obviously going to hand the country to Trump?

      .

      • My ass. I wish the mods had banned obviously disingenuous "let's let Trump win to make a point, what's the difference anyway" made-up critique that blamed Kamala Harris for Gaza and inflation, under a tissue-thin pretense of "I just care about the country sooooooooooooooooooooo much that I'm giving well informed constructive criticism." Instead we had to just yell at y'all about it in the comments, which since there were hundreds of posts and comments every single day with that viewpoint was always a losing battle. Even trolling of crayon-quality transparency of the UniversalMonk variety was explicitly allowed by the mods, and people who objected to it too strongly got banned for it.

        The whining about how you're not allowed to get your message out, which is constantly broadcasted on every channel where you're claiming you're being silenced, is just part and parcel of the alternate reality you're having a good bit of success in constructing. MAGA does it too, it's part of the package.

        • You do understand that your cynical lying about the past is why your camp is losing the argument? I mean, I don't dislike you, at least not personally, and and even if I have to drag you by the hair onto the right side of history, I'll at least afford you the charity required for you to fix yourself.

          There is no point in bothering with conjecture regarding the bans. They happened, its documented, any one can look it up. It doesn't help your following arguments to simply lie about a reality people can easily go reference for themselves, if they didn't live the experience themselves, as many of us have. A conjecture rooted in the same cynicism that cost us the election.

          Now as before, your cynical misrepresentation of the arguments which were made also works against you. We argued that without replacing Biden, we'd lose the election. And we had the same claims you are levying, here, now, levied against us them. That we were secret Trump supporters. That we were the ones costing the Democrats the election. And then, as it does, the truth of the matter has a way of finding itself out. And we who stayed focus on an accurate and valid criticisms we're proven right. In-spite of this, and this is the true cost of cynicism, you continued to reject the analysis and criticism of those who got it right. Instead of showing grace and changing, yours doubled down on your wrongness, when even the beltway insiders had the humility to recognize how wrong they'd been. No. No instead you embraced the worst instinct: to double down on the cynicism. Harris needed to pivot away from Biden's policies and political techniques to come back in the extra innings she was afforded. But no. The cynics won the side-line arguments on how to handle the extra time we got on the clock (and let us not forget, these same cynics were the ones arguing against replacing Biden), and we all suffer because.

          We should listen to the people who got it right, to begin with, and who stayed right the whole time. We should ignore those who are guided by cynicism and fear. Sacrificing your values for billionaire donations isn't just morally abhorrent: Its also bad strategy.

          • There is no point in bothering with conjecture regarding the bans. They happened, its documented, any one can look it up.

            Can you look them up, and show them to me? I came close to digging through the modlog myself, to prove that the number of times in Dec 2023 / Jan 2024 that someone was banned for posting a poll showing Biden behind was 0.

            We argued that without replacing Biden, we'd lose the election.

            I said that with replacing Biden, we'd lose the election, because the exact same arguments that applied to Biden would get applied to Harris, plus some new ones, and all the forces that marshaled a variety of bad-faith bullshit against Biden would start to do the same against Harris, and people in this country literally can't tell up from down when it comes to the election. And, in the election, that's what happened.

            A lot of what you're saying happened also, yes. I'm genuinely confused about how you're accusing me of being cynical about it or telling the Democrats to be more right wing. What statements did I make that led you to think that?

            • I said that with replacing Biden, we'd lose the election, because the exact same arguments that applied to Biden would get applied to Harris, plus some new ones,

              Are you genuinely, seriously, trying to pretend that Joe “We beat Medicare” Biden was the better candidate to beat Trump? Bruh.

              This absolute baldfaced refusal to accept reality from Democrat loyalists up and down the party structure, makes the whole party look unserious. Team sports, ‘my guy can do no wrong’ horseshit that they also see from the MAGAs, but team red talks game about inflation and the economy - and isn’t the incumbent seen as responsible for it.

              • Are you genuinely, seriously, trying to pretend that Joe “We beat Medicare” Biden was the better candidate to beat Trump? Bruh.

                What? No, not even slightly. I'm saying that the people who are extensively hand-wringing about how these specific Democratic candidates fucked everything up, should be sparing at least one or two words for thirty years of Democratic fuckery laying the groundwork, the media pretending that Trump was a controversial but ultimately capable businessman who would fix the economy that was hurting them so badly, and any particular thing the Democrats did wrong was justification for having a multi-week freakout, and also the fact that most Americans get their political news from TikTok and Facebook if they get it at all.

                Biden was old as fuck and it was a massive problem, even before the debate. I'm saying that none of the most serious problems got solved when he was replaced. And look... they didn't.

                • hand-wringing about how these specific Democratic candidates fucked everything up, should be sparing at least one or two words for thirty years of Democratic fuckery laying the groundwork

                  I agree (and did), but posting that context often was dismissed with “it’s election season, quit posting FUD if you’re not a troll/bad-faith”. Y'all weren’t there for the discussion even - as was shown with Gaza.

                  But the basic fact is that the candidate(s) and party apparatus either: A) Fundamentally failed to read the room and see the obvious discontent and voter backlash over several policy stances and material realities, or B) Knew all that and still decided to run the campaign they wanted to, whilst cynically wielding the Republicans as a worse option to impel democrat voters on the left, so they could run to the center and abandon the working class to the Republicans

                  Nobody forced them or their staffers to pick option B, even as their own internal polling showed their defeat was all but assured under option B. And here we are.

                  Biden was old as fuck and it was a massive problem, even before the debate. I'm saying that none of the most serious problems got solved when he was replaced. And look... they didn't.

                  So when do I get to play the ‘Quit spreading FUD’ card then? Because as you said, if nothing was going to fundamentally change re:platform, why not present a new and younger candidate after Biden’s cognitive meltdown, and claw back some of the party’s reputation with the electorate? Why not hold a ‘speed primary’? Why let cynicism win out and accept Biden drowning the party with him, because ‘nobody else can do better’ while he’s an elder lich that refuses to let go of power?

                  • Honestly, I'm just sick of having the exact same conversation an indefinite number of times every time I come to lemmy.world.

                    I'll keep it short: No one from the DNC is on Lemmy. When you post on Lemmy, you're not successfully talking any sense into the Democrats. You're speaking to people who are deciding how to vote, whether to vote, how to get involved with activist organizations, and also just in a truth telling sense helping all of us make sense of what's going on. The problems in American politics go way deeper than one candidate or one party. You are not saving the Democrats by making these recommendations, although they're not really wrong, but you are attempting to take 100% of the oxygen away from other problems (which are also very real) which we are all similarly mostly-powerless to fix but which are also significant problems.

                    You're also arguing against a bunch of stuff that I, at least, never said, which I understand is fun to do but it's not real productive for us making sense to one another. I'm happy to talk with you, if you do some homework first: Find 5-10 different examples of me talking about Gaza, what a problem it was, and how Biden was complicit in it. Once you've done that (it should take literally one text search, use the @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat account since this one is new), we can chat.

            • Can you look them up, and show them to me? I came close to digging through the modlog myself, to prove that the number of times in Dec 2023 / Jan 2024 that someone was banned for posting a poll showing Biden behind was 0.

              Yes and no. Yes I can, in that I've built out at least some of the tools to do so. I can't in that I'm still at work today and haven't returned to that project in quite a while.

              • So anyone can look it up, but in order to look it up, you'd have to build some tools and it's a whole project?

                • I mean any one could go find some examples from memory that they experienced. I could dig far enough into my comment history to find them. In-fact I was digging through some banned community members and found some examples just the other day.

                  What I'm doing is far, far larger in scope. I'm not trying to find one instance, I'm trying to find all of them. I'm also interested in correlating that to "shifts in the overall narrative" to the sub. And I'm trying to do this across several prominent subs. And I'm not doing this in an adhoc way. When I have results they'll be publishable.

                  I've built some of the more important tools already which allow me to pull the entire comment history of a user and perform significant sentiment analysis, key phrase extraction, etc.. but some aspects aren't reliable enough yet to be completely useful.

                  This is some example output using flyingsqids data: https://tmpweb.net/jS19ePfgNdz0/

                  (scroll to the bottom, then scroll up instead of starting at the top)

                  The first analysis is a "trolling/ not trolling" analysis. Then its a frequency analysis. I used squid because of their preposterous number of comments. Some weeks they were commenting almost ever 3 minutes for hours on end.

                  If life we're simpler I'd be further along on this project, but alas, the bills. They do not pay themselves. And its a hobby thing I'm not getting paid for, so its the last to get access to my time.

                  • I’ve built some of the more important tools already which allow me to pull the entire comment history of a user and perform significant sentiment analysis, key phrase extraction, etc… but some aspects aren’t reliable enough yet to be completely useful.

                    this sounds gross and very much like witch-hunting and stalking. yes, all comments are public but u coming up w a tool just to find someones and analyze and make judgement on them seems gross and out of line. think of how fasicst and controling that sounds. what if some republican was doing that and bragged about it? think about that

                  • I mean any one could go find some examples from memory that they experienced.

                    Could you find some examples from memory that you experienced, for me?

                    I feel like we keep having the same conversation here.

                    • Ozma's ban comes to mind pretty lazily. But I'm not trying to do additional work on your behalf right now. I just had a long day and I'm done working for now.

                      • return2ozma was banned because he was posting a nonstop flood of articles, and admitted to the mods that he basically just searched out bad stories about Biden and posted them whatever they were (even some ones he didn't try to defend any kind of factual accuracy of), to bring "balance."

                        I actually don't agree with making that the criterion. I think it's of a piece with lots of types of lazy and unproductive moderation that happpens on lemmy.world. But, I definitely agreed with banning him, for the same reason that I would expect to be banned if I went to your favorite community and posted 15 stories a day about "Five things you won't believe about what Biden accomplished during his term in office!" It's not about the viewpoint being prohibited from anyone expressing it (and, of course, the fact that we're having this conversation and you haven't been banned for expressing criticism of the Democrats is an obvious counterexample to you trying to say that's banned on LW). It's about one person spamming to try to promote it.

                        But I'm not trying to do additional work on your behalf right now. I just had a long day and I'm done working for now.

                        You said anyone could do it, you said it was super easy, just from memory. We'd be having a different conversation if you'd said "Anyone who felt like taking a bunch of time away from their job could probably put together a script to comb through the whole database to find the single example you're looking for, because I'm sure at least one exists, although I can't do that whole endeavor right now I'm confident that it would work if someone did do it. I'm very tired and such a thing would be horrifying and unfair if someone asked me to do it. I just know some other person who had a lot of energy to spare could."

                    • happened plenty and you guys still witchhunt people who didn't seem to worship everything dem lol luckilly lemmy is so dencentralize that they don't have to be silenced no matte rhow much u wish they were

                • Find a particular modlog entry from last year. See how long it takes.

                  • Well, I wasn't the one who said it was easy (and IDK that digging through the modlog is the easiest way even for someone who is sure that it happened to find out when it did), but sure. Here are all the posts from Dec 2023 and Jan 2024 that were removed that had "poll" in the title:

                     
                        
                    7554770 | 2023-12-29T13:56:49.802793Z | Sarah Huckabee Sanders lowest approval rating for governor in last 20 years, Arkansas Poll says | https://www.thv11.com/article/news/politics/sarah-huckabee-sanders-lowest-approval-rating-governor-20-years/91-c76da35b-4704-46de-abc0-0a42ee19ea95
                    2806047 | 2023-12-29T13:18:36.770457Z | Trump Fan Who Threatened Poll Workers And Officials Sent To Prison | https://crooksandliars.com/2023/08/trump-fan-who-threatened-poll-workers-and
                    2461059 | 2023-12-29T13:18:19.629020Z | Donald Trump Has an Absurd Amount of Support From Republicans Who Believe He Committed “Serious Federal Crimes”: Poll | https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/07/donald-trump-ron-desantis-2024-poll
                    3653177 | 2023-12-29T13:16:15.792290Z | Democrat Adam Frisch leads against Rep. Lauren Boebert in poll for 2024 race | https://www.denverpost.com/2023/08/22/adam-frisch-lauren-boebert-poll-2024-race/
                    10024810 | 2023-12-29T13:08:37.582079Z | Trump Shares Poll Result Predicting 'Revenge' And 'Dictatorship' As Top Priorities | https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-poll-dictatorship-revenge_n_658beb48e4b0cd3cf0e41a98
                    
                      

                    I was assured there would be some that showed Biden behind in the polls, that the mods were trying to cover up...

                    It's a silly thing to get hung up on, but it helps to demonstrate that the person I'm talking with is talking about some situation that didn't happen in reality.

        • Alternate realities, certainly unlike not making a PR at GitHub, rather than unhinged accusations that spent over an hour doubling, tripling, quintupling down for a couple of hours...

      • Yes, and they've apparently decided to abandon this community in order to wall themselves off from we BoTh SiDeS-ers.

        • I mean, they lost. And more than just the election. They lost the battle for ideological control of how to do politics; of how to win elections, which was always the premise that justified their reason for being: Their loss is existential.

          The core of their argument was that their cynicism was required to win elections. That we had to sacrifice our values, for whatever reason, to be able to "win" the election. To reiterate what our criticisms. Originally, it was with Biden. That without a serious pivot on Gaza and to right wing "enlightened centrism" that had guided his path to that point, he would lose the election. The later criticism was with Harris, and basically identical: That without pivoting and focusing on the issues the base was concerned with, that she would lose the election.

          @Phillip_The_Bucket is demonstrating the same cynicism in this thread that lost the election for all of us in his fraudulent interpretation of our critique. The argument wasn't that Biden or Harris should lose. We we're point out that they were losing, and at least some of us where arguing what they needed to do to win. If you were to point out the obvious fact that Biden was polling, somehow below DJT, in Dec 2023/Jan 2024, you would get down voted all to hell, if not outright banned. You would get called a bot. Or an NPC. Or an russian operative. Or any other number of slurs. I presented a scientific analysis showing that it was statistically impossible for Biden to turn things around in March of 2024. It was removed as misinformation and I received a ban for it. This isn't conjecture. Its all documented. Ask @Return2Ozma some of the names they've been called and insults they've had to suffer for simply posting articles that actually reflect reality.

          They were wrong to begin with, insisted on staying committed to something that they knew was both a moral and tactical disaster, they were wrong after Biden dropped out, they were wrong up until the day of the election, and they've been wrong since. Alternatively, the exact same critiques we've been levying for years now have become the mainstream interpretation of past events. And now, with Mandami's victory we're showing something even more powerful. That there is real power in doing the right thing and speaking ones truth. And thats simply not possible for those whose politics is based on the false validation cynicism offers.

          • What i ask myself in all of this is, whether the "sacrifice" of values wasn't genuine. Because if they are willing to compromise on genocide and ethnic cleansing, the question is how much of these values were there to begin with.

            And subsequently, if they are somehow "okay" with brown people being mass murdered abroad, how should anyone including these people themselves believe that they would do anything substantial to human rights violations at home. And lo and behold they do very little about it.

          • Your core point here is actually something that deserves a little more of a response than I feel like typing up here. I'll make a post in some "political discussion" community and maybe send you a note about it, because how we make forward progress and deal with the brokenness of the Democratic party is obviously a pretty important topic that is highly relevant to this story.

            I just want to deal with this stuff a little, since you did try to tag me:

            The core of their argument was that their cynicism was required to win elections. That we had to sacrifice our values, for whatever reason, to be able to "win" the election. To reiterate what our criticisms. Originally, it was with Biden. That without a serious pivot on Gaza and to right wing "enlightened centrism" that had guided his path to that point, he would lose the election. The later criticism was with Harris, and basically identical: That without pivoting and focusing on the issues the base was concerned with, that she would lose the election.

            That wasn't the core of my argument. The core of my argument was that, with the exception of Gaza, Biden already embodied every one of the values you're claiming you weren't willing to sacrifice: On income inequality, on climate change, on corporate corruption, on policing, on basically everything, he was the best leader we'd had in decades, someone who actually made some small amount of forward progress after, which is especially impressive given that he had to deal with a mostly-dogshit Democratic congress to try to get it all done with, and letting Trump win the next election just to spite the Democrats for not being "left enough" (which, yes, they are not) because of a mostly fantastical conception of what Biden even did in the first place, was going to lead to (1) a total cessation of any forward progress, in or out of politics (2) horrors that would have been hard to conceive of, some small number of which are coming true even now (before he turned the deportation machine into the third largest military in the world).

            It was based on grabbing quotes and pretending they corresponded to policy, assembling misleading little talking-points, and outright lying. And, of course, pointing to Gaza. That was one thing that the anti-Biden crew had 100% in the bag without needing to misconstrue a damn thing. It was a horror, a stain on the world, and he was arming the whole thing the whole time through. So what could anyone say to defend it? Fair enough. And then, Kamala Harris came along, who hadn't done any of that, and y'all blamed her for it anyway, and went back into this wild fantasy-land where the only answer to save Palestine was to let Trump win.

            Anyway, now we're in the timeline we're in. I really hope that it is the catalyst for something better, the kind of popular revolution and massive upset to our politics that's always been what we need, and not too many people have to die in the meantime to make that happen. I honestly don't even really know what the answer is, in terms of finally making the American government a decent operation that can provide for its people some kind of decent life and future. I hope it happens before the whole world explodes.

            I also know that you're lying about what "we" said before the election, what Biden's record was before the election, what the mods did before the election (I guarantee you you cannot find stuff in the modlog where someone was banned for posting a poll that showed Biden behind or something), what "our" (my at least) goals are in all of this, and all the rest of it. You're trying to reframe it all in this innocent way by retconning that something totally different happened than what happened. So, that makes me suspicious of your motives, and of the honesty of all the constructive criticism you're now trying to offer, yes.

            Let's hope Cuomo fucks things up for the establishment, let's hope Mamdani gets somewhere and his message keeps spreading, with or without the help of the current people in power. Hopefully we can agree on that, at least.

            • I also know that you’re lying about what “we” said before the election, what Biden’s record was before the election, what the mods did before the election (I guarantee you you cannot find stuff in the modlog where someone was banned for posting a poll that showed Biden behind or something), what “our” (my at least) goals are in all of this, and all the rest of it.

              Jokes on you, I've spent almost two years developing tooling to do specifically this because lemmy still lacks an adequate external API. Unfortunately, I'm not independently wealthy and I do have a day job and haven't made much progress in a few months, but I am planning on releasing it as a public tool when I can get around to it. And considering I've finally found the line giving me shit at my day job, I'm going to have to keep it short.

              I specifically am building it to document the relationship between how moderation operates as a power structure and structures narratives of the community. Its a work in progress but I've shared components of it with others (SatansMaggotyCumFart, for one, who wanted me to use it to do an investigation of UniversalMonk).

              The issue is broad and isn't able to be contained to just one sub, so its going to have to span many subs, but effectively I'm testing how moderation functions to support some narratives and inhibit others.

              I would appreciate if you repost this to maybe one of the debate subs that I think someone started. Its probably better to house the discussion there then to create an endless series of responses.

              • I specifically am building it to document the relationship between how moderation operates as a power structure and structures narratives of the community. Its a work in progress but I've shared components of it with others (SatansMaggotyCumFart, for one, who wanted me to use it to do an investigation of UniversalMonk).

                I think this is 100% an excellent idea. I am firmly convinced that you'll find it works the opposite of the way you're saying it does here (you'll find that there are certain types of topics where flamewars develop, and some mods whose names aren't really commonly spoken tend to sanction participants on one and only one side of the flamewar, more or less, the "pro-Democrat" side.) But I'd be happy to wait and see what the data on it is. Who knows, maybe anyone who spoke poorly of Biden was getting banned and it happened all the time but you really do need to build a whole analysis tool to give me even a single example.

                I would appreciate if you repost this to maybe one of the debate subs that I think someone started. Its probably better to house the discussion there then to create an endless series of responses.

                Agreed. Like I said, aside from all the backbiting about who said what before the election and whose fault it all is, there is actually a useful conversation to be had about what can even happen in American politics that's good right now.

    • Wouldn't Cuomo not have the (D) next to his name this time?

      • You’re missing the point. Vote Blue No Matter Who means that competitors are supposed to step aside after a primary and support the winning candidate. In practice, this means they expect the losing progressive candidate to suck it up and support the establishment democrat. Now that a progressive has won the primary, the establishment democrat is refusing to step aside.

        So yes, he technically won’t have a D next to his name, but it is well understood that he is an arm of the political machine that is refusing to respect the will of the voters.

        • Come on, y'all. If we all believe he's a dick, Cuomo can still have his D and eat it, too!

      • The point is its "vote blue no matter who" until it's against the pro-business centrists in the Democratic party, and then it's "fuck you, we'll run independent and split the vote to let a Republican win!" because they only say that it's important to not let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to corrupt fuckheads who don't give a single iota of a shit about working class people. They're happy to drop the facade when someone like Mamdani gets in, they'd rather a Republican win than someone with real plans for change.

    • Now it's time to hammer home the fact that it's liberals' turn to "vote blue no matter who."

    • What?

      How would voting I be voting blue?

      Why are people up voting that? It makes zero sense...

253 comments