"Vote blue no matter who" was always projection

Huge correlation with AIPAC being their top donors, fyi.
- Find me a politician on the US national stage who isn't funded by AIPAC.
  Massie doesn't count.
  
  Ilhan Omar, Bernie Sanders, Rashida Tlaib, Summer Lee, AOC (though she's compromised with the party leadership on Israel's genocide to an abhorrent degree nonetheless), Ayanna Presley, Cory Bush (successfully primaried over it) and Jamaal Bowman (ditto), and everyone else not listed here.
  They're a small minority for sure, but they exist and pretending otherwise just feeds into the manipulative establishment "electability" narrative that they use to poison the public against progressive candidates.
  
  What do you mean national stage? Because I can think of at least a handful.
- the last they want is non-aligned democrat to israel.
  
  They'd rather throw the election to the republicans than see a democrat who isn't pro-Israel.
- And that right there is the the key! Is Sirius about serving their corporate masters and their deep pockets
  
  ORIN?

Why the fuck is schumer still in office?! Hes the very definition of a dickless, useless democrat. Fuck that guy, just get lost useless boomer, let someone who gives a shit take the seat.
- AOC will probably primary him. Schumer is at something like a 2 decade low in approval while AOC polls much higher state-wide.
- He's WORSE than useless. Not only is he a Manchin level shill for fossil fuel interests, he's said that his job is to "keep the left Pro Israel", a statement so blatant that he'd call out anyone ascribing that sentiment to him for using the antisemitic "dual loyalty" trope.
  There's literally REPUBLICANS in Congress right now that are less awful than he is! Imagine that: the Senate leader of what the Dem leadership pretends to be the Left being worse than some actual fascists 🤬
  
  Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against the BBB, for example
  
  There’s literally REPUBLICANS in Congress right now that are less awful than he is!
  You had me til here.
- money. same as the rest who vote pro-fascist
- Schumer is not the worse one, he's trying to endorse Mamdani without using the word endorsement to not upset his donors: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5368933-schumer-jeffries-mamdani-nyc/
  Comparing the mild cynism with the backstabbing idiots that are going to implode the Democratic Party puts him on "just a bit shitty" list in this case.
  
  Fuck his donors. He should run with the money and endorse Mamdani if he's such a good person
  
  Definitely not as bad as Gillibrand and her racist tirade she went on.

With the current political climate USA is in, it might weaken him to get endorsements from the establishment.
Their masks are coming off. Voting in line with republicans and being vocal against anything progressive.
- I was thinking the other day after NPR mentioned Elon's recent spat that he could fund other candidates in mid terms. If he endorsed Democrats that might do more harm than good lol.

Okay, just hear me out for a second.... I completely agree they should endorse him, but rather than just saying they are irreverent (though this may actually be the case) I would like to know in clear and concise terms WHY they are waiting/failing to endorse the man whom was chosen by the people. I think knowing why they won't endorse him is very relevant to the discussion. Eith
TLDR; their silence is very telling.
- I don't know about the rest of them, though I certainly have my suspicions, but with gillibrand it's very clearly just racism. That interview she gave was extremely telling.
  
  It's rich people. The reason is rich people.
  
  “Gillibrand apologized for mischaracterizing Mamdani’s record and for her tone on the call,” the readout said.
  Guess which other party apologizes when they're wrong
- They've given interviews. According to them, Mamdani hasn't yet proven his viability among the general population, he only won a primary where 15% of the DNC participated with a plurality vote of 43%. Furthermore, some of them represent districts that hardlined against Mamdani such as neighborhoods in the southeastern part of Brooklyn. Mamdani won Brooklyn overall but the difference between neighborhoods he won and lost were very stark.
  I agree with you, though, that they should endorse Mamdani. Any concerns about his type of socialism can be easily quelled with Mamdani's clear opposition to "communist countries".
  Not endorsing Mamdani is just asking to split the vote and give Republicans the chance to fuck everything up.
  
  I don't like 'viability among gen pop'. It's like assessing his electability. Doesn't matter, he was chosen in a democratic primary vote. He's the democratic candidate for mayor. If they expect us to fall in line and vote blue, they need to fall in line and endorse blue.
  Rich fucks
  
  Just looked up the bright blue square on Brooklyn - it's Borough Park: "home to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities outside Israel, with one of the largest concentrations of Jews in the United States"
  Hmm! I don't think it's his policies they are against...
  
  That kind of reasoning makes sense to not endorse him in a run off.
  But in the general election? He's got your party's nomination, so back your party. Your Cuomo boy got primaried, get over it. (Edit: the 'your' in this sentence applies to the party members listed in the OP, not the commenter and/or OP)
  This is just money talking. Rich people don't like the ones that look like they won't bend to them. Hopefully he continues to not.
  Also, this is yet another reason I don't associate with political parties. Super not a fan of them. It's the system we got, and I do vote with the dual party power structure in mind, but you'll never see me signed up in one.
  
  That map makes New York look like a pelican rubbing its belly next to a rock.
  
  We're not talking about the mayor of Canon Beach, OR [randomly selected] with its cute chocolate shops, bed-and-breakfasts and small population. We're talking about going from state assembly advocate of the MTA to the whole shebang of one of the biggest concentrations of money and power in the world.
  Admittedly, Eric Adams is the incumbent, so - wtf do I know. I'm all for Mamdani winning, I just think it's understandable to say "I'd prefer someone with more experience". That's not an excuse to shout him down, but I could understand not promoting him.
  Plus - again, not a native New Yorker so wtf do I know - but I'd imagine someone who's publicly associated with what I'm guessing many people understand to be Muslim terrorism (I know that's not true, I'm saying many people think it is) would be difficult in most cities but in NY there's some reason it's an extra touchy subject.
  According to them, Mamdani hasn't yet proven his viability among the general population, he only won a primary where 15% of the DNC participated with a plurality vote of 43%. Furthermore, some of them represent districts that hardlined against Mamdani such as neighborhoods in the southeastern part of Brooklyn. Mamdani won Brooklyn overall but the difference between neighborhoods he won and lost were very stark.
  What they're really mad about is how badly the Democrats planned, thinking they'd waltz in past the wreckage of Adams with Cuomo and seeing how shit his campaign was. Now they're going to lose the SDNY office leverage they had AND get painted as radical leftist tankies AND lose the moderate votes.
- My first thought is; do these people normally endorse Mayoral candidates?
  
  For NYC? Of course they do. Not a small town in Suburbia friend, this is the biggest city in the country. The mayor of New York is more important and more powerful than a good amount of Governors.
- Honestly, I don't want their endorsement. Fuck em. This party is getting taken over by the left or we're burning it down.
  I think they see the inevitable rise of fascism and don't want to get grabbed by Trump's brown shirts. They're liberals that are being scratched and looking for a safe place in the future.
  They didn't even do their typical. "Oh we're against the bombing of Iran but because he didn't go through Congress". I literally was waiting to roll my eyes at all their liberal "following procedure for our war crimes" but they even stayed quiet about it mostly.
  We had two parties. Fascist and Liberals. Now we just have fascist and Liberals looking for a safe place in the new power structures. They're kind of confused I think. A little caught off guard with how much Trump is following through on actual policy. They're use to both parties lying and giving working class dollars to the rich. The conservatives are no longer playing the game of politics they all use to love that got nothing done.
  Fuck the party leaders and most of these shits in Washington. They have no place now. We don't need their endorsement.
  We can win with the momentum. We don't need to win power back through votes. We just need to give this countries people enough hope to build class consciousness. Decades can happen it weeks.

Did those politicians say "vote blue no matter who" or was that people online in an effort to avoid gestures broadly?
Genuine question, they've always been massive disappointments who would benefit from that.
- I specifically said "vote blue no matter who", because while yes, there are Establishment Democrats that exist, Extermination Republicans are quite objectively fucking worse.
  Because if Fascist 47 wasn't in office, we could at least try to get shit done, instead of putting out 17+ daily fires.
  
  Rebrand: Vote Blue, because what else can you do?
  
  So what were we doing for the last 50 years?
- Not specifically, no. Though in 2020 and ‘24 they were definitely on about party unity
- Anyone who has ever used that phrase un-ironically is politically tone deaf, or a Republican agent. I get the sentiment, and even agree with it, but it doesn't communicate what people who use it think it does. The kind of people who use that phrase are the ones I blame most for gestures broadly.

If you primary these establishment fucks out you don't have this problem.
- This. We've seen what republicans want to do. We need to stop them and vote 'not-republican' when we can before the ability to do so is gone. The problem is we cannot stop there and only vote every 2-4 years for the least-bad option, we need to make better options. "Both sides" is reductive and hides the problem.
  Get involved: find and support people who have your views for all offices: city, county, state, federal, maybe even HOA. Most of these are important. If the incumbent is not working for us, we need to fight them and suggest someone better. If the incumbent is unchallenged, then that's a travesty and they need a primary, if the same party, or an opponent.
  For the a while now we've seen the 'left' chase the 'center' and people like OP are mad at this. The solution is not 'vote blue no matter who', but that is a bandage to slow the bleeding and will resonate with the less-involved allies we have. The solution is to prove that we are the majority and push our own into leadership roles where they can make things better.
  If you're angry right now, run for office or canvas for someone who is. Being mad, depressed or just removed online isn't fixing anything. You can make things better, and it starts with finding a 'blue' worth voting for.

Thankfully they self-identify as those who need to be replaced
Saves a little time

This is one of those situations where not certifying the guy and just getting out of the way is an absolutely terrible idea if you enjoy your position. He got young voters out. The same people who are pretty decent at getting out and organizing for protests and with the way things are going these fish may grow teeth. Maybe not sharks, though no one messes with piranhas all the same.
- 18-25 has always, and will always be, the demographic with the lowest voter turnout. By a significant margin. Nearly every election, people seem to get this idea that "This time it will be different! The youth are really fired up this time! It's important, so I'm sure they'll turn out!" And then the election happens and they never even break 50%.
  It's not a messaging problem, or an outreach problem. There is essentially nothing that can change it. The issue is, and say it with me; 18-25 has always, and will always be, the demographic with the lowest voter turnout.
  
  Nonsense. I think we can see in the Lemmy communities that 18-25 are hard core voters who . . . care about . . . voting . . uh
  Oh shit.
  
  it was like that with bernie, both times. and they are took distracted by social media to even care. pre-pandemic during trumps last year before '20 people were still freaking out abou being blocked on facebook, these were 18-20 somethings.
  i think its for conservative gen z as well, they had also somewhat lower turnout too. trump gained alot of support from gen x, millineals and the oldest gen z men.

- poor kirsten :(, Only 2.5K away from a million. she must be so devo /s
  
  yeah the kind that makes you publicly racist.
  seriously i hope literally every single one of her constituents is calling her daily to resign. unbelievable how she was straight up KKK posting on that radio interview.

Add them to the list.

New York resident here. Hakeem Jeffries has always sucked. As does Kathy Hochul. Complete garbage.

Adams is still their pick, even if he's (I). They just put Cuomo up under (D) to try to beat the leftist since Adams is now shamed.
Trust me, the Dem establishment is just fine with Adams as mayor of NYC.
- or cumuo. NYC has a propensity to choose mostly republicans or a DEM with republican values.

Hopefully they all become irrelevant sooner or later.

Ah, but if you said anything against the blue (but not in favor of red), you were the vile, evil... CENTRIST! (I.e. a label just applied to you to single you out for not blindly agreeing with the zeitgeist.) Seriously, the front page of Lemmy for a good while was just toxic political "VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO" and if you didn't agree, you were just a problem.
- The critical part of 'vote blue no matter who' is the voting part. That's the game plan short-term when it's election season.
  That does not preclude criticizing the incumbents. Or even the candidates. But no matter how you feel about them, you vote for them to stave off misery, and encourage everyone around you to do the same.
  Not voting for them sends a message, but it's the wrong message - and that message is that the populace prefers the GOP. Stop fascism in its tracks and vote blue. Fight for actual progress by doing what you can to forward actual progressive candidates and policies. Like NYC is doing right now.
  It boggles my mind how people seem to be incapable of wrapping their head around that concept, and instead continue to insist that we shouldn't be voting for DNC candidates because --- uh - it'll make things better??? Somehow??? At this point, the willful ignorance is starting to smack of sealioning.
  
  Not voting for them sends a message, but it’s the wrong message - and that message is that the populace prefers the GOP
  Hard disagree on that. That's assuming the intentions of the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us
  If you're argument is that we need to be doing what's right and pushing for progress, then why is that cast as something ONLY the "blue" can do? I don't know how old you are to see how many times the "blue" has absolutely failed at their job, failed the people, but for no other reason than they're in the right party, they keep getting voted in. But I've seen several "blue" presidents do anywhere from fuckall to the bare minimum in terms of progress/change.
  There are other options to vote for that don't just include the GOP as you seem to suggest. The US isn't supposed to be just a 2 party system. It's supposed to be dynamic; these parties are supposed to die off when they no longer represent the people. If you want progress and change, but keep doing the same thing that doesn't seem to be all that progressive.... are you making any progress?
  
  This this this this this.
  I keep saying this refrain. The time to reform the party is after elections, until the primary (NOW). The time to vote for the party is during the election period. Sure, state your grievances anytime or all the time to get your politicians to listen. But handing the win to chaos to state your case gives the way to fascism.
- In the general election, that's what you should do. If establishment Dems don't back their nominee, it doesn't change how you should vote.
  People who didn't vote blue in 2024 actively chose a fascist regime. Anyone who doesn't vote blue in all the upcoming elections (with a Fetterman exception, but he should be primaried) is endorsing the MAGA movement.
  
  Hard disagree. If we continue the narrative that the US is a 2 party system, actively rejecting and backing other parties in fear "the bad guy will win" (a sentiment and view shared with the Dem/Rep parties), then we've entered a endless loop that only as we've seen over the decades, is a race to the bottom. We elected Biden because we didn't want Trump and largely for no other reason. That's not a good reason. And Biden even commented that he was perhaps too old (his words).
  And it's a fallacy, shared by the Dem/Rep, to fear-monger the "If you don't vote for MY party, then it's voting for the other party (the bad guys)". This was a false narrative that was spread this election and several before it, to prevent anyone else from opposing the status quo. A vote for 'not my party' is not a 'vote for the other party'. If I can't vote how I want (speaking broadly here for everyone), then my vote doesn't matter. And if my vote doesn't matter, then I'm not being represented. And if you're going to argue that, I'd like to point to the huge number of eligible voters who consistently don't vote. If we cast non-votes as a vote of no confidence, we'd see a big change in things. But doing that means Dem/Rep would lose the seesaw swings in power they have come to enjoy.
  So no, you shouldn't just throw your vote blindly behind any side. Especially because the internet thinks you should (and again, that goes for Dem/Rep alike).
- i feel like the people on reddit that was blasting it all over, are propaganda(probably subterfuge from the right and tankies) i never felt a good vipe with those posts.
  
  I dunno. I think a lot of regular people felt really strongly that it was critical that the Republicans not gain control of everything in this last election, and given how things are going at the moment, it's really hard to argue that was wrong. Which is not to say that the folks criticizing the Democrats were wrong either! The Democrats' feckless centrism and undermining of leftist candidates has been galling for years. The difficult truth is that the system has been so broken that really good people following genuine motivations were arguing on both sides of the leftist/Democrat divide. I was trying to cling to the hope that if we jollied the current system along, we could get reforms like ranked choice voting and the national vote interstate compact in place that would help shift the underlying incentives in the system away from the two-party system, but it's probably really been irreparable for years now.
  Of course bullying people was never going to be an effective tactic, and I never endorsed that. But that's just regular tribalism and anger at the nonconformist. That's just regular dumb human stuff.
  
  Probably