There is a hunger for bold, transformative politics in the United States right now. Zohran Mamdani shows how the Left can run on a principled, disciplined message that speaks to voters’ lived concerns — and win.
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.
P. S.
I’m not someone who prefers centrist or even left-of-center candidates; if I lived in NY, I’d definitely be voting for Mamdani and most certainly not Cuomo.
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 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.
Yeah. It’s conveniently different in this case because the nominee is a progressive.
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.
P. S.
I’m not someone who prefers centrist or even left-of-center candidates; if I lived in NY, I’d definitely be voting for Mamdani and most certainly not Cuomo.
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.
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.