this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
798 points (85.7% liked)
Political Memes
9029 readers
2670 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
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.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thank you. I really don't get those people.
And I mean, the Democratic party doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you don't try to change anything, of course the awful "moderates" stay in charge. But it is possible to overtake them, just look at Mamdani. But some people won't even try that because "it's a lost case"…
He now holds the primary attendance record in NYC. It was only 30% of eligible voters, up from 21% in the last election. That’s literally all it takes. We just need to show the fuck up.
Congressional primaries see less than 15% attendance. We’ve been letting retirees pack our ballots with centrists for 40 years, then complain about our choices in the general elections. We wouldn’t be calling for term limits if we consistently participated in primaries.
Well that and ranked choice, right?
He won majority first round. Granted, I’d love to see ranked-choice in our federal elections, but that didn’t matter in Mamdani’s case.
Would people have felt empowered to vote for him first if it wasn't ranked choice?
I believe so. The massive increase in zero prime voters (people who haven’t voted in a primary before) was due to his grassroots campaign.
No "progressive" will have an answer for you on this. Voting isn't the answer, blah blah blah. But it seems no one ever really tried. Otherwise maybe they'd just organize people into voting in every primary.
No "progressive" will have an answer for you on this. Voting isn't the answer, blah blah blah. But it seems no one ever really tried. Otherwise maybe they'd just organize people into voting in every primary.
Mamdani also won the primaries because Harris/Biden and the DNC being punished in the presidential election weakened them just enough that they couldn't strangle Mamdani politically anymore. Not that they didn't and still try.
The DNC could not have offered him less support in his primary campaign. He won over the city with 50k volunteers going door-to-door, a strong social media campaign, and his focus on the concerns of the working class New Yorker.
And Kamala losing galvanized that volunteer effort. Mamdani would not have won the primary if Kamala were currently sitting in the White House. Kamala losing did huge damage to the brand of every corporate Democrat. Kamala winning would have showed that that kind of candidate is still viable. Cuomo would have coasted to an easy victory.
They are either trying to trick people into not voting against the GOP or they have been tricked themselves.
“Both sides are the same” has been a bad faith argument I’ve heard from conservatives for decades.
Worse. They think martyrdom and purity politics are preferable to making any sort of actual difference. They have to keep their souls pure, you see.
It's religion for the irreligious.
I think that’s a little simpler than that: one of those options requires a great deal of risk, while the other does not. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to the current system and fight for change.
Not everyone can be brave.
I’m not trying to make an excuse for these people and their cowardice, I’m just trying to offer a better explanation.
Good thing, too, because that explanation would only increase my contempt for them, LOL!
It’s funny you mentioned this because I was thinking about this before you commented: if these people are simply stupid and weak, is it really right to feel contempt for them? It’s not that they made a conscious choice to be this way. I understand being resentful, which I am too, but is it really ethical to feel contempt for someone when it’s an involuntary character flaw that may not be able to be remedied?
It feels like judging someone for having a mental or psychological disability. I have pity for them. And I feel that those who can should do for those who can’t. Because that’s the only useful thing I can take from the situation, the only solution I can see. Because this sort of thing can’t be avoided, it’s just one of those things we, as a society, have to get through. But there are better ways of getting through it then pointing fingers and blaming the weak and stupid for being weak and stupid when it’s not their fault.
Smart people who do stupid things, and those who are willfully, ignorant, obviously that’s a choice for which I have contempt. But for those who were too weak and too stupid?
I don’t know… It’s just something I was thinking about.
The bravery of... Throwing LGBTQ+ people under the bus and trying to force violent conflict. Nah. I don't buy it.
"vote blue no matter who" is peak martyrdom politics.
Do you know why Mamdani won the primaries? Because he actually promises change. The argument wasn't to never vote Democrats. The argument was to punish them unless they produce a decent candidate.
If Harris wasnt punished, the DNC that is fighting Mamdani by and large would have been to strong and most likely had prevented Mamdani.
"Martyrdom politics is when you want to prevent fascists from murdering people instead of embracing it in the hopes that it will cause the people's hearts to spontaneously fill with l'Internationale after seeing how nobly marginalized groups are murdered!"
Uh, okay.
Because NYC has enough progressives to elect a progressive in a Dem primary, and progressives decided to actually turn out for once?
Jesus fucking Christ.
Did you just forget the lesson of Nuremberg? You're supposed to punish people who commit crimes against humanity. Doesn't matter what party they belong to. Doesn't matter what other good they might be capable of doing. You must have been a huge fan of Operation Paperclip. After all, we couldn't hang those evil Nazi scientists, we can use their talents!
The Democrats support Fascist commiting genocide in Palestine.
Did you follow any of the primary debates? How all the other DNC candidates sucked up to Israel how they would go there first? How the Zionist lobby rabidly spouted accusations of Antisemitism against Mamdani?
If Harris/Biden,who declared themselves loyal Zionists had won, these campaigns would have hit even stronger.
It is the fact that people understood the genocidial status quo of the party has to end, that gave Mamdani the momentum.
Luckily, you threw your support behind the fascists who want the Zionists to commit even more genocide in Palestine, creating glorious martyrs for some vaguely leftist cause in the US that never seems to actually rear its head!
This is definitely not martyrdom politics though!
Any number of dead Palestinians, after all, is worth ~~you feeling smug~~ showing the shitlibs what for.
lmao
Yes, that's it. The mayor of New York was elected on the strength of his foreign policy positions.
Utter insanity.
The Zionist lobby in New York went rampant against Mamdani. So yes, the primary was heavily influenced by foreign politics.
https://truthout.org/articles/zionists-tried-to-make-nyc-race-about-israel-zohran-mamdani-didnt-give-in/
—Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government
The point is that socialism cannot be achieved by electoral means. At best, if the masses in the street really pressure those in power, you get social democracy. That being said the choice for Americans was neoliberalism or fascism. The reasons for fascism winning go deeper than "the left was to whinny", but that's beside the point being made here.
Okay, so, which is easier for socialists to organize under? Neoliberalism, or fascism?
Neoliberalism, obviously. Kamala probably wouldn't be in favour of people being abducted off the street and shoved into unmarked vans.
Apparently that very controversial position makes us shitlibs instead of people who would like to not be abducted by unmarked secret police and taken to a black site while we try to organize socialist political movements.
Don't you see? Only when it's all ashes can we start the utopia. /s
Playing devil's advocate here. It's probably much easier to grow a resistance against fascism than neoliberalism, as neoliberalism is comfortable enough for most people.
There are goals before socialism that ARE achievable electorally which are still worth pursuing in the meantime, like stalling fascists, or prevent genocide of immigrants and queer folks
Trying to change thing is exactly what the Uncommitted movement tried to do. And while they failed to move the needle in the 2024 election, in 2028, the Democrats will have to think a lot more about whether they want to keep losing in exchange for supporting genocide.
Remember, it's always "the most important election ever." Every election is billed as that. But sometimes you need to be willing to accept a short-term loss in exchange for long-term progress. Myopically focusing on just the election right in front of you is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Kamala losing gave space for someone like Mamdani to win. It's clear that corporate DNC centrism is a toxic losing brand. If Kamala had won, it is extremely unlikely that Mamdani would have won the NYC primary.
Where did I say anything bad about them? It was about the primary and not about the general election.
I actually get your point in theory as you could see elections in a game theory type of setting. The problem is that the last elections have been "the most important election ever" because well… they have gotten increasingly more significant and important. 2016 allowed Trump to shift the Supreme Court long-term and change decades-old consensus. It alone almost got him to do a coup. 2020 could have very well literally enabled that, and 2024 well… just look at everything that is happen. This is not the beginning of fascism, that's well some steps inside.
I get the theory, and if the opponent was a McCain I could even understand your thought. But if it's the election of 1930, where every vote counts to defeat the bigger evil, it's not the time to sit it out for future benefits.
Every election since I could vote (early 2000s) has been the most important.
Why? Because the results built the Supreme Court that curtailed every progressive policy achievement and accelerated our current descent into fascism.
Without GWB you don't have Roberts or Alito. Without Trump you don't have Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, or Barrett.
Those fuckers have lifetime appointments. One lost election sets us back decades. The only good time for a protest vote is the primary.
Literal accelerationism. Jesus fucking Christ.