Fetterman had a lot of baggage already going in against Oz. He is a good case study on what happens when a run for office is based on opposition alone. He was elected to not be Dr Oz, so that’s what he is.
Zohran on the other hand’s main (and only) baggage is are the actual policies he is promoting and supporting. Which is hugely different. But at the same time that means Zohran’s actual safety is a real concern.
I’d say he comes from intelligensia more than wealth, which is somewhat adjacent I’ll concede for the sake of it.
However I wouldn’t saddle a politician with their origin so much as things within their capacity to control, like their (proposed) policies and actions.
As an adult he did social work and made silly music, neither of which are politically problematic.
I wouldn’t put your hopes on Zohran but for now he’s done an excellent job of not budging and instead arguing his way out of traps. Let’s see how far it can get him.
yup! that’s shit, but politics is politics… i’d probably say the same: an nyc mayor has very little that they can change about foreign policy
so what are you gonna be? a populist that says a bunch of shit that you can’t actually change or won’t address the issue, or someone who talks about policy and what you’re going to do if elected in concrete terms?
no point in pissing off israel and having them spend against you just to protect their soft power if you can’t even do anything about it
… and everyone now knows cuomo is the israel shill, and mamdani supports palestine… he’s won that conversation already. nothing to be gained by further pushing in that direction
Nah man. Going “moderate” would be a huge mistake. AIPAC is always going to finance whoever is the most loudly pro-Zionist. People don’t want careful political maneuvering, they want firm principles.
don’t make the mistake of applying first past the post logic to ranked choice… the difference in ballot mechanics has a really huge difference: ranked choice leads to nicer, more moderate elections because it’s bad to be extreme (and i’m not saying being anti-israel is extreme) - you don’t just need to capture “your base” (what we usually call the “primary vote” or “first preference” in RCV systems), but you also need to worry about 2nd, 3rd etc runoff votes… you need to be generally likeable to all your opponents voters too, because those votes matter
But if you dilute your politics in order to win… then what’s the point of winning? It won’t even be “you” that’s won, it will be some gray, moderate shadow of yourself. Anyway, I think my point is still relevant no matter the election style. There are a whole lot of people out there that put a high value on (perceived) integrity. Trump and Bernie are good examples where they brought in a lot of voters who thought “I may not agree with him on a lot of things, but he tells it like it is and he maintains his positions, even when they aren’t popular”.
nobody with extreme views should win (and i do not think mamdanis views are extreme - they’re what people want!) anyone who wins an election to represent people should represent the views of the people, and that absolutely means being moderate: not in the toxic way that it’s come to mean in the US, but truly government should, as one of its primary missions, be a moderated representation of the constituents it serves: it should never (as much as possible) represent only a single group
How do you tell the difference between the kind of ‘moderate’ that you want, and the ‘toxic’ kind we have in the US? I don’t want to “split the difference” within a population that skews fascist. If opposing a genocide is extreme (it apparently is, in the US), then call me extreme.
i don’t think that’s a problem with the electoral system… the government should represent the average views and interests of a population… that’s the only thing that an electoral system should seek to address
extreme views only pit people against each other and cause fighting
what those views are is a whole other question to do with education and shared values… i think those things are improved with less polarised politics, because polarisation leads to both sides (or worse, 1 side) acting not in the interests of people, but in the interests of cementing their extreme: the more you hate “the other team” the more you feel compelled to cheat to “protect” yourself
this is not a short term fix… this is a multi-generational fix, as was the apathy and division that caused it
I hope this guy isn’t another Fetterman. Talks a good talk but once elected turns into someone else.
Fetterman had a lot of baggage already going in against Oz. He is a good case study on what happens when a run for office is based on opposition alone. He was elected to not be Dr Oz, so that’s what he is.
Zohran on the other hand’s main (and only) baggage is are the actual policies he is promoting and supporting. Which is hugely different. But at the same time that means Zohran’s actual safety is a real concern.
Zohran comes from wealth. That’s baggage in my book. I mean, I still hope he wins, but wealth has done us no favors.
I’d say he comes from intelligensia more than wealth, which is somewhat adjacent I’ll concede for the sake of it.
However I wouldn’t saddle a politician with their origin so much as things within their capacity to control, like their (proposed) policies and actions.
As an adult he did social work and made silly music, neither of which are politically problematic.
Don’t fret. I don’t doubt this man at all. There are other “progressives” I’m more concerned about.
Every person who’s compromised is pro Israel.
I wouldn’t put your hopes on Zohran but for now he’s done an excellent job of not budging and instead arguing his way out of traps. Let’s see how far it can get him.
As long as he doesn’t have a brain injury, he’ll be okay. No other progressives have flipped like that.
Bernie the sheepdog is on the job!
And there’s this
yup! that’s shit, but politics is politics… i’d probably say the same: an nyc mayor has very little that they can change about foreign policy
so what are you gonna be? a populist that says a bunch of shit that you can’t actually change or won’t address the issue, or someone who talks about policy and what you’re going to do if elected in concrete terms?
no point in pissing off israel and having them spend against you just to protect their soft power if you can’t even do anything about it
… and everyone now knows cuomo is the israel shill, and mamdani supports palestine… he’s won that conversation already. nothing to be gained by further pushing in that direction
Nah man. Going “moderate” would be a huge mistake. AIPAC is always going to finance whoever is the most loudly pro-Zionist. People don’t want careful political maneuvering, they want firm principles.
nyc mayoral races uses ranked choice voting
don’t make the mistake of applying first past the post logic to ranked choice… the difference in ballot mechanics has a really huge difference: ranked choice leads to nicer, more moderate elections because it’s bad to be extreme (and i’m not saying being anti-israel is extreme) - you don’t just need to capture “your base” (what we usually call the “primary vote” or “first preference” in RCV systems), but you also need to worry about 2nd, 3rd etc runoff votes… you need to be generally likeable to all your opponents voters too, because those votes matter
But if you dilute your politics in order to win… then what’s the point of winning? It won’t even be “you” that’s won, it will be some gray, moderate shadow of yourself. Anyway, I think my point is still relevant no matter the election style. There are a whole lot of people out there that put a high value on (perceived) integrity. Trump and Bernie are good examples where they brought in a lot of voters who thought “I may not agree with him on a lot of things, but he tells it like it is and he maintains his positions, even when they aren’t popular”.
nobody with extreme views should win (and i do not think mamdanis views are extreme - they’re what people want!) anyone who wins an election to represent people should represent the views of the people, and that absolutely means being moderate: not in the toxic way that it’s come to mean in the US, but truly government should, as one of its primary missions, be a moderated representation of the constituents it serves: it should never (as much as possible) represent only a single group
How do you tell the difference between the kind of ‘moderate’ that you want, and the ‘toxic’ kind we have in the US? I don’t want to “split the difference” within a population that skews fascist. If opposing a genocide is extreme (it apparently is, in the US), then call me extreme.
i don’t think that’s a problem with the electoral system… the government should represent the average views and interests of a population… that’s the only thing that an electoral system should seek to address
extreme views only pit people against each other and cause fighting
what those views are is a whole other question to do with education and shared values… i think those things are improved with less polarised politics, because polarisation leads to both sides (or worse, 1 side) acting not in the interests of people, but in the interests of cementing their extreme: the more you hate “the other team” the more you feel compelled to cheat to “protect” yourself
this is not a short term fix… this is a multi-generational fix, as was the apathy and division that caused it