Politico reports that at a Hamptons fundraiser last Saturday, Cuomo told his well-heeled supporters that, contrary to all available evidence, he could win the New York mayoral race as an independent—because he was likely to have the implicit support of President Donald Trump.
The imperative of defeating Mamdani justified the new coalition Cuomo is trying to create of his die-hard loyalists (who are Democrats) with Trump Republicans.
Some of that latter group might be tempted to back Curtis Sliwa, the actual GOP nominee in the race. Cuomo told these donors, “We can minimize [the Sliwa] vote, because he’ll never be a serious candidate. And Trump himself, as well as top Republicans, will say the goal is to stop Mamdani. And you’ll be wasting your vote on Sliwa.” Cuomo went on to emphasize that he’d be a mayor who could find common ground with Trump:
Keep waiting for perfect. Meanwhile, I hope you get super comfortable with Trump. Because until you are willing to accept less than, you’re never going to deserve more than.
Kamala would have been good. But because she wasn’t perfect- you all cried and pouted.
This is your doing. You can marinate in it with the rest of us.
What are you on about? You want us to vote Cuomo? He isn’t even running as Democrat.
And people are voting for Zohran, who is a Democrat. Is that not what you want? Are you alright?
I would think it’s about the broader sentiment.
Even when the party formally accepts a progressive candidate as the primary victor and some folks go independent, they still blame the Democrat party for Cuomo’s sore losing.
The NCY dems may have nominated him, but the national party has been absolutely lothe to accept him.
Instead of backing their candidate, democrats have been undermining Mamdani with accusations of antisemitism.
Hell, because of the success of Mamdani, the Minneapolis dems just rescinded their nomination for Fateh over some bullshit procedural objections and now they dont even have a candidate on the ticket.
Their fingerprints are all over this.
Have fun in your feelings I guess, but that doesn’t change that Trump still would have won if everyone voted. There isn’t some group of people that could have turned the tide but withheld their vote to punish you, specifically. More people wanted Trump and that’s why he won.
Come to terms with the fact this isn’t a problem you can solve by berating and screaming at the people who already know Trump sucks. American society needs to do the long, hard work of actually confronting racism and fascism on the personal as well as the societal level.
Or do what makes you feel good regardless of what the facts show, I’m not a cop.
No, he didn’t.
Some ninety one MILLION people didn’t vote. How many of those idiots do you think we’re in protest of bOtH siDeS?
And for the record,
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5w9w160xdo.amp
Have you kept up with the times? Republicans perform better with low-information and low-engagement voters. In elections with lower turnouts, Democrats do better.
This may seem shocking if you’re used to politics of earlier decades. It wasn’t long ago that Democrats did better in higher turnout elections. But that was when Democrats had more working-class appeal. Now Democrats focus on winning the suburban professional classes and simply hope that turnout is low enough among working class voters that they’ll be able to inch over the finish line on the college-educated vote.
So really, if Democrats do better the lower the turnout is, why in the Hell would you expect them to win an election with a 100% voter turnout? If anything that would trigger a Republican landslide.
You are saying all those 90 million would have voted Kamala? Dude you are delulu
Point out where I said that.
Y’all need to learn how to read.
All adults eligible for voting, right?
Apologies. It was just under ninety million.
I’ll be happy to continue the conversation when you read the article.
If you have data better than Pew’s post election analysis, present it.
Articles come with dates. You’ll notice that 2025 is after 2024.
A CBS poll also isn’t as thorough as Pew.
Ninety one million people didn’t vote. Among them, were protestors, conservatives and democrats, had the democrats and the protestors voted, even counting the republicans, she still would have won. A post-election survey doesn’t tell you shit aside from how many people want to have it known that they would have won if they bothered to bet.
End of story.
So essentially you’re mad that Pew’s data shows there was no realistic path to Harris winning, because theoretically every conservative could have stayed home and everyone else could have voted, and actually they were all probably lying about liking Trump, and also Pew just happened to randomly select people that would lie about liking Trump. If it hadn’t been for them Harris would have definitely won!! Even though 2024 had the second highest turnout in over a century (again, something you might know if you read the article).
This sure sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through for the result to be that the Democratic Party didn’t fuck up. I’m sure screaming at and berating the people already opposed to Trump will win you more votes next time, though. It worked so well last time! That’s a lot less scary than dismantling racism and fascism in your own community and gives you that nice, sanctimonious high.
lol… again… a post election survey of what people would have done- isn’t an accurate reading of anything at all.
It’s a guess. A trust placed in people that were too fucking stupid to do the right thing the first time.
But by all means, keep propping up this nonsense as an argument against having to be responsible for something. And the irony of you calling me sanctimonious.
I voted.