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:

  • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    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

    Trump is ahead by just over 230,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the latest numbers from CBS. All three states were the focus of intensive campaigning by both parties ahead of the 5 November vote. If just over 115,000 voters in that group had instead picked Harris, she would have won those Rust Belt swing states, giving her enough votes in the electoral college to win the presidency.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

    • nialv7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You are saying all those 90 million would have voted Kamala? Dude you are delulu

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        You are saying all those 90 million would have voted Kamala?

        Y’all need to learn how to read.

    • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      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.

      • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Trump is ahead by just over 230,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the latest numbers from CBS. All three states were the focus of intensive campaigning by both parties ahead of the 5 November vote. If just over 115,000 voters in that group had instead picked Harris, she would have won those Rust Belt swing states, giving her enough votes in the electoral college to win the presidency.

        • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          Articles come with dates. You’ll notice that 2025 is after 2024.

          A CBS poll also isn’t as thorough as Pew.

          • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            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.

            • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              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.

              • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                15 hours ago

                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.

                • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  15 hours ago

                  I never accused you of not voting, and I voted too (Democratic ticket all the way down in a blue state).

                  The fact you think you can divine who voted based on how hard they jack off the Democratic establishment is why you aren’t and won’t be having useful or productive conversations with anyone who isn’t already in lockstep with you. You’re having your two minutes’ hate, not getting anyone new to vote against Trump.