Zohran Mamdani - Democratic Socialist Mayor of NYC

[Jeff Lebowski]

Our Mamdani discussions are spread among various threads at the moment. This is a big enough story (and sufficiently interesting) that it deserves a dedicated thread.

Ben Shapiro weighs in.

tl;dr --> democrats should not be tempted to make him the face of the party

Embedded Tweet

[MartyFunkhouser]

Our Mamdani discussions are spread among various threads at the moment. This is a big enough story (and sufficiently interesting) that it deserves a dedicated thread.

Ben Shapiro weighs in.

tl;dr --> democrats should not be tempted to make him the face of the party

Embedded Tweet

Hell no, he should not be the face of the party. Josh Shapiro, seriously, make him the face of the party.

[The_Tick]

Hell no, he should not be the face of the party. Josh Shapiro, seriously, make him the face of the party.

I think Harris wins the Presidency had she chosen Shapiro. He's a sharp dude.

[Northwestcoug]

When I get into political discussions with my commie daughter sometimes the beguiling language of socialism allures me. But her most salient points center around the fact that the vast majority of Americans, certainly in the bottom 90 but probably closer to the bottom 95th percentile, are closer economically to a union worker (not just income but savings, retirement plans, tenuous life situations that could impact employment, etc.) than they are to the top 10th percentile. All of us, even those who make welder level money, are a couple of bad decisions or health outcomes away from fiscal insolvency. And that makes us much closer to lower income earners than the oligarchs who control so much of nation's wealth. We can argue whether or not that's a moral failure, but the reality is that the divide is continually getting worse. And both political parties haven't done much to address it.

The people who are currently enthusiastic about someone like Mamdani see the world probably clearer than my generation, who were raised on a problematic ideal of America that provided opportunity for all. They see real problems that affect their daily lives, that weren't even an issue with the generation before. I just saw that the median age for first time house owners is an incredible 40, a rise of 5 years in just a couple of years. So even if Mamdani doesn't produce all his promises (spoiler alert: he won't), he gets major points from younger people just for bringing to light some significant struggles a lot of people deal with.

That's why there is Mamdani buzz in younger voters, even though for a lot of America the more centrist wins in Virginia and New Jersey are more meaningful.

[YOhio]

Hell no, he should not be the face of the party. Josh Shapiro, seriously, make him the face of the party.

He’d be great but both parties are too infested with antisemites for him to go much further.

[frank ryan]

He’d be great but both parties are too infested with antisemites for him to go much further.

It's unfortunate how accurate this is.

[myboynoah]

When I get into political discussions with my commie daughter sometimes the beguiling language of socialism allures me. But her most salient points center around the fact that the vast majority of Americans, certainly in the bottom 90 but probably closer to the bottom 95th percentile, are closer economically to a union worker (not just income but savings, retirement plans, tenuous life situations that could impact employment, etc.) than they are to the top 10th percentile. All of us, even those who make welder level money, are a couple of bad decisions or health outcomes away from fiscal insolvency. And that makes us much closer to lower income earners than the oligarchs who control so much of nation's wealth. We can argue whether or not that's a moral failure, but the reality is that the divide is continually getting worse. And both political parties haven't done much to address it.

The people who are currently enthusiastic about someone like Mamdani see the world probably clearer than my generation, who were raised on a problematic ideal of America that provided opportunity for all. They see real problems that affect their daily lives, that weren't even an issue with the generation before. I just saw that the median age for first time house owners is an incredible 40, a rise of 5 years in just a couple of years. So even if Mamdani doesn't produce all his promises (spoiler alert: he won't), he gets major points from younger people just for bringing to light some significant struggles a lot of people deal with.

That's why there is Mamdani buzz in younger voters, even though for a lot of America the more centrist wins in Virginia and New Jersey are more meaningful.

Mamdani may be good for New York, and his ideas may have some level of utility. But his is not an approach that can translate widely across the U.S. But he likes poking Trump with a stick, so that is fun.

[myboynoah]

He’d be great but both parties are too infested with antisemites for him to go much further.

Agree. He's too closely tied to Israel.

[myboynoah]

Our Mamdani discussions are spread among various threads at the moment. This is a big enough story (and sufficiently interesting) that it deserves a dedicated thread.

Ben Shapiro weighs in.

tl;dr --> democrats should not be tempted to make him the face of the party

Embedded Tweet

I watched part of that discussion and disturbingly found myself agreeing a lot with Ben Shapiro.

[beefytee]

… But her most salient points center around the fact that the vast majority of Americans, certainly in the bottom 90 but probably closer to the bottom 95th percentile, are closer economically to a union worker (not just income but savings, retirement plans, tenuous life situations that could impact employment, etc.) than they are to the top 10th percentile. ….

This is some serious socialist math there.


(I assume you mean top 1 or 1/10th percentile .)

[Northwestcoug]

This is some serious socialist math there.


(I assume you mean top 1 or 1/10th percentile .)

I don’t think I’m using those terms incorrectly, but maybe i should state it differently? The 90th or 95th percentiles describe 90-95% of the population. I was saying that most people, even those on the high end of income, are closer to lower income earners than the very rich.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don’t think I’m using those terms incorrectly, but maybe i should state it differently? The 90th or 95th percentiles describe 90-95% of the population. I was saying that most people, even those on the high end of income, are closer to lower income earners than the very rich.

Help me understand why that matters.

[USUC]

When I get into political discussions with my commie daughter sometimes the beguiling language of socialism allures me. But her most salient points center around the fact that the vast majority of Americans, certainly in the bottom 90 but probably closer to the bottom 95th percentile, are closer economically to a union worker (not just income but savings, retirement plans, tenuous life situations that could impact employment, etc.) than they are to the top 10th percentile. All of us, even those who make welder level money, are a couple of bad decisions or health outcomes away from fiscal insolvency. And that makes us much closer to lower income earners than the oligarchs who control so much of nation's wealth. We can argue whether or not that's a moral failure, but the reality is that the divide is continually getting worse. And both political parties haven't done much to address it.

The people who are currently enthusiastic about someone like Mamdani see the world probably clearer than my generation, who were raised on a problematic ideal of America that provided opportunity for all. They see real problems that affect their daily lives, that weren't even an issue with the generation before. I just saw that the median age for first time house owners is an incredible 40, a rise of 5 years in just a couple of years. So even if Mamdani doesn't produce all his promises (spoiler alert: he won't), he gets major points from younger people just for bringing to light some significant struggles a lot of people deal with.

That's why there is Mamdani buzz in younger voters, even though for a lot of America the more centrist wins in Virginia and New Jersey are more meaningful.

In the words of the great Norm McDonald, "no offense, but this sounds like some effin commie gobbledygook."

A philosophy driven by envy is just as bad as a philosophy driven by retribution.

Also, the term you are looking for is plutocracy. The use of oligarchy, besides being used incorrectly, is a dead giveaway you are just regurgitating Bernie/DSA talking points.

[tooblue]

In the words of the great Norm McDonald, "no offense, but this sounds like some effin commie gobbledygook."

A philosophy driven by envy is just as bad as a philosophy driven by retribution.

Also, the term you are looking for is plutocracy. The use of oligarchy, besides being used incorrectly, is a dead giveaway you are just regurgitating Bernie/DSA talking points.

So, there are no oligarchy in a plutocracy? There are always oligarchy in a plutocracy, and the US has always to a large extent been a plutocracy and it is only now that the oligarchy can more clearly be identified as distinct.

The economic divide has grown. That is what Northwest is writing about, not envy.

Income Inequality Is Surging In The U.S., New Oxfam Report Shows

https://www.forbes.com/sites/josieco...-report-shows/

[YOhio]

When I get into political discussions with my commie daughter sometimes the beguiling language of socialism allures me. But her most salient points center around the fact that the vast majority of Americans, certainly in the bottom 90 but probably closer to the bottom 95th percentile, are closer economically to a union worker (not just income but savings, retirement plans, tenuous life situations that could impact employment, etc.) than they are to the top 10th percentile. All of us, even those who make welder level money, are a couple of bad decisions or health outcomes away from fiscal insolvency. And that makes us much closer to lower income earners than the oligarchs who control so much of nation's wealth. We can argue whether or not that's a moral failure, but the reality is that the divide is continually getting worse. And both political parties haven't done much to address it.

The people who are currently enthusiastic about someone like Mamdani see the world probably clearer than my generation, who were raised on a problematic ideal of America that provided opportunity for all. They see real problems that affect their daily lives, that weren't even an issue with the generation before. I just saw that the median age for first time house owners is an incredible 40, a rise of 5 years in just a couple of years. So even if Mamdani doesn't produce all his promises (spoiler alert: he won't), he gets major points from younger people just for bringing to light some significant struggles a lot of people deal with.

That's why there is Mamdani buzz in younger voters, even though for a lot of America the more centrist wins in Virginia and New Jersey are more meaningful.

This reads pretty much like the countless articles on the economic anxiety of Trump voters in 2016. Both Mamdani and Trump are flawed, inadequate for the task, and representative of a desperate electorate looking for anything but a continuation of the status quo.