New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) said Saturday that Democrats have lost sight of the important economic issues facing working-class Americans as the party works to rebuild itself after a devastating loss in the 2024 presidential election.
“The party, as a whole, has lost its focus on working people,” Mamdani said in an interview with MS Now.
“People want to know: What are you going to do for rent? What are you going to do for housing? What are you going to do for gas? What are you going to do for groceries? We have to have answers to that.”
Issues like housing affordability, the cost of healthcare and rising gas prices should be at the forefront of the party’s focus, according to Mamdani, rather than ideological battles that distract from what matters to most Americans.
Seems like every democrat is saying the exact same thing he’s saying. The strategy of the Dems seems to be be “Democrats suck. So vote for me, a democrat, because I agree with you about how much democrats suck!”
The real problem is the US has become a fascist society. But Americans are too narcissistic to do any introspection so instead just look for someone to blame. But keep telling yourself that it’s the fault of democrats that you’re too obsessed with your image on social media to just cast a vote for the not-fascists.
Well duh. It’s a lot of the reason we are where we are. Nobody gives a shit about the working class, so people switch back and forth from red to blue and back, always disappointed in whoever is in power.
SPOT ON! Get this dude to the White House!!!
Always remember how much the party, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, etc all hated Bernie Sanders. Freaked out about him more than Donald Trump back in 2015/2016. Then the cold shoulder to to AOC, a Bernie Sanders campaign organizer, and the squad, most of them endorsed Bernie in 2020. Then the lack of support for Mamdami even after he won the primary from the federal level democratic elected public servants in the northeast/NY. Vote blue no matter who Schumer, Booker, Torres, etc were pretty absent in the NYC mayor race after Mamdami won the primary
Besides that, remember that the US involvement in the Vietnam war was escalated and then into a full scale invasion with Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was a moderate that threw a bone to the left with the great society initiative but at his core he was not a part of the progressive wing of the party. His evil in Vietnam far overshadowing Great Society would be the end of New Deal Democrats and contribute heavily to the decline of the US because of the cost the the Vietnam war would do the US let alone the millions of innocent killed in southeast asia.
The progressive wing of the democratic party was only really powerful with FDR and it mostly died with FDR and Huey Long and the new deal probably wouldn’t have been as progressive as it was without pressure from the left of FDR from Huey Long. After that it was nonsense ever since Harry Truman was pushed as FDRs running mate in the 1944 democratic national convention. Truman was the choice for the business interest side of the democratic party rather than FDR’s previous VP. They didn’t want FDR’s previous VP to president if FDR died in office. So we got shitty Truman and in general every president since has been a bad person at least behind the scenes when it comes to foreign policy. A lot of slaughtering of non-Europeans whites.
Lack of success post Lyndon Johnson had the party trying to find success and they stumbled into with Bill Clinton who crashed the primary and beat Al Gore for the nominee in 1992. The important background for both Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton is that in the 60s, they were Barry Goldwater supporters. Hilary herself was a high school young republican and worked the republican presidential campaign for a Rockefeller. Barry Goldwater is a foundation for both the modern republican and democratic party. For republicans, he was the foundation Ronald Reagan’s economic policy path. And the democratic party, their economic path and also their approach to social politics.
Goldwater was like, appeal to racists but don’t be too racist to appeal to the rest of the country and win national elections. Nixon did it better and then Reagan perfected it. So then the democrats with the Clintons come in as economic conservatives but socially liberal and pulled some of the thunder from republicans. They were Goldwater economist for people that weren’t hyper racist, hyper religious, hyper anti-LGBTQ. And Obama is a part of that lineage. Effectively they’re all pro-color and sexuality diversity but they’re conservatives when it comes to economics and foreign policy.
And it shows with how measured they were in when they adopted pro-X views. Like listen to Bernie Sanders on gay people in the 90s or 80s, he may even have writing from the 70s, and compare them to the Clintons and Obama up to like 2012. Bernie was the worst contrast for the old guard of the democratic party in 2016 and 2020. Bernie has been consistent since the 60s whereas the Clintons would identify as republicans as high schoolers or up to their early 20s.
That era of 80s/90s era democrats that came to power are now just losing their grip on power. And I bring up Bernie because so many of those old 80s/90s era democrats that dominated the party to this day are about Bernie’s age and their political allies/protoges/descendants like Obama, Wasserman Schultz, Booker, Jefferies, etc aren’t lining up to be big public supporters of the new progressive wing of the party that started with AOC and the squad back in 2018. Because the party is in the middle of an inner identity struggle and they’re on the Goldwater/Clinton economics and foreign policy/intervention wing of the party. They’re the pro-mass surveillance wing of the party too. Those old ones, compare what they were doing in the 60s and 70s compared to Bernie. In the civil rights era where they all love to draw credibility from, they were hyperfocused on their careers/moving up their state political machines. Bernie was an activist and it would show once he finally got into politics and became a mayor. edit - I looked it up, Bernie supported the towns first pride parade in 1983 while the rest of the party heavyweights wouldn’t really become pro-gay marriage until just about after the 2012 election - lol for the social progressive high-grounding the 2016 Clinton campaign was portraying
Mamdami is on the progerssive wing and in California Beccera will be in that old Clinton/Obama/Biden wing. And Biden’s 4 years were actually the best of the three but that’s after so much complacency and foreign invasion/politiking to neglect the domestic people. Biden was decades of assholery but not nearly as assholery as say like Newt Gingrich to 4 years of being OK. Like how they were all late to the pro-gay marriage party, they’re all already late to supporting the new progressive wing of the party (should have started in 2016 or at least 2018). Pushing Biden in 2020 was their pushback against economic progressivism. 2024 was unrelenting pushback against supporting Palenstine and ending Isreali apartheid to see themselves fail again like 2016
American’s live in Barry Goldwater’s America
Watch the republican and democrat party join together in the next decade to this new way of thinking. That’s what happened in Mexico when PRI and PAN were mortal enemies but when a new party threatened their power, they decided to join forces.
That’s the typical story whenever socialism seems to be gaining traction: the liberal and social democrat parties join forces with the fascists because they are fundamentally all bourgeois parties.
Lost its focus on everything except their job security and their corporate donors. Toss in a few strong words defending rainbow crosswalks to appease the masses.
The backbone of society should get the lions share of support.
When did they have that focus?
I’d argue at the state level they often have, it just gets lost in the noise. At least in Wisconsin and Minnesota, where I’ve been.
I’d argue at the state level they often have
Californians would like a word.
At least into the '80s. It was gone by '92.
They need huge money to win big elections. Huge money hates working class.
Huge money hates working class.
Historically, the working class was a popular source of fundraising and campaign staffing. But after generations of economic and political decay, mobilizing large numbers of people has grown more difficult while raising a ton of money from one self-interested party has grown comparatively simple.
It’s a vicious cycle. Corruption fuels anti-labor politics. Anti-labor politics incentivizes further corruption.
Eventually, you’re looking at an India or Russia, where a handful of ultra-conservative oligarchs rule with an iron fist.
No shit. They also painted themselves into a corner by allying with radical SJW ideologues that are thirsty to censor anyone that slightly challenges their ideology
The current Republican administration literally banned the phrase “clean water”, shut the fuck up.
Really convincing me to vote blue no matter who! The anger and “bonus hole” bullshit pushed by the dummies over the last decade has blown up spectacularly in the faces of those who peddled the bullshit. Gl winning with your dogshit attitude 🫡
Because unfortunately as much as the “both sides” thing is generally bullshit, our oligarchs have corrupted the entire system. The government mostly only works for them now. That being said Democrats are still the only party doing anything for us. Meh
Many billionaires donate to both parties. There are a few who lean more heavily towards one side but mostly it’s bribery for unelected power.
You’re so close!
Generally bullshit, eh?
For labor, USA has been surpassed by Poland; their pay is slightly less, but benefits for workers include healthcare, family leave, vacation, and many other benefits most US workers can barely dream of.
How is it that labor parties throughout Europe can somehow outperform Democrats? We’ve been surpassed by Eastern Europe, even though they have far less money. The results are undeniable.
BoTh SiDeS are anti-labor and pro-corporate. We’ve got two parties that are very happy to argue about bathrooms for YEARS while doing NOTHING.
BoTh SiDeS are anti-labor and pro-corporate. We’ve got two parties that are very happy to argue about bathrooms for YEARS while doing NOTHING.
You’re so close!
Republicans obstruct, which is so much easier to do in our system. And yet, Democrats have still passed some leglslation that’s helpful. Republicans haven’t.
You easily see the corruption across the entire system. What you don’t see is that it still matters, and that the parties are not the same.
This reads like you’re trying to blunt his message.
Because unfortunately as much as the “both sides” thing is generally bullshit, our oligarchs have corrupted the entire system.
Make it make sense.
They’re both going to the same place. The democrats want to be kinder about it.
Edit: they’re also the only ones it might be possible to turn.
Saying “both are the same” isn’t correct in most cases, but when it comes to class war, both parties are generally captured by capital to a similar degree.
The Ds couldn’t even be bothered to increase minimum wage under Biden… his very platform.
They didn’t even try a standalone bill. No “nuclear option” to pass with simple majority.
Mamdani is right (and Bernie, and AOC)! We haven’t had a labor party for 50 years; we have two corporate parties, one is religious and one is secular flavored.
Labor was fucked in USA before AI, now? I don’t think we’re coming back from this, it’s rotten to the core. I hope I’m wrong.
Citizens United for the win
I’ll grant that they didn’t even try for a standalone minimum wage increase. I’d be curious to know how that would go too. But it was meant to go into one of the earlier spending bills that had to be passable by a simple majority. Those kinds of bills have certain requirements, or else they’re subject to the fucked up filibuster rules the Senate has.
The Senate parliamentarian ruled that a minimum wage increase was more than a budget change and did not fit those requirements. I thought Democrats’ argument that it affected revenue via resulting taxes and therefore budgeting was a reasonable one, but it didn’t quite fly.
Anyway, to say “the Ds couldn’t even be bothered to increase minimum wage under Biden” is a little disingenuous IMO. They did make one honest effort, at least, and anything else was pretty much doomed.
They did make one honest effort, at least, and anything else was pretty much doomed.
No. Joe Biden and 44 Democratic senators and 36 Republican senators were not making an honest effort to fight for workers when they voted to block the rail strike in 2022. It doesn’t matter how many times you try to say otherwise. Blocking strikes is anti-worker pro-corporate behavior. Period.
I’m talking about minimum wage and nothing else.
Of course not. Because if you zoom out it’s pretty obvious Joe Biden and most Democratic politicians are pro-corporate trash who have no interest in fighting for American workers.
And if you change the subject you can always get your point across. Great job.
I didn’t change the subject. You’re asserting that if Biden and Democratic politicians had the ability to bump minimum wages they would. I challenged your assertion by demonstrating when Democratic politicians have the power to help American workers they decide in force to side with corporations.
And yes, I did get my point across. I’m glad you acknowledge that.
Other guy: “Democrats didn’t even raise minimum wage”
Me: “Well, they tried that one thing. Here’s what happened for that particular issue, how it was attempted, and how the Senate’s screwed up rules stopped them”
You: “But they didn’t block the train strike!”
…
Anyway, yes, you got your point across. If only it had anything to do with mine of what happened on a different day
That’s the thing. Obstruction is so much easier. So Republicans have been able to stop most of the progress we would have made.
Finally someone in the left that gets it.
I don’t want to vote left because of progressivism. I want to vote left because boss earns a dollar while I earn a dime.
For a long time I’ve been saying, leftist parties would have way more success if they focused on helping 90% of the population (the working class) instead of the minority 1%. They will help minorities the most by helping the working class anyway. They can’t help the minorities if they don’t get the majority’s vote.
I don’t want to vote left because of progressivism. I want to vote left because boss earns a dollar while I earn a dime.
I mean, in theory it’s not an either/or issue. You support your minority and women colleagues because you’re stronger as a collective than as alienated individuals. Progressive causes should synergize with labor actions, because bigotry is part of the divide-and-conquer strategy of the landlord class.
In practice, I see so many politicians and activists treating these as separate - even ideologically oppositional - issues. As though you have to choose between feminism and a fair wage. Or you need to be aligned with American imperialism against the Evil Foreigners if you want to be taken seriously on LGBTQ issues.
leftist parties would have way more success if they focused on helping 90% of the population (the working class) instead of the minority 1%
I don’t see a shortage of leftist groups advocating on behalf of the working class. But for the handful that do break away and champion some bourgeois pet issue, they’ll periodically get a windfall of cash and instant celebrity. And then I’ll suddenly get an earful about how Brianna Joy Grey talking about vaccine refusal or Adam Friedland interviewing Chet Hanks is the face of American Leftism.
There’s very clearly one of those the party will support to court left wing voters. Rainbow capitalism doesn’t achieve either.
For instance in Canada Trudeau was a very right wing politician but whenever he was getting bad press he would do something akin to “law that protects trans people now includes trans people” and it was just rewriting gender identity to trans.
The problem is not what policies I support.
The problem is aunt Ben that lives in the middle of nowhere. Who hates the gays and communists. But lives paycheck to paycheck.
The social left/social right split is about 50%. Some places higher, some lower. But there is a LOT of working people. And most of those will not vote against their own interests. It’s only when they have to choose between “not my best interest, but at least there won’t be drag queens in my son’s school” and “probably my best interest, but they also want to put drag queens in my son’s school. So they’re probably lying about the good things, politicians always lie”. They’ll choose the latter.
It doesn’t matter that there is no political party that wants to put drag queens in schools. It is only important that aunt Ben thinks that is true.
If you focus on the economy, and ignore the social left, will the left gain enough votes to have power.
Only when you have power you can slowly go for the social issues.
This is what the right has done in the US. They’ve been claiming they’ll bring the good economy, and just leave the social issues as they were before. Slowly the US economy has drifted rightwards. So much so that the only 2 parties are economic right. So now it is the time to turn the social right on. They went full fascism and are killing the minorities and whoever supports them in protest.
Just follow the same playbook. “We’re leaving the rules as they are, we won’t engage in discussions about culture wars”, “but we’re gonna tax the rich and give US citizens universal healthcare”. Once both parties are pro-universal healthcare, go for public transport, then anti-anti-union measures. And once the economy is leftwing enough, you can start with the culture wars.
The focus on labor should be first above all else. If you aren’t equal in labor rights you are never going to be equal gender or sex or race etc etc etc etc etc. labor must come first. The rest is implied through the labor fight.
The focus on labor should be first above all else.
Read Settlers.
If you aren’t equal in labor rights you are never going to be equal gender or sex or race etc etc etc etc etc.
It’s the other way around. We can - and have - enjoyed a kind of National Socialist economic equity, from the 1940s to the 1960s. A heyday for the white male working class. And then it was the introduction of PoC and women to the labor market that became an excuse to dismantle labor organizations piecemeal.
Because the predominant ethnic majority and the dominant gender could not stomach minorities and women in their union halls and labor groups, they were neatly pitted against their lower-caste peers (and their working class peers abroad) until the only “good” jobs remaining were for the police and their auxiliaries.
Without a unified proletariat, any labor rights you achieve are at best temporary and at worst illusionary. Gender and race and religious and national differences must be reconciled, or you’re always going to have a bolt-hole for capitalists to flee down. You’re always going to have a cohort that the public is trained to believe deserves oppression.
The US doesn’t have a leftist party, that’s the whole problem. The Democrats would be considered a center right party outside the anglo sphere.
Outside the US, still in the anglosphere.
I’m not talking about the US. My country has more than 1 leftist party. But they focus on the social-left side and forget about the economic-left one.
I wish he would say the quiet part out loud:
They have been compromised and infected by money. The only solution is to make bribery illegal again.
Campaign Finance Reform is the issue from which ALL other issues flow.
But that would be antisemitic.
Bribery is now free speech
Bribery? You mean capitalism?
The legalized version of widespread bribery is called lobbying.
We should consider rebranding other things - it’s not smoking weed, it’s botanical consumption.
I hope I’m alive when this guy becomes president.
If they can ratify an amendment that allows naturalized citizens to run, that is.
Maybe they’ll try to do that for a president musk.
We got a rapist in office. Why should we give a shit about law, if it is solely in service to evil?
Yeah I forgot about that part.
