this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
615 points (98.7% liked)

politics

25636 readers
2863 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The critical failure of "vote blue no matter who" is that many of those who run under the blue banner are actually just opportunistic Republicans who happen to live in blue states or districts. They're Republicans who can't get elected running as their true selves, so they lie and pretend to be Democrats. And then you do vote for them, because "blue no matter who." And then they corrupt the party from the inside, and deliberately make it harder for Democrats to win in the future. Remember, these people aren't actually Democrats. They don't want the Democratic Party or Democratic values or goals to succeed. They're just a bunch of cynical Republicans pulling one over on the Democratic base.

The problem with "blue no matter who" is that it has no way to address outright fraudsters. You're electing 'Democrats' who literally want the Democratic party to fail.

[–] korazail@lemmy.myserv.one 0 points 3 weeks ago

"Blue no matter who" is a response to the republicans who just fall in line and vote for any (R). This is a way to suggest that anyone running as a democrat is better than someone running as a republican. Sure, a "DINO" or closet fascist is not a great option, but an out fascist is likely worse.

'Blue no matter who' is also an easy way to guide less-informed voters: fill in the circle, check the box, etc, next to the (D).

The real work, though, needs to happen earlier. This is where we address fraudsters. Be involved in primaries and kick these assholes out of office if they don't live up. Find candidates who will actually work for us and get them on the ballot -- and then the 'blue no matter who' will get them votes from the people who are not paying as much attention.

Diminishing the impact of the phrase only hurts our cause. If you see democratic politicians who are not living up, then find people to replace them.