There is a hunger for bold, transformative politics in the United States right now. Zohran Mamdani shows how the Left can run on a principled, disciplined message that speaks to voters’ lived concerns — and win.
…you mean the material differences between two different scenarios?
I’ve already said that the backing of a powerful organization in different election series would render the same advantages and chance of winning – regardless of the candidates political positions (and that I wanted Mamdani to win! I’m not even arguing to not vote for him; I think every New Yorker should) – so this is literally you just insisting that, no, really the reasoning would be different if Mamdani ran as a third party and the Democratic party endorsed him. Then I’d say the reasoning was different and you should vote for the guy who won the primary.
Which, like, if you’re going to assume I’m secretly lying, why even bother to have responded in the first place?
…you mean the material differences between two different scenarios?
The only one that actually matters is that Mamdani is a progressive and the sex pest you want is a centrist.
so this is literally you just insisting that, no, really the reasoning would be different if Mamdani ran as a third party and the Democratic party endorsed him. Then I’d say the reasoning was different and you should vote for the guy who won the primary.
Yes, this is exactly what I’m saying. Your entire “it’s ok to vote for a third party” thing is only because Mamdani is a progressive. “No matter who” crumbles instantly when the centrist candidate loses the primary.
Ohhhhh; O. K. Yeah; you are just totally ignoring what I’m saying.
Thanks for, at least, confirming.
I’ve said multiple times I wanted Mamdani to win; I’ve also said multiple times that I’m, very much, not advocating for anyone to vote third party (again, the candidate I would want won). You’re just ignoring what I’m saying and substituting your own reality.
O. K. then; carry on. I wasted way too much time actually thinking this was a real conversation.
Speaking about the likelihood of whether a candidate can win is not the same thing as desiring for that candidate to win.
I explicitly said in my very first reply to you that I wasn’t making a recommendation about which candidate to vote for because my point was about the reasoning of the argument and whether OP’s argument actually addressed the viability of a candidate, the central piece of contention when it comes to whether a third-party candidate is capable of winning.
That doesn’t mean I want Cuomo to win, regardless of how his chances look or his actual viability. I’m not a centrist; I don’t want centrists for office; I’m thrilled the socialist won the primary; this is entirely besides the point of my original comment.
That doesn’t mean I want Cuomo to win, regardless of how his chances look or his actual viability. I’m not a centrist; I don’t want centrists for office; I’m thrilled the socialist won the primary; this is entirely besides the point of my original comment.
It sure looks like you’ve been arguing this whole time that voting third party is a-ok in this instance but not any of the previous ones.
The properties of a local election where one of the major parties backs the third party candidate does change the viability of that third party candidate in the election. But…
That doesn’t suddenly mean that’s the candidate I want to win or that I think that’s the candidate everyone should vote for. I feel like we should be able to say Cuomo would have better odds without that inherently meaning we should vote for Cuomo.
I was trying to help explain what material properties affect this to help explain why this election would not be convincing evidence to a person who argues against voting for a third party in a presidential election (where neither of the major parties are backing said third party).
I didn’t think that talking about the reasoning of such a person to understand their logic would suddenly mean that I thought voting for the third party was the thing to do or especially that I was advocating for voting for the serial sexual harasser.
I…don’t know how else to explain that these are separate things. I feel like I’ve addressed you in good faith repeatedly while you’ve just insisted I’ve been secretly lying.
I…don’t know how else to explain that these are separate things.
I understand what you’re saying. I’m just not buying that you’re not saying that it’s a different situation for any reason other than a progressive won.
See, it’s ok to vote 3rd party here. It’s not because the nominee is a progressive, it’s because of this paragraph of excuses.
…you mean the material differences between two different scenarios?
I’ve already said that the backing of a powerful organization in different election series would render the same advantages and chance of winning – regardless of the candidates political positions (and that I wanted Mamdani to win! I’m not even arguing to not vote for him; I think every New Yorker should) – so this is literally you just insisting that, no, really the reasoning would be different if Mamdani ran as a third party and the Democratic party endorsed him. Then I’d say the reasoning was different and you should vote for the guy who won the primary.
Which, like, if you’re going to assume I’m secretly lying, why even bother to have responded in the first place?
The only one that actually matters is that Mamdani is a progressive and the sex pest you want is a centrist.
Yes, this is exactly what I’m saying. Your entire “it’s ok to vote for a third party” thing is only because Mamdani is a progressive. “No matter who” crumbles instantly when the centrist candidate loses the primary.
Ohhhhh; O. K. Yeah; you are just totally ignoring what I’m saying.
Thanks for, at least, confirming.
I’ve said multiple times I wanted Mamdani to win; I’ve also said multiple times that I’m, very much, not advocating for anyone to vote third party (again, the candidate I would want won). You’re just ignoring what I’m saying and substituting your own reality.
O. K. then; carry on. I wasted way too much time actually thinking this was a real conversation.
Except the part where you keep saying that this is different because it’s small and local.
Speaking about the likelihood of whether a candidate can win is not the same thing as desiring for that candidate to win.
I explicitly said in my very first reply to you that I wasn’t making a recommendation about which candidate to vote for because my point was about the reasoning of the argument and whether OP’s argument actually addressed the viability of a candidate, the central piece of contention when it comes to whether a third-party candidate is capable of winning.
That doesn’t mean I want Cuomo to win, regardless of how his chances look or his actual viability. I’m not a centrist; I don’t want centrists for office; I’m thrilled the socialist won the primary; this is entirely besides the point of my original comment.
It sure looks like you’ve been arguing this whole time that voting third party is a-ok in this instance but not any of the previous ones.
The properties of a local election where one of the major parties backs the third party candidate does change the viability of that third party candidate in the election. But…
That doesn’t suddenly mean that’s the candidate I want to win or that I think that’s the candidate everyone should vote for. I feel like we should be able to say Cuomo would have better odds without that inherently meaning we should vote for Cuomo.
I was trying to help explain what material properties affect this to help explain why this election would not be convincing evidence to a person who argues against voting for a third party in a presidential election (where neither of the major parties are backing said third party).
I didn’t think that talking about the reasoning of such a person to understand their logic would suddenly mean that I thought voting for the third party was the thing to do or especially that I was advocating for voting for the serial sexual harasser.
I…don’t know how else to explain that these are separate things. I feel like I’ve addressed you in good faith repeatedly while you’ve just insisted I’ve been secretly lying.
I understand what you’re saying. I’m just not buying that you’re not saying that it’s a different situation for any reason other than a progressive won.