Look at all the national coverage.
That is what is making me cynical. Platner is apparently capable of sinking his own campaign, and we Mainers are capable of weighing his strength and weaknesses without the big guns from the DNC spending all this firepower.

but considering that the voters of Maine keep electing Susan Collins, that doesn't speak much to their credit or defense. Also, in high profile challenges like this (especially to someone as well known as Collins) I think it's perfectly natural and to be expected that there will be national interest in who the Democratic nominee will be. Also, we all know that these types of high-profile and bellweather elections (and any off-year election) will draw in donations nationally. Sometimes for the best candidate, and other times for the most-defeatable candidate, or the spoiler candidate (as we saw when the GOP was donating to Stein). I guess what I'm saying is that the "big guns from the DNC" have a legitimate interest in this because it's not "just a local election". This is something that could sway the balance in the Senate. We don't need need purity, we just need a WIN... we need an EASY WIN... and with the baggage this guy has (being anti-gay, misogynistic, racist, violent... and the Nazi totenkopf) along with everything else that shows poor decisions and an unwillingness to own/apologize/cover-up until it's politically expedient and necessary... that's someone who does not have the ability easily win against a popular incumbent like Collins.

But Mills isn’t universally popular either.

it seems that she's the one who's least divisive and has enough experience (in both campaigning and in public service and politics) to find success against Collins. Platner is a disaster. He's divisive. His campaign is over, it's just that his most ardent supporters (who likely have just ONE reason for supporting him) don't know it yet.

Last edited Wed Oct 29, 2025, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)

He is a convincing speaker. That’s two good reasons. My lefty friends found him inspirational. Mills, for all her very good points, is a centrist and a very dull speaker. She is a very good governor! She would make a good Senator. The right really really hates her, though, and are painting her as an oppressor of the girls in their locker rooms. That sad sick argument has gained traction since Mills last ran for office.

Please try to be a bit more nuanced in your argument. Platner’s supporters are not necessarily fools or bigots.

to be inspiring or progressive at all. That's three reasons (as long as we're keeping score.) Nor do I find it very convincing that in ALL THIS TIME, he never knew what it meant (and if he did, he wasn't ashamed enough to have it removed/covered). And only when it's politically expedient or necessary are the mea-culpa's coming out. But they feel forced, or like his hand was forced, rather than sincere contrition and understanding. It's one of those "I'm sorry you were offended" or "I'm sorry this offends you." He wants to be a US Senator, but we see that he has very little understanding of world history and what symbols like that represent and how hurtful they are... and still he has the nerve to claim that he is the victim. Well there's four more reasons that many people will find his candidacy to be unpalatable. I do not think his supporters are "fools or bigots" but I do believe that many of his loudest supporters are in his camp for one reason only, and that they have not fully examined his past, his history, his evasiveness, his excuse-making, his victim-claiming, his lack of historical knowledge, his lack of experience, his temperament, his demeanor. Perhaps running to be a STATE senator, or a mayor, or a US Rep would be the place for him to test his mettle and see if he's got the right stuff when it comes down to rubber hitting the pavement.

Speaking of "being nuanced"... please try to be a bit more aware of his past words and how hurtful (and harmful) those things are to people like myself and others.

"...his past, his history, his evasiveness, his excuse-making, his victim-claiming, his lack of historical knowledge, his lack of experience, his temperament, his demeanor."

Sounds so familiar...just like a MAGAt Republican.

This is why it's important to vet candidates. Before "getting in bed" with a candidate who sounds good when reading a speech... it's essential that we look at their past. Things like this reveal much. Of course we all make mistakes and "people change" but was the change genuine and sincere, or was it politically expedient? Was it forced or was it heartfelt? I simply cannot accept the "excuse" that he didn't know what the Totenkopf meant at the time, or in the many MANY years since. Why was it only covered "just now" instead of years ago? How can someone wanting to be a US Senator expect to convince people to vote for them when they are (seemingly) oblivious to the historical context?

I'd hope... expect... that the voters in Maine would want a Democrat who has the experience necessary to serve as an effective leader in the Senate. This is not an "entry level" job for someone who's never held an elected office. And I can assure everyone that Susan Collins and the rest of the GOP are hoping he's the nominee. Easy to defeat, easy to exploit his past statements and actions against him in political ads. Susan Collins would be re-elected in a cakewalk.

We need a stronger candidate... someone without BAGGAGE. We don't need perfect, we just need strong and experienced. Even if Mills is a late-in-life "placeholder" one-term Senator... that's FINE WITH ME. We need to regain control of the Senate RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

Just because he can make a presentation that makes people feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't mean he's who we need in the Senate.

I was having a discussion with another DUer about Platner and we noticed that he was flying high before Mills announced her candidacy. A week later, he's falling in the polls. The only time he was ahead of her was before she announced and the days following... until Mainers had time to hear about her running.

Also, speculation about him as a possible infiltrator, running as a Dem only to vote against us once in office as a saboteur. And before you flame me about it, I saw it up close and personal in Montana, Idaho and other states starting three general election cycles ago. I can see where such practice could be put into action here since it looks like concerned susan is looking like a loser this time around.

Just a thought, it has been going on elsewhere so I'm going to keep an eye on him. Mills is the solid favorite.

needs adult supervision at all times.

indeed!

I wish I believed Mills could do it

I was not a huge Platner fan until Mills jumped into the race at Svhumer's pushing. what corporate dems will do to socialist/populist dems is insidious and one of the reasons the dems lose races. After the Harris Waltz campaign when many were hard pressed to explain why they lost, we said the dems need to take a HARD left and re-claim their people centered agenda. so far all the DNC crowd can do is dump on anyone who does not adhere to the party line. The dragging of feet to support Mamdani and the all out crush to cut Platner's senate run will bite them in the tushie. Janet Mills needs to get out of the race.

Many are endorsing Cuomo

Here is the current list of endorsement

Because here in NY now, I don't see Dems backing Cuomo.

In the Primary Dems were under no obligation to back Momdami.

But yeah, the number of endorsements is insignificant. Insignificant as in very little.

It's huge.

Democrats are overwhelmingly supporting Zohran Mamdani. Not Cuomo.

the Democratic nominee.

I'm actually surprised the number isn't higher.

something more along the lines of: "did not warmly embrace" and... "are not giddy with enthusiasm" and... "have not endorsed", etc.

"Ganged-up" is subjective and it's all a matter of perspective, isn't it. I think that this particular viewing angle and perspective is not very realistic, however.

I'm aware of:
A number of Democratic leaders who normally would have endorsed the Democratic nominee aren't doing it this time. Schumer, Jeffries...
Gillebrand has vehemently criticized Mamdani.
Also, another Congresswoman from NY but I don't recall her name.
Bloomberg has given more than 8 million $ to a pro-Cuomo superpack

I was away, have made a correction

Bloomberg is not a Democrat. Gillibrand did NOT vehemently criticize Mamdani. She criticized him at one point then apologized. Schumer & Gillibrand have not endorsed anyone.

I see now she has apologized, which is good.
I'm not suggesting Schumer and Gillebrand have endorsed Cuomo. Gillebrand simply can't endorse someone thrown out of office for sexual harrassment, given her history.

I accused Bloomberg of not being a Democrat when he ran for president, but I think running for the Democratic nomination and donating tens of millions of dollars to Democratic causes implies a shift from his previously Republican life. He is donating to Cuomo, not to Curtis Sliwa.

Note my correction on Jeffires in this thread. I was away and not connected to internet or news last week. There are still more articles online that are outdated and say he hasn't endorsed, than articles that say he did. I'm glad he committed before early voting, but I think he waited rather long to be really effective.
.

A previous post says Jeffries has endorsed. I was away and in a media blockout so I missed that and any other endorsements in the last week.
Also, Gillebrand has issued an apology for her statements in the interview where she trashed Mamdani. Not an endorsement, but a softening of one of the most egregious attacks on Mamdani.

promoting any sort of "leave-it-blank" movement that would clearly be designed to HARM the nominee. Apathy is one thing, but to actively harm and advocate AGAINST the party's candidate is unforgivable... don't you agree?

Last edited Thu Oct 30, 2025, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Schumer hasn't yet, but in 21 he didn't endorse Adams until the weekend before the election, so we will see.
Gillibrand did make some critical remarks on a radio talk show based on what a caller said and she later apologized. But she doesn't live in NYC and has never endorsed a candidate for mayor.
Bloomberg is not a Democrat. He's and independent who ran for Mayor as a Republican.
Not sure of the Congressperson you're referring to. Are they from NYC or upstate?

but I think Gilllebrand's criticism was a big deal and even DUers are still quoting it, not her apology.
Bloomberg is not someone I would ever trust as a Democrat, but he ran for President in the Democratic primaries, and was the biggest donor to Democrats in the general election. So his choice for Cuomo over Mamdani counts for something.
I'm sorry I can't remember the Congresswoman's name. I think she might be from Long Island. i saw an interview right after the primary, not someone I was familiar with.

If you listen to the whole thing, she came on the show to talk about federal issues and not the mayor’s election. Then they put though a caller who brought up Mamdani and it was obvious she wasn’t prepared for it. She made some harsh comments but it seemed more from ignorance than malice. she’s not from nyc and has never gotten involved in nyc elections before, but some will look for any excuse to demonize her. To her credit, she did apologize for her comments.
As far as Bloomberg, I don’t care how much he’s donated. Trump donated to democrats for decades. And he ran for mayor as a republican three times. During the RNC in 2004, he illegally detained anti war protesters and later supported the racist stop and frisk policy.
If you can’t remember the name of the the other person, I can’t comment.
But as this bs talk about Mamdani not being supported by other democrats is just the usual grievance shopping by those who want to play victim. He’s gotten plenty of support.
https://www.zohranfornyc.com/endorsements

I was responding to a question in a post: what Democrats are beating up on Mamdani? I responded with my list. It wasn't very long. I made no judgement on how big a deal that was. I'm pretty happy now about how things have evolved. I never expected Democrats from all over the country to get involved. I did think Jeffries and Schumer should endorse, given they live in the city and are the leadership of the Democratic Party.

My only qualm with anything you say is the terms "grievance shopping" and "playing victim". Maybe some reactions are exaggerated--but can one object without being a victim? At the beginning there WAS a lot of talk in the media (right or wrong) of Mamdani not getting support from the party. There WAS a need to call for Democratic party support. Mamdani had to work hard to get it. There is unprecedented opposition to keep emotions high and making the position of our party more critical. But yes, the Democratic Party has, for the most part, come around.

I should listen to the whole Gillebrand interview and the apology. But I do know her, have been a supporter, and am familiar with where she's from.
I don't think she made her comments from malice, but she is not an ignorant person, so the whole thing threw me.

I agree with you about Bloomberg. I was devastated when he beat Mark Greene for mayor. He bought his mayoral election, then fueled a Republican majority in the Senate for years. I had to convince Democratic family and friends who were not from NY why they shouldn't support him for president. Of course he wasn't going to support Mamdani--he claimed his run for president was to stop Warren and Sanders. He is after all an oligarch, against everything they are for. However, he is an oligarch donating currently to Democrats, not Republicans, (in quantities that matter) so he made my list. Not that my list matters, in the end.

As far as the terms "grievance shopping" and "playing victim", I was referring to the OP. I consider their post out of line and just trying to stir up trouble.

And I agree with you, I'm glad Jeffries endorsed and think Schumer should too. But if he doesn't it doesn't change my vote. Same party endorsements are just political incest. I've never seen an election where the media and so many are so concerned about endorsements. I think it's the corporate media and certain trolls online trying to create the usual 'Dems in disarray' narrative

As far as Gillibrand, she doesn't live in NYC and have never seen her comment on city elections or politics before. My personal impression was that the caller and the host sandbagged her a bit. Yes she made some stupid remarks in the moment but she did apologize for them.

And the less said about the billionaire Bloomberg the better.

that a Democratic Socialist can run in a Democratic primary. This is better for Dems than having a third party spoiler. The 3 I know of always caucus with Democrats. We could make them be spoilers or make them change their party title but it wouldn't change their politics.

Given Bernie's and AOC's success nationallly, yes, I expect we will see more of it. But NYC is special, what happens there is not a measure of what can happen nationally.

Neoliberals hate that because they thought they killed the new deal coalition decades ago.

I've heard that it was his advocacy and promotion for the anti-Harris "Leave it Blank" movement is the cause of a lot of resentment and consternation and distrust among loyal Democrats. It's interesting to note that people are angry at those who fail to give a full-throated "endorsement" to him because "he's the party's nominee"... yet, many of those same folks have no-comment regarding anyone's endorsement of "Leave it Blank" (definitely NOT a way to support our party's nominee for President, and in fact is actively harmful).

A sexual predator who has Trump's support and has agreed to go along with the Orange Orangutan? It's a pretty clear choice for any Democrat.

The choice was clear with Harris vs Trump, and with Hillary vs Trump. The choice was very clear "for any Democrat" for those elections too, yet the spoiler candidate was the choice for many who couldn't bring themselves to vote for our party's nominee... so they chose the "lesser evil" (in their minds) in order to send a message. And in that case, the message they were sending was "I don't care if Trump wins because the Democrat isn't perfect enough to deserve my vote." Ugh. What nonsense.

I wonder what good purpose is served by badgering or "cancelling" every out of state Democrat who did not endorse, and who did not take-a-side in a mayoral race. When it comes to his support for the anti-Harris "Leave it Blank" movement, people have legitimate reasons for wanting to keep their distance. Others aren't impressed or moved enough to care one way or the other, mostly because they have more pressing national matters to deal with that are of greater importance and consequence than the outcome of a local mayor's race.

A-a-anyway... In the end, it will be interesting to see how this election turns out.

and obviously it's their decision.

Last edited Wed Oct 29, 2025, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

His use of ICE and federal funds.

Mamdani supported "leave it blank" in the primary, not the general election. This was mainly symbolic since it wouldn't change the result of the primary election. In the general he stated that he "proudly" would cast his vote for Kamala.

No one is criticizing Dems for not endorsing Mamdani during the primary. Support (or criticism) of any candidate was fair game then. The issue is what they have done (or not done) since Mamdani became the nominee.

You are comparing what Mamdani did in the presidential primaries to what Dems are doing in the mayoral general election.
You need to compare primaries to primaries, general election to general election.

over into the general election... it was far more than a harmless "symbolic" message of "fuck-you" to the Democrats and our party's nominee. It was a continuation and amplification of the LIE that "both sides are the same." Sigh. The consequences of actively rejecting and snubbing and sabotaging our party's nominee were not limited to only the primaries. It's a mistake for anyone to dismiss it, or to excuse it, or to give a free pass to anyone who promoted it or encouraged that type of performative, virtue-signaling, treachery.

by Joe Biden's actions, and Kamala's failure to distance herself from them.
If you think the "leave it blank" during the primaries was the reason Muslim/Palestinian communities didn't come out for Kamala, you are ignoring the source--and the solution-- to the problem.
I understand the rage of these voters, while disagreeing with their inability to examine and take responsibility for the alternative.

These "leave it blank" advocates and those that were influenced and had their hatred of Harris and the Democratic party all ginned-up and put into overdrive as a result are now, themselves, part of the FAFO community. They made things worse for everyone, but especially with regard to the issue that they claimed to care about the most.

Just as it was unrealistic for young people in the 60s to refrain from anti-Vietnam demonstrations over worry that they might help elect a Republican. In that case they got the change in the primary they sought, and but for an assassination the resullt would have been excellent.

I was upset at not having a real primary and a choice. I thought Biden was too old to run. I thought he should stand up to Netanyahu. It made me mad enough not to vote in the primary. I feared those two factors would give us Trump. I didn't need any ginning up.
Of course I was always going to vote for the Democrat in the general.
But my community was not bombed. I don't know anyone who died. If it's your family, I think it's hard to be rational. Am I also mad at the people who didn't vote for Kamala over this? Sure.

I just think we need to move some of the focus from a traumatized population to seasoned leaders who who should have listened and understood how these communities would respond. "Leave it blank" gave them a way to make their complaint known in the part of the election where the results were already a given. The rage was already there. Maybe there are some who needed that one way to give voice so they could justify voting Democratic in the general. We don't know what the numbers would have been without "Leave it blank." But I'm guessing if Netanyahu had been required to stop the bombing and let aid in to keep our protection, we would have seen a shift.

It was not as broad or consistent as full Social Democracy, but was a pretty good start. FDR's intention to develop it further can be seen in his "Second Bill of Rights".

Not just white people like New Deal Democrats did.

The New Deal was intended to help workers. The intense discrimination at that time period, before the civil rights movement, certainly found its way into both the structure and the administration of New Deal programs but nevertheless, federal agencies like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) hired hundreds of thousands of African Americans, and education programs improved literacy for over a million Black Americans. The Farm Security Administration established migrant worker camps. The New Deal was the birth of Social Democracy in America.

Last edited Thu Oct 30, 2025, 04:22 AM - Edit history (1)

A primary next year in Maine is not time sensitive.

I have not kept up with the Platner issues, but it was my understanding that the tattoo was a skull and crossbones, not a Nazi symbol. Has anyone actually seen the tattoo?

It’s also my understanding that he got the tattoo when in the military after a night of heavy drinking. Is it really fair to judge a man’s beliefs decades later for an action taken when drunk?

Platner may not be who people in Maine will vote for, but it bothers me that Democrats can be just as quick sometimes to commit character assassination against our own when that has long been a Republican tactic against Democrats. We need younger leaders with innovative ideas, but we will never have them if we insist that they all follow the old party line.

and the reporting on this is more nuanced than the claims in DU posts.

He claims there is a culture in the military of using these images by people not associated with White Supremacy movements (including people of color). I see nothing in the "new reporting" that associates him as actually supporting Nazis.

Exactly when he learned about the association with Nazi symbols is unclear. Not necessarily the night he got the tattoo. The Nazi skull and crossbones is scarier than the typical jolly rogers symbol, but I can imagine a lot of people not making the distinction until alerted of the history. It's not like the swastika, which used to mean "good luck" but has been obliterated from common use since Hitler. I've known the problem with a swastica since I was a kid, am just learning to distinguish this particular skull and crossbones from others over this issue.

I don't agree with members of the military sporting this tatto; I just don't think I know yet what it means to the soldiers using it.

Also not clear is when he chose to cover up the tattoo. Which was the right thing to do.

It is a Nazi tattoo.

Please name, names.

I think that "ganging up" is a euphemism for "failed to adore him" or "chose not to endorse him".

The big ol' meanies! How dare they?

I've heard plenty of victim complaints from followers of more mainstream Democratic candidates/politicians. Of course White male Republicans get the prize.
If you can't tell the difference between Progressives and White Supremacists on this, you aren't really trying.

… a terrorist organization that has the killings of all Jews worldwide in its charter to disarm, and not condemning the phrase globalize the intifada after a domestic terrorist traveled from Chicago to DC for the purpose of killing people at a Jewish event and a Nazi to be the same thing.

And joining in with and promoting the "leave it blank" movement. Remember, these are the people who were chanting "Genocide Joe" and "Killer Kamala" in an effort to suppress the vote. It was disgusting.

Now they have Trump. I wonder if they're happy now.

I took it to mean Progressives or Democratic Socialists. Bernie, AOC, and yes, Mamdani.
These 3 are far from victim mentaility. They do stand up for people thay are seeing as victimized, but they don't focus on themselves.
Mamdani is the brightest, happiest, most confident and articulate politician I've seen since Obama, and RFK before him. He joined a hunger strike to help taxi drivers, a group he saw as victims who were reclaiming their power. RFK risked his life to speak the night MLK died, and quelled a riot in Indianapolis (Perhaps a little victim mentality would have saved his life). Obama made criticism of his Pastor into his greatest speech.

If you are talking about the people who made the chants you cited, that's another thing. That is the blind rage of a people who have actually been victimized. A far cry from the White male Republicans who think they have it hard because their privelege is threatened.
The Muslim/Palestinian community abandoning Kamala was irrational and maddening. But that's what rage will do.

The peolpe I consider far left, who are motivated by more than one issue, Bernie and AOC for example, condemned aiding Netanyahu while continuing to support Harris/Walz.

It would be futile and a waste of my time to respond to a litany of questions for which the answers are self evident. For future reference... I cannot speak for others that you may have misunderstood. I can only speak for myself... and will not be baited into these games.

You are so clear I don't even know what you are talking about. Not others I've mistunderstood. Just you.
I've been wasting my time on you.

We have reached an impasse.

and I heard something different.

And anyone paying any attention to that race would know that. This feels like nothing more than gaslighting

When he hates the American people, how can he represent them? We see what the GOP does. They represent Trump, not their constituents.

And upstream, I'm being scolded about how I should be more "nuanced" ... well, there's certainly nothing about THOSE sentiments that can be described as "nuanced". Neither is a Totenkopf tattoo. Nothing subtle about that either.

Maine Democrats are not the same as New York Democrats.

is part of many military service people's lives. My father, Iwo Jima vet, came home with two on his arm. An anchor and a mermaid.

My mother: "John, I'm not good enough for you?" She always had a sense of humor. That's where I get mine from. Anyway, you and your buds are on leave, get drunk and hit the tattoo parlor.

Did Planter know the background to his tat or was it a challenge to enemies he might face in future. Does the fact that he covered it mean that he knew at the time or that a someone pointed out that the image was not cool.

But let's assume he did know and it was a statement of Nazi views. Then, he changed his mind. Can a person make mistakes and grow from them?

Then we get to me. If you knew me when I was in my late teens and 20's, you would not have liked me. How 'bout you? Have you changed your views on anything - stuff you wouldn't admit to friends and family?

She said she felt a good genuine energy from him. He was just loose w/o obvious security on 7th near 26th street. She shook his hand.

Mamdani didn't endorse Harris so i'm sure he understands if people don't want to endorse.

And bringing up this guy in Maine who is also being viewed as a victim by himself and his supporters.

Just bringing up unrelated shit .

It's one of the things that shows the horseshoe nature of the political spectrum.

Where on the political spectrum would you place it? But, before you respond... keep in mind, also, that the "leave it blank" folks were the ones chanting "Killer Kamala" and "Genocide Joe" as they set out to suppress the vote and gin-up hate toward Democrats and the Democratic party.

To his credit, Mamdani doesn't seem to be playing into it.

He's just out there shaking things up and making things happen.

There are some on the fringes who can't seem to take the very likely victory and be happy.

Most Democrats have endorsed him. Some people are less than enthusiastic about him, and a few have refused to endorse him because he failed to condemn language that leads to terrorist violence against Jews. But to say Democrats are ganging up at him is not factually true


I'm from New York and I now live in Chicago. I've worked on campaigns on behalf of Democratic candidates in six different states at every level of the ballot. I went on six canvassing trips to Wisconsin for Harris. And I went twice for the Supreme Court election. And in 2026, if my work schedule allows, I will return to Wisconsin for the midterms. And if I still lived in New York, I would not vote for him, and I have never not voted for the Democratic nominee in any election in my life.

When Democrats use the term Socialism, they often mean social democracy along Scandinavian lines. DSA’s official platform is committed to socialism in the classic sense—public ownership of the means of production, updated for the information age.

To end exploitation and achieve liberation, the DSA calls for the nationalization of railroads, utilities, critical manufacturing, technology companies, institutions of monetary policy, insurance, real estate and finance. The DSA also calls for public ownership of hospitals and other healthcare providers. It also urges government control of food production with a call to “socialize the agricultural system.” Finally, it calls for “social ownership” of the media and internet providers.

Also for defunding the police

Mamdani is running as a Democrat. He won the Democratic Primary. He is the Democratic candidate for Mayor of NYC. He's a Democrat.

First, I don't see any evidence of any Democrats "ganging up" on Mamdani. He has a lot of endorsements and the election is next week. He won the primary last spring.

Platner is one of many candidates for a primary that is two years out! News about his tattoo and other issues just hit. He's getting a lot of criticism. The only high profile endorsement he has is from Bernie Sanders.

Last edited Wed Oct 29, 2025, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

At first they network news ignored his candidacy while putting Hillary on late night talk shows and SNL to make her seem more fun and approachable. James Carville complained that the big donor money was going to dry up. Eventually they couldn't ignore the popularity of his ideas.

And he doesn't have bad visuals/optics - like for example - a Nazi tattoo.

Those of us in Black community - especially women . . .

We are fed up. We warned America about Fetterman. We warned America about Trump.

No one listens to us. Meanwhile - we are back in a 1927 environment.

We aren't going to have time to do 'free labor' in the next few elections . . . unless folks start listening to us.

It's already a shit sandwich for us - it can be a shit sandwich for everyone as far as I'm concerned.

The Clintons pushed the Democratic party more to the right and focused on corporate donor money. At the time with the economy overheating from the explosion new business based on the internet and world wide web it may have seemed like the right thing to do. More recently old white guys like Carville ignored Stacey Abrams who helped deliver Georgia for Biden, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, Conyers in Michigan, while praising Beto O'Rourke (not that he didn't earn he wasn't the only democrat delivering for the party and it's constituents). They complain about Sanders, AOC, the squad. Just considering the tactics of people like Chuck Schumer, and Cuomo along with all of the emails and texts I get for donations, it looks like their focus is more on keeping the money train flowing for themselves and they just wait for Republicans to make enough mistake they can exploit. Not to say the whole party is this way but it's a noticeable situation.

In part, because of people like myself that voted for him in 2016 and then made sure to bring friends and family to vote AGAINST him in 2020 after how he and many of his supporters abused our votes to attack the Democratic winner.

He wrote some books and bought a vacation home, yawn. $2.5 million is hardly nouveau riche.

The right made a big deal of it though.

And he is the prototypical """leftist""" type that the rightwing love to paint all Democrats as and then run against that caricature, but yet they love them some Bernie Sanders -- gee, I wonder why that is?

that of a socialist. Many here support it but do the rank and file?

...this is a false narrative.

Those Democrats in NY aren't politically invested in ME politics. It's a longshot expecting anyone to be responsible for ME politics more than the people who live there.

It's actually specious for the media and others to describe that race as nationalized. We can weigh in, but it's up to the voters in their respective states.

…to be the candidate when I’m sure there are many other quality candidates available. Irrespective of his platform, the optics are terrible.

A strain of white supremacy in America. It's cultural conditioning.

BTW - I'm waiting for the Candidates who are more in line with The Great Society. IDGAF about his (LBJ's) record in Vietnam. I don't. My dad was a cold warrior and I spent my formative years in then West Germany.

There are ~ 39M Black Americans - single race non-hispanic non Afro Latino/a.

Another 5.6 million of us are multi racial non-hispanic Black. I fall into this category. My mom was white. I experience America as a Black presenting woman.

We are losing EVERYTHING.

The REAL terror and FEAR that those approximately 45 million Black Americans are experiencing TODAY in 2025 should and MUST outweigh one candidate in a field of SEVERAL in a Primary.

If it's no big deal to you and you think he's sooooo noble and whatnot - fine.

But you aren't my ally . . . and I will proceed with the knowledge that you have experienced America as the default setting and are willing to make excuses.

P.S. Primaries are healthy.

but I think they are going to lose. He has 92,000 folks canvassing for him - the youth want him and that kind of energy is hard to beat. So, Bill Ackman, et al, can suck it.

Mamdani may be the next Barack Obama. We certainly need him.

There will be a lot more Mamdani's running for office

they are all early voting. He's got 92,000 volunteers canvassing for him - in NYC! I'm really hoping he makes it.

FDR and Harry Truman were capitalists. The story that FDR was a socialist is used for political purposes to demonize the modern Democratic Party as corrupt neoliberals who ignore the working class. Republicans love it. The more everyone puts most of their energy and attention blaming Democrats the better for them.

It's been almost a week.

He's getting clobbered.

We’re not the GOP and have genuine disagreements about candidates and strategy. Many (including the Black community, especially women) did not warm to Obama right away. He had to earn it.

Should all future political candidates be forced to reveal any tattoos? For all we know, Mamdani may have some that aren't appropriate for the future mayor of NYC.