It’s funny how centrists always bring up this idea that progressives aren’t reliable Democratic voters…even in a thread about an election in which the centrist Democrat is ignoring the primary results and running as an independent!
Not talking for them, but (to keep it in the subject) I don’t think Mamdani is complaining about being tarred, the point stands: It is ignorant, and just an effort to discredit Mamdani and what they really want to do.
That would be more of an issue if there was any chance the Republican candidate might win.
How do the parties decide who gets to run in the primary anyway? And what if something terrible comes out after a candidate wins a primary, but before the main election (eg they are secretly a Nazi)? Can their party take them off the ballot, or disassociate themselves and force the candidate to run as an independent?
Anyone who wants to can run in a primary, the parties have no say in the matter. A few years ago a literal self-identified Nazi won a Republican primary for state legislature here in Illinois, because he was running in a heavily Democratic district where nobody else bothered to run in the Republican primary. The party urged people not to vote for him, but they were stuck with him being on the ballot as their candidate.
iiandyiiii clearly said bigwig
NY
Dems and you respond with Sanders, Warren, AOC, only one of whom is in NY, and call his claim “false.” Jesus Christ.
Maybe you need to “cover it” one more time… after you apologize to iiandyiiii, of course.
The biggest of the bigwigs of NY state Dems are the governor and two senators. None of those three have endorsed the overwhelming winner of the Democratic primary for NYC mayor (which is probably the fourth political position, in prominence, after those three).
Okay thanks.
Sure., good point, but the other two congress members in my link are NY reps. So there are three bigwig NY endorsements.
That is true. And two of them endorsed Adams, but only after he was the nominee. Good point. Still three NY members of Congress is a start.
Also now =
So yeah, not the big three yet, but still some reasonable amounts of Dem endorsements.
And Shumer has said good things about the candidate-
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/27/schumer-mamdani-new-york-city-mayor-deportation
It is early yet, we have until November.
That’s crazy. But it explains how Trump was able to take over the Republican party, rather than being forced to start his own. And I assume they can’t kick someone who’s been elected out of the party either, say if they commit a serious crime?
Not really. I mean, I guess they could formally expel him, and not let him participate in their caucus, but they couldn’t stop him from running in their next primary and possibly winning again. It is sort of an odd way to run a democracy.
Parties don’t have to run primaries - they can run caucuses or even shadowy backrooms to decide their nominees. But voters tend to prefer primaries, and so that’s what we mostly have.
It’s more like voters don’t really care. Primaries typically fall well below 50% participation and “winners,” since there are usually multiple candidates, often will receive far less than a majority of the vote.
Those numbers cause election scholars to sadly shake their heads and it’s one reason that the movement is growing for open primaries and Alaska-style elections.
Do endorsements really move the needle with voters, anyway?
More specifically anyone who is qualified to be a candidate and to hold the office if elected, and depending on the state who fulfills by a certain date sone basic requirements like a number of signatures in support and a filing fee (that are both set by law to not be excessively restrictive). This was largely the result of backlash against “insider establishment” candidate selection back in the mid-20th century.
As mentioned in most states the parties still can select candidates by internal consensus but then have to officially advise of their intent to do this well in advance. Easier to just set the primary anyway and count on that only serious contenders will apply.
Here’s one informed take, but too brief.
(I thought the now-defunct FiveThirtyEight site had some thorough, evidence-based discussions on this in recent years, but I couldn’t find quite the right thing there.)
Generally any particular endorsement by a person- maybe not. By say a Union? Seems to matter. But if your list is paltry it shows.
Anyway, it is over two months to the election.
I do have a question- when did those two bigwigs endorse Adams? I thought I read at least one was pretty late?
I didn’t get much out of that link. Does it say anything beyond, “Trump’s endorsements seem to matter”?
No, you’re right. Sorry about that.
This is a little better:
Instead of just linking, how about a summary of what it says?
Yes, please. I don’t want to read another rambling article that doesn’t say much. Or even one that does say something interesting, honestly. Please give us the gist, and then we can decide if it’s worth reading in more detail.