2d ago

Poll: Zohran Mamdani's policies are popular with Americans outside New York — even if Mamdani is not

www.yahoo.com

A new Yahoo/YouGov survey finds that about twice as many U.S. adults say they would vote for a candidate with Mamdani's platform (50%) than say they would not (26%). Could it be a blueprint for Democrats elsewhere?

60 comments

What is the problem they have with Zo... nevermind...
he's not a white moron. That explains a lot.
Abstract policies are a notoriously poor way of polling for voting patterns.
But it seems most people don't have a strong opinion on our New York boy, which is honestly the best we could ask for at this junction. May ~~Zohran the DESTROYER'S enemies be DESTROYED~~ Mamdani succeed and, for our sakes if not necessarily his, go on to national politics after. Gods know we need him.
- The weird part is it shouldn't be, it shows how enthralled every is by the sports team 'us and them' dynamic that they'd rather vote for policies they hate than for someone not on their team.
  
  I think it speaks more to how shallow policy questions tend to be.
The poll says 46% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats outside of New York don't have an opinion on a guy running to be Mayor of New York.
Clickbaitey article headline implies not having an opinion on a politician running for mayor in another city means the same as being unfavorable towards that politician. Yes he has a low favorable number but a massive "no opinion" number because should people give a shit about a politician in another city?
New Yorkers may like to to think they're the center of the world, but shockingly over 40% of people outside of New York probably don't know who this guy is because why should they?
- Really. I've read quite a bit about him, and I've never even been in North America.
  But I also try to stay informed, and our news are infested with US culture war bullshit.
  
  Well you're in a politics community on lemmy, so you're going to hear about all of the leftist populists constantly. But I don't think lemmy is an extremely popular web forum.
So their dislike of him is just because he isn't white.
- Probably also a lot of propaganda.
  You get told by every mainstream news everywhere on social media that this is an “evil socialist”.
  It’s been a trend for atleast the past 30 years that policy wise the average US voter has been way further to the left than the average party they vote for.
  
  Yep. The same thing happened to Bernie in the 2016 primary. He polled better than Trump amongst Republicans in some polls right up until people were told whose policies they were, and then many of those same people said that they would vote against him.
  
  Exactly, the wording is extremely important when talking about policies. People like "helping the poor", but people hate "welfare", because that's communism or something.
  
  I don't get why this is a mystery to people on the left. They're going to go to their graves never realizing the policy doesn't matter. It's the spread of a message that matters. Most right leaning people I know do like left leaning policy. But the left are so fucking grating and have their heads so far up there own asses that they never actually problem their views effectively. I fully believe that even the stuff that the left focuses on is actually encouraged by the right because it's the most in your face contentious stuff mixed with "don't communicate with the right they're Hitler's all of them"
  You can't get your policy enacted without support. The right focused on support first then policy but the left did the opposite.
- Well that and he's for socialist policies. You see Americans want socialist policies, they just need to get them rebranded first so they don't have socialist policies.
- Having the term "socialist" in his description "Democrat socialist of america" is gonna turn off a lot of people. It's a dirty word in the US.
  
  I want mandatory vacations, nationalization of the shorelines, nationalization of all oil reserves, if some companies drills - they need to be paying tax on what they extract.
- Not necessarily, the US now has a long track record of progressive policies being super popular when they're not associated with Democrats.
It's kind of dumb, because politicians don't really matter aside from their policy.
I guess that means that most of the attack ads probably had some impact and that US voters are against this guy, but can't remember why?
I swear sometimes it feels were in an disinformation dark ages. Like dehydrating on a boat in the ocean.
- Lack of credible news sources. It's all entertainment now. Those in power are afraid of a well-informed electorate. However, as Americans, it's our duty to cut through the bs
  
  There's plenty of good journalism eeking by out there, it's just buried by feeds and spam.
  
  yeah but fooooooooooooootbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall!!!!!! woooooooooooooooooooooooo
- Policies mesn nothing without trust
Don’t need to be a certain color or gender to get the job done correctly to help the people.
- This survey seems to suggest otherwise.
  Many, including myself, see Trumps wins as backlash by legacy European settler descendants for to a part African man serving two terms as president.
The ghouls, sewer-dwelling demons, and subterranean goblins are all assembling their forces to defeat Mamdani.
- Don't forget the bridge-residing trolls, splitter!
Yeah, thing is Democrats are on the same side of the class war as Republicans.
One thing that drives me crazy is when Progressives insist on talking about Socialism.
Talk about the policies and ignore everything else.
- I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately the amount of right-wing propaganda out there will label any real challenger as being socialist whether that's Mamdani or the "radical marxist socialist commie" that was... Kamala Harris?
  So progressives must decide whether they hide from the term, enabling the fearmongering, or openly embracing it to show there is nothing wrong with it.
  Second to that, I feel they should be pivoting the questions not just to policy but to definitionally explain the notion of socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracies; how in reality — as in actual, realized, tangible results, not utopian fantasies — some of the happiest and most successful countries by the data are ones who embraced a properly mixed economy; that is, social democracies or the Nordic Model.
  I recently had what was maybe one of my biggest wins in a conversation with a maga by explaining it this way. They're so damn confused and believe all trade and bartering, all markets, and any scale of monetary income will vanish. That big bad guv'mint isn't necessarily so bad when it's protected from outsized corporate and billionaire power and firmly in the hands Of the People.
  
  So progressives must decide whether they hide from the term, enabling the fearmongering, or openly embracing it to show there is nothing wrong with it.
  I've been wondering, what if they just ran in the opposite direction? Don't call it "state-owned industry" or "collective ownership", but instead "Hypercapitalism: every citizen is a shareholder!"
  
  I mean, if someone wants to call themselves socialist, maybe it's fine, but I think most of their discussion should be about the policies they are for, how they would work, etc., and what that would mean for everyday Americans.
  Once the qons throw out that tar baby Red Scare stuff, and the target(s) start engaging with them on this, tacitly accepting the framings and the definitions that the qons have chosen? Game over. Now the target(s) are on the back foot, trying to prove they aren't the demons a lot of normies and qons have been trained to think anyone with those labels really are, and they get to wrestle the tar baby endlessly.
  Instead of doing that, I suggest these people make the qons justify THEIR positions. How is it morally defensible that the likes of Taco and fElon got out their chainsaw and have already murdered hundreds of thousands of children and jeopardizes millions more in the future? As an example on the national stage.
  If progressives waste tons of time defending themselves, arguing over the absurd framing and definitions and terms that the qons have spent decades sharpening, they are already losing. Their narrative should be about painting a brighter future for every American, while demanding the qons defend THEIR reprehensible actions and political platforms.
  
  Or… they just completely ignore it?
  If you’re going to be labeled a socialist and commie sympathizer no matter what you do, why not just run on your platform and brush off the accusations as political hubris?
I mean haven't the likes of Chomsky and Cenk been pointing this out for decades? When polling Americans on the issues, they tend to be progressive?
That's in spite of a helluva lot of propaganda that is nonstop, 24/7, in favor of corporations, by the way...
- Yes this has been a known fact for like 30 years. But somehow it feels like no one internalised it so I keep sharing examples.
  
  Please do continue. The usual trope that "most people are cons" is common currency, nearly everywhere, even though it's false.
Just say that he wants the Epstein files released.
Could it be a blueprint for Democrats elsewhere?
Democrats elsewhere: "For messaging right? A blueprint for our messaging? Right?"

60 comments