Elections in various countries

[Raphael]

Joe Rogan is in the marsh, not solidly far right because his votes before 2024 were not all Republican and since he has criticised Trump's policies several times.

That's what some people keep telling themselves. I'd say at best, he has the kind of relationship with the right-wing that I have with the left-wing: some minor disagreements here and there, and critical of some specific subgroups, but generally on board with most things.

[MacAnDàil]

Joe Rogan is in the marsh, not solidly far right because his votes before 2024 were not all Republican and since he has criticised Trump's policies several times.

That's what some people keep telling themselves. I'd say at best, he has the kind of relationship with the right-wing that I have with the left-wing: some minor disagreements here and there, and critical of some specific subgroups, but generally on board with most things.

Someone who was for Sanders and now criticises Trump on several issues including immigration and election denial does not seem very far right to me. I admit I do not know him too well.

[Raphael]

He was for Sanders because he's generically anti-establishment. That usually means "effectively far right" these days.

[Travis B.]

He was for Sanders because he's generically anti-establishment. That usually means "effectively far right" these days.

Isn't saying that effectively positing a variation on the "horseshoe theory"?

[malloc]

So, malloc, if the right's propaganda is all-powerful, why is Zohran Mamdani the next mayor of New York?

First, like most major cities, New York trends well to the left of America in general (regardless of what people here have taken to claiming). Second, one must remember that Mamdani won by quite a small margin. Cuomo could easily have won if he had fewer scandals and didn't have to compete with Sliwa for conservative votes.

[Raphael]

He was for Sanders because he's generically anti-establishment. That usually means "effectively far right" these days.

Isn't saying that effectively positing a variation on the "horseshoe theory"?

I think there's some truth in horseshoe theory. Not always, but it does apply to some people.

[Civil War Bugle]

The key scandals with Cuomo were when he was governor. If they hadn't happened, he wouldn't have resigned the governorship, and therefore as a consequence almost certainly wouldn't have been running for mayor this year. Any post-gubernatorial scandals may have adjusted the vote tally a little bit one way or the other but I don't think enough to have enabled him to win in their absence.

Also, if you add Cuomo's and Sliwa's vote totals together, they're still about 2 percent below what Mamdani got.

So I'm dubious of the general claim asserted.

[Travis B.]

He was for Sanders because he's generically anti-establishment. That usually means "effectively far right" these days.

Isn't saying that effectively positing a variation on the "horseshoe theory"?

I think there's some truth in horseshoe theory. Not always, but it does apply to some people.

Usually, though, it is applied to authoritarian socialists resembling the far right in ways specifically due to their authoritarianism and often adopting socially conservative positions (e.g. Stalinists' nationalism and views on things like 'rootless cosmopolians'), not leftists being "effectively far right" simply for opposing the center.

[Raphael]

not leftists being "effectively far right" simply for opposing the center.

I was not talking about leftists opposing the center. I was talking about people who are generically anti-establishment, without caring too much about concrete theory or policy demands.

[Travis B.]

not leftists being "effectively far right" simply for opposing the center.

I was not talking about leftists opposing the center. I was talking about people who are generically anti-establishment, without caring too much about concrete theory or policy demands.

You were essentially stating that Bernie Sanders is "effectively far right" for being anti-centrist while not always being the heaviest on theory.

[malloc]

The key scandals with Cuomo were when he was governor. If they hadn't happened, he wouldn't have resigned the governorship, and therefore as a consequence almost certainly wouldn't have been running for mayor this year. Any post-gubernatorial scandals may have adjusted the vote tally a little bit one way or the other but I don't think enough to have enabled him to win in their absence.

Also, if you add Cuomo's and Sliwa's vote totals together, they're still about 2 percent below what Mamdani got.

So I'm dubious of the general claim asserted.

Maybe but my point is that Mamdani won partly by running against a terrible opponent. Presumably someone without all the baggage of Cuomo would have beaten him.

[Raphael]

not leftists being "effectively far right" simply for opposing the center.

I was not talking about leftists opposing the center. I was talking about people who are generically anti-establishment, without caring too much about concrete theory or policy demands.

You were essentially stating that Bernie Sanders is "effectively far right" for being anti-centrist while not always being the heaviest on theory.

I was talking about Joe Rogan, not Bernie Sanders.

[Travis B.]

I was not talking about leftists opposing the center. I was talking about people who are generically anti-establishment, without caring too much about concrete theory or policy demands.

You were essentially stating that Bernie Sanders is "effectively far right" for being anti-centrist while not always being the heaviest on theory.

I was talking about Joe Rogan, not Bernie Sanders.

Okay, gotcha.

[alice]

malloc does have a point, though; the default settings for people who'd rather not think too much aren't exactly liberal, mainly because it is an undortunate fact that being liberal needs more mental effort than not being liberal. Two pertinent quotes come to mind:

"For evil to succeed it is merely necessary that good people do nothing" - we all thow this one (in its correct form, at least).
"Civilisation advances by increasing the number of important things we can do without thinking about them".

[Civil War Bugle]

The key scandals with Cuomo were when he was governor. If they hadn't happened, he wouldn't have resigned the governorship, and therefore as a consequence almost certainly wouldn't have been running for mayor this year. Any post-gubernatorial scandals may have adjusted the vote tally a little bit one way or the other but I don't think enough to have enabled him to win in their absence.

Also, if you add Cuomo's and Sliwa's vote totals together, they're still about 2 percent below what Mamdani got.

So I'm dubious of the general claim asserted.

Maybe but my point is that Mamdani won partly by running against a terrible opponent. Presumably someone without all the baggage of Cuomo would have beaten him.

Back in the era when the likes of Giuliani or Bloomberg were being elected, maybe. If we assume 2025 as it is except that Cuomo decided not to enter the primary, I think Mamdani still had a pretty strong chance, based on the current strength of Democratic Socialists and people of similar ideologies in NYC. I don't live in NYC itself but I live in the state and talk to friends in NYC often enough (in addition to general news consumption) to have the distinct impression that there was a pretty strong enthusiasm for Mamdani himself, apart from the baggage Cuomo had. The third place candidate in the Democratic primary was Brad Lander, who isn't exactly a conservative.

[malloc]

Fine, I will grant that Mamdani did have genuine enthusiasm behind him and even majority support. Nonetheless we are talking about a massive city and as I said elsewhere, cities trend strongly toward liberal and left politics compared with the hinterland. The victory of Mamdani in the most urbanized part of the US tells us little about the political climate in rural and suburban areas.

[rotting bones]

Just to be clear: Mamdani won by a very large margin. It was a blowout. And people on the street genuinely like his policies.

[Raphael]

Just to be clear: Mamdani won by a very large margin. It was a blowout.

Not if you count him against the sum of all other candidates. In that case it was just a few percent.

[malloc]

Not if you count him against the sum of all other candidates. In that case it was just a few percent.

Quite. I'm glad he won but we shouldn't overstate his popularity or gloss over the many people who vehemently oppose him, even favoring a scandalous opponent.

[rotting bones]

Just to be clear: Mamdani won by a very large margin. It was a blowout.

Not if you count him against the sum of all other candidates. In that case it was just a few percent.

I'm sure the race was even closer if you take a logarithm of the percentages.