These summer days are guaranteed to be much more pleasant with a plentiful supply of David’s Margarita or David’s Daiquiri. Preferably both! Since summer is also (strangely enough) peak season for the common cold, let me share this:
MILK CURE FOR THE COMMON COLD
There is a lot to be said for effective self-medication, so here goes. If you are suffering some or all of the symptoms of a severe cold, or even a slight sniffle, start by gently heating a generous amount of Cognac to slightly above fever temperature. (Do not bring to a boil!) Pour carefully into a glass, preferably one that is purpose-made for this fine beverage.
Now add three drops of milk.
This concoction should be imbibed four times per day.
You are guaranteed to feel much better – and will probably forget all about your ailment!
Although it endorsed each of Mikie Sherrill's campaigns for Congress and endorsed Phil Murphy over Jack Ciattarrelli in the last election for New Jersey governor, it is striking that the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 825 is now siding with Ciattarrelli over Sherrill. It apparently has to do with Sherrill's support for clean energy over more gas pipelines. Sherrill, though, has received the endorsement of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO.
How does the International Union of Operating Engineers fit in to the clean energy vs gas pipeline stance? I don’t see specific information of this union to be gas-based.
NJ as a state is strange. In the past, there have been handfuls Democratic politicians (even local leaders) who endorsed Chris Christie when he was still Governor and running for re-election.
A spokesman for the local, which represents 8,000 heavy equipment operators, explained: "If we wanna fix New Jersey’s energy crisis, add power to the grid as soon as possible, ensure New Jersey’s economic future, ensure that operating engineers have good job opportunities in the future, it is clear that we need Jack Ciattarelli to be our next governor.”
I can maybe recognize why someone who leads an operating engineers union would be in favor of gas pipes over clean energy? (I'm assuming many of their jobs currently involve engineering around gas pipelines). A quote from the union's business manager, Greg Lalevee: “New Jersey has the most mileage of replaceable pipe in the U.S., and the [Board of Public Utilities] asks utility companies to scale them down”. The NJ Globe further reported that "Lalevee cited Ciattarelli’s willingness to create jobs by supporting projects involving natural gas and panned the Democratic nominee, Mikie Sherrill, for 'banking on solar' as a solution to the state’s energy needs."
One question I have: How are union endorsements given? Is it just Lalevee's decision or is it voted on by the union members?
A more policy-oriented question I have: How can Dems remove the stigma around clean energy? It seems like a lot of jobs would go into providing clean energy, and I'm assuming many engineering jobs as well since these projects require infrastructure that needs to be built and then continuously maintained. Lalevee cited Sherrill's support for solar as a reason he (or the union -- again, I'm not sure how it works) didn't endorse her, but wouldn't solar operations require engineers? I can't think of any reason why these jobs couldn't be (or wouldn't be) union jobs. Why do we struggle to communicate that clean energy can be great for blue collar union jobs?
Note that Lalevee also cited Ciattarelli's support for Trump's immigration policies, which Lalevee thinks will be popular among blue-collar workers. It does seem to be true that blue-collar union workers are becoming more anti-immigration, so maybe the endorsement would have gone to Ciattarelli regardless. But I think my questions around unions and clean energy still stand.
Definitely exceeds coal by a large amount, but not sure about that combined with O&G (which also fluctuates widely depending on the global price).
It also varies widely by region; the renewables boom has created enough jobs in Texas that the House quashed the major anti-RE bills that came up the past few years, and there's also been a lot in California, Georgia and the Carolinas (and increasingly southwest states like Nevada and New Mexico). Due to its density the share of renewables (outside of hydro) in the north-east/New England has remained relatively small despite overall governmental support, due in part to a lack of available land to build solar and wind farms. This has coincided with a big push in recent years to expand gas pipeline infrastructure across the northeast as coal and oil has declined as a share of electricity (and stupidly, as nuclear plants also closed)
Solar panels can be put on roofs, and there are quite a few in New Rochelle visible from the train. And wind farms can be built offshore when nimbyists don't get to dictate policy.
Stigma or not, fossil fuel jobs are going to disappear one way or another: either because renewables supersede them or due to a catastrophic collapse of global civilization as a result of uncontrolled global warming.
Long term, this is true, but no one in blue collar America wants to hear this. This is one reason I have become more pessimistic long term about Texas.
I'm from coal country in Appalachia and the loss of coal jobs has caused the Democratic party to not only implode in support, but to be outright hated there. I've had people literally scream in my face when they find out that I am a Democrat because they blame us for the loss of the area's coal jobs. I fear that this is already happening in gas and oil country where the Democrats are being blamed for future job losses due to our support of renewable energy and climate change policies. This is a perfect example of a man's politics being determined by who butters his bread.
Nothing can be done about that. Coal went out of fashion a long time back especially due to the fracking revolution and global oil boom.
Democrats cannot control technological innovation. There was simple no other industry in West Virginia and I'm not sure if its geography can support anything else so the reaction is understandable.
Interesting. I wonder if the executive board would have interests that differ from the union rank and file, which in turn would influence the endorsement?
"Lalevee hinted that there are more building trades endorsements on Ciattarelli’s horizon.
'There are powerful statistics about why building trades should go this way,' Lalevee stated."
I question the accuracy of the "powerful statistics" comment, but Sherrill really should try to lock down union endorsements over the coming weeks. Especially since Sweeney and the South Jersey machine probably isn't in her corner.
Sherrill already has garned much wider union support than Ciattarrelli's. After 500 delegates of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO voted unanimously to endorse Sherrill, its president declared: "“Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill has always stood shoulder-to-shoulder with New Jersey’s working people. She understands the dignity of work, the importance of strong unions, and the role that labor plays in building a fair economy. As our next Governor, she’ll fight for quality and accessible health care for every family, for great public schools for every kid, and to make New Jersey more affordable for everyone.”
“With a 100% voting record with labor, Mikie has fought for us in Washington, and we are proud to fight for her now. She’s the leader New Jersey’s labor movement trusts to champion workers’ rights and deliver for all our families.”
The New Jersey State AFL-CIO has 1 million members.
Here's an interesting dive into the Virginia primaries by UVA's Centre For Politics. The "friends and neighbours" effect of candidates running strongly in their home areas had mixed effects: for LG, Stoney may have been sunk by Richmond where he was mayor (Hashmi is also based in the area.) Rouse also ran neck and neck with them by a strong showing in Tidewater/Hampton Roads. That region also helped Jones for AG, but Taylor didn't get a similar boost overall from the Richmond area, where she won her home county of Henrico but not Chesterfield or Richmond City.
Northern Virginia has no favourite son or daughter on either party's ticket this year, but if Stoney and/or Taylor had prevailed they would probably have owed it to NOVA.
I think the biggest story of the Virginia primaries is how much of a win it was for Clean Virginia. This is the first time in history that all three of our candidates for statewide office are backed by Clean Virginia (i.e. no Dominion Energy-backed candidates on our statewide ticket).
With State Navigate (the successor to CNalysis) up and running, this and VPAP will likely be the go-to sources for information on Virginia's elections this fall.
“The mayor of New York is uniquely positioned to play an important role in the future of the national Democratic Party,” Mr. Clyburn said in a statement, adding that Mr. Cuomo had the “experiences, credentials and character to not just serve New York, but also help save the nation.”
I cannot overstate how wrong this is on every count. The octogenarian class defending and putting a sex pest on a pedestal. What a way to tell our voters that we too are totally fine with incompetent nepo sex pests who have resigned in disgrace for behavior that would get them fired from anywhere.
Yes, and appointing judges to the New York State Court of Appeals who interpreted the "fair districts" amendment to prohibit the Legislature from passing their own redistricting after rejecting the bipartisan commission's suggestions twice.
About that, even Clyburn collaborated with SC Republicans to make his district safer according to a Propublica investigation. We could have had another South Carolina district that would have been competitive in a slightly favorable environment.
Honestly Clyburn just made the perfect argument for why the old guard of the party needs to go. Saying Cuomo should be mayor for his *character*?? So out of touch.
To say the least, don't look for the NYC mayor's race for the future of the Democratic Party:
- For reasons you've stated, Andrew Cuomo is not the future of the Democratic Party nationally, even if he can get elected in NYC after all of his scandals. Cuomo will turn 68 years old not long after the general election for mayor, at a time where a generational shift to younger leaders is increasingly inevitable and has already started to some degree.
- Zohran Mamdani isn't eligible to run for POTUS because he's a naturalized U.S. citizen, which, if he were to somehow win the mayoral election (either by winning the Democratic primary or by getting the Working Families Party nomination, then defeating Cuomo, Eric Adams, and Silwa in the general), would greatly limit his ability to influence the Democratic Party nationally. Also, and I'm saying this as someone who would vote for Mamdani if I lived in NYC, he, unlike AOC, for example, comes across as being way out of his depth as a political candidate.
- I don't think anyone other than Cuomo or Mamdani has any chance of winning the Democratic mayoral primary.
- The NYC mayor's office isn't exactly a springboard to higher office. Just ask Rudy Giuliani, Mike Bloomberg, and Bill de Blasio.
Re your last bullet...or any other NYC mayor, at least as far as the Presidency is concerned. If you want to move up, you'd be better off as the NYC Port/Custom House Collector.
I suspect that this endorsement means to hold your nose and vote Cuomo because Mamdani has the potential to be a real train wreck who causes long term damage and no one else is in a position to win. Brad Lander would be a good choice but he is mired in single digits right now.
What a stupid concept for an endorsement. Vote for the known train wreck a gross incompetent sex pest who resigned in disgrace on "character" to stop a "potential train wreck".
It’s really fucking annoying how often we will see the worst, most incompetent candidates sold to us with the “proven” or “experienced” description.
I do value experience, yes, but why should anyone with known *bad* experience be given any credence? Yeah Cuomo has experience, it just so happens to be him proving he’s bad.
It’s pathetic that anyone will tell us he’s good along those lines, all with a straight face.
i'd rank Mamdani at least fifth even with reservations because sexual harassment and transactional vengeance are the worst of politics and governance in my view and giving this clown another chance to embarrass us nationally is unacceptable. That said as you say Clyburn could have endorsed any other candidate or stayed out but instead he endorsed the sex pest on "character" it's disgraceful.
Because they are transactional cowards who don't give a shit about women being harassed and assaulted in the work place. So long as they can get a scrap appointment or at the very least avoid the creep's wrath they are content.
Democrats have never stuck to a consistent message on Trump.
Every messaging approach gets abandoned within a few months before being replaced with something else.
So, technically, sure, our party messengers and candidates called him a felon and insurrectionist and everything else... But not for long enough.
This is one of the big things democrats consistently do wrong on messaging and republicans consistently get right. Pick an attack line that is simple and stick to it. For the entire campaign. Even better, start the attack line before the campaign begins.
Our messaging is consistently inconsistent. I don't know what's actually going on behind the scenes but it feels like they're poll-testing or focus-grouping everything and when it fails to make headway after three months it gets abandoned for something else.
Not much. Unfortunately, a large number of American voters are ignorant, stupid and prejudiced and either don't believe anyone will actually get rid of elections or don't care. Harris did her best to make the election about democracy and the future, but the idiots made it about believing Trump could roll back inflation, etc.
Not sure what you’re talking about. You don’t want the “far left” in the party but complain when they attack the party from outside the party. Sounds like you want to have it both ways.
Genuine question: what truth is this idea that Mamdani as mayor has "the potential to be a real train wreck who causes long term damage?" Is it because of his ambitious economic plan? Because if that's the case, I'd recommend you read this glowing endorsement from several international economists that released today: https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/economists-zohran-mamdani-new-york-city/
The only other critique I've seen is that he "isn't experienced." My question then is...so? While I definitely believe experience is important, more often it's just used as a cudgel to bolster the defense of those already within the establishment. I think the reason why so many people both in the party and especially on this forum are scared of Zohran as mayor is that his plans are ambitious and inconceivable to the establishment liberal, and they're frightened of admitting defeat if said plans are successful.
In general (not towards anyone on this board) I think it's a combo of what you said, the practicality/ability to implement his plans, ageism and a little islamophobia sprinkled on top.
Also, his tendency to obsess about that certain divisive issue that we aren't supposed to talk about. Our support has not cratered in the New York suburbs and Long Island because people there want our candidates to take more far left stances on that one issue and on criminal justice.
The first isn't likely to have any practical governing consequences but I would agree it is likely to be divisive within the NYC primary electorate. The second from what I've seen does not sound far off from the STAR program implemented in Denver that didn't cost Democrats anything in CO but to be generous there are no guarantees he will be able to implement something similar and successfully and the two electorates may be in different places on crime despite the similarity in policies/where the cities/suburbs are on the red-blue spectrum.
The progressive reforms on crime had the bad luck to come out right when we had a small spike in crime after Covid and the messaging on them was terrible. Whoever came up with the slogan "Defund the police" should forever be banished from left leaning politics. There is plenty of room for criminal justice reform but it takes nuance and political savvy which many true believers like Mamdani seem to completely lack.
New York has a very different history with public sensitivity to perceived increases in crime than Denver (and most other Western cities for that matter)
Democratic plans have to add up. Republicans can promise pie in the sky and don’t spend a second worrying about the reaction. Look who wins more often than not.
So if Democrats start saying a bunch of bullshit, maybe they'll be more likely to win? Even if so, that will further damage democracy, as neither party will be trustworthy.
There are economists who buy his pledges to freeze grocery prices and rent and yet get 200,000 affordable housing units built? Did they go to the Mickey Mouse School of Economics?
Not really too interested unless they explain how those things, which he promised, make sense. As I said, I'm inclined to rank him 5th just because he unfortunately seems to be the main opponent to Cuomo, but he insults our intelligence.
Side note: where did you get the freeze grocery prices thing? I can't find a single link on Google where he says that's his plan. He talks about city-run grocery stores and rent freezes, but not *grocery* freezes.
"At the heart of Mamdani’s platform is his plan for a rent freeze, offering urgent relief to over 2 million tenants in rent-stabilized apartments facing inflationary shocks and displacement. As economists, we recognize that unchecked rent spikes destabilize neighborhoods, increase homelessness—a far costlier public burden—and drain local economies. A rent freeze, together with long-term commitments to building at least 200,000 additional rent-stabilized and public units, is commonsense policy that pairs immediate relief with structural problem-solving."
Who is going to build this housing, with what money, and how does it make any sense to freeze rents in an inflationary economy? It would be much cheaper to subsidize rents for people who can't afford them. I'm a rent stabilized tenant. My rent certainly takes a bite out of my income, but I can afford it, and I'm certainly not rich but not at risk of eviction or homelessness.
"Mamdani’s prioritization of free buses builds on the success already demonstrated by the fare-free bus pilot program on five lines in each borough of New York City. Eliminating fares was shown to increase bus ridership by more than 30 percent, markedly reduce violence against bus drivers, and provide real economic relief for low-income New Yorkers. The data from the pilot confirm that the fare-free bus model works and Mamdani’s proposal to expand it citywide makes clear fiscal sense."
Do you know what makes more sense? No longer treating bus and subway fares as if they're optional and farebeating has no consequences. There simply isn't enough money to maintain and improve service without fares. Again, the solution for poor people is subsidies. Don't get me wrong: I'd love free public transit, but who is going to pay for it?
"His platform’s commitment to universal no-cost childcare is both an imperative for gender equity and an economic necessity. Exorbitant prices of childcare prices out parents, especially women, from the workforce, stifling productivity, and driving families out of the city. By lifting the crushing financial burden on families, Mamdani’s plan would create quality jobs in the care economy and generate a multiplier effect to benefit the entire city. Study after study demonstrates that public investment in childcare yields some of the highest returns of any social spending."
This is a great idea, it's a totally reasonable extension of free public schools and pre-K, and it could be attainable if the city doesn't try to make everything free at once.
"To combat skyrocketing food prices, Mamdani proposes city-owned grocery stores—a “public option,” utilizing economies of scale to supply healthy food at affordable rates. These municipal grocers would sell staples at wholesale prices, leveraging public purchasing power and economies of scale, eliminate food deserts, and provide New Yorkers immediate relief from price gouging. The economic data is clear: When the public sector steps in to correct market failures in the provision of essential goods, consumers benefit."
If all they'd do is use economy of scale and not lose money, they could work, but I have visions of countries that had to increase prices of staple foods during inflationary periods, triggering riots. I again wonder whether subsidies would work better than a bunch of physical government stores, but I'm willing to consider the idea.
They never explained how the policies were responsibly costed. I hope they respond to challenges about this, as I fail to see how Mamdani's socialist utopia, which I would certainly support if it were attainable, is even possible during the Trump Administration. Does he want to seek permission to borrow the city into a new Fiscal Crisis? I already lived through one that resulted in large part from the innumerate profligacy of a liberal Republican, John Lindsay, whose heart was in the right place. It was horrible, miserable, and took decades to recover from if we even have completely (I'm quite unsure the subways have, and homelessness has been unsolved since the mid to late 70s). I don't want to live through another, if he would even be permitted to borrow the city into insolvency, and I think there are safeguards that would prevent him from doing so.
Brad Lander and Zohran Mamdani agree on basically everything, or at least basically everything that actually concerns NYC. I hate to pull the race card, but I really don't see a reason to oppose Mamdani but support Lander other than racism and Islamophobia.
I don't want to dismiss the stupidity and frustrations of politicians making promises they can never deliver on. Because that is legitimately bad and reinforces a lot of voter apathy issues and makes the system worse.
That clarification out of the way: I feel this is an issue being targeted at Mamdani disproportionately. Almost every politician is either (a) making undeliverable promises, or (b) making vague and unspecific policy promise.
Mamdani seems to be making even more impossible promises than usual, but the principle here still exists. Checking Lander's website one of his first policy bullet points says "Brad will stop retail theft — and free items behind lock and key at drugstores." There's no practical way that any mayor of NYC can pull that off.
Adrienne Adams, as best I can tell, has no specific policy promises of any kind, instead doing a combo of past accomplishments + vague "make things better" promises. I refuse to spend much time skimming his website but from a quick glance Cuomo is victim of this too. Lots of vague "tackle this problem" promises without any policy meat behind it.
Stringer is the only one whose website I've skimmed just now that has concrete promises that are plausible to do. Not going to assess the merit of fulfilling those promises, but at least on paper they look like things that a mayor has the authority and plausible budgetary resources to do.
Mamdani definitely deserves minus points for lots of impossible promises here... but realistically so do nearly all of the candidates, and certainly all of the candidates with much of any chance of winning.
Ok, that looks like a fair comment, and thanks for digging into their websites. I’ve based a lot of my reactions on literature sent to me to promote campaigns (I usually disregard attack mail) and what I know about some of their records in current or former offices.
I should say, Stringer has done a lot of good things in previous offices, but I find it hard to dismiss the sexual harassment complaints against him, so I'm having trouble with the idea of ranking him.
I remember thinking positively of Stringer in the 2021 primary before those allegations came out and his campaign imploded. If I lived in NYC I wouldn't have ranked him then and I cannot imagine I'd rank him now. Since I don't get a say in this primary I haven't put much thought into all five potential names I'd rank and how I'd rank them, but I'd rank Lander ahead of Mamdani I suspect.
I'm curious at the difference between candidate literature and candidate websites now. I'm definitely not up for putting in the effort to go over it in sufficient detail, but your comment makes me curious if there's a meaningful divergence into how this is done, especially for offices below the presidency (and thus with far less money to do specific targeting).
I had never heard of Mamdani until a few months ago. I'm a socialist and used to live in a Muslim country, so I was happy to consider him until I got a flyer from his campaign in which he promised to freeze rents and get 200,000 units of affordable housing built and also promised to make bus fares free. With what money from whom? I'd like to turn my water into wine, too.
Even if you ignore Cuomo’s scandals, sexual harassment, corruption, incompetence, and teaming up with Republicans, which you shouldn’t, a 67-year old mayor does not have much of a role to play in the future of the party.
Being Mayor of San Francisco seems to have been the complete opposite.
-The late Dianne Feinstein served as Mayor from 1977-1988. Ran for Governor of CA and lost but ran for the Senate, won and easily won re-election to the Senate multiple times.
-CA Governor Gavin Newsom. Ran for Mayor back in 2003 and served from 2004-2011, then became Lt. Governor from 2011-2019 and has served as Governor from 2019 to present.
On the other hand, being mayor of California's largest city is a dead end job, like that of NYC. Just ask Tom Bradley, Sam Yorty, Dick Riordan or Antonio Villaraigosa. None of those Los Angeles Mayors were elected Governor or Senator when they ran for those offices. The only one still alive is Antonio, who hasn't figured it out yet and is running for CA-Gov again. I don't know who will win, but it ain't gonna be Antonio V.
Don't go there. Los Angeles and San Francisco are very different cities with some similarities. Some people prefer S.F. and some like L.A. San Francisco is prettier but Los Angeles is more livable.
Actually Los Angeles does have a cable car line. It just doesn't go very far. In fact, Angels Flight is sometimes called "the shortest railway in the world" which might or might not be true. It runs from Hill St up to the top of Bunker Hill, a short but steep block uphill.
The previous commenter was comparing Boston to NYC and L.A. not San Francisco. S.F. is much smaller; it is at best the fourth largest city in California after L.A., San Diego and San Jose. San Francisco County is probably not even in the top ten most populous counties in our state.
Unless I missed one, the last mayor of NYC to be elected to any office afterwards is Ardolph Kline, who was elected to the US house... in 1920. And in his case it comes with a big asterisk, as he was only an acting mayor from Sept 10 to Dec 31 of 1913.
Robert Wagner was the last one to hold a higher unelected office, being appointed ambassador to Spain in 1968.
The most recent person I can find that was elected to be mayor of NYC that was elected to another office afterwards is John Hoffman, who was mayor from 1866-1868, and was elected as governor in 1868.
So... yeah. Not a good springboard for any office after the fact, not even for lower offices.
I was curious and kept digging. Going back to the US Revolution, I found five more NYC mayors who have been elected to anything else after the fact. All five were before Hoffman, with the next most recent being elected mayor in 1858.
Only one of them was a member of either of our current two major parties. The remainder of the group contains one Federalist, two Democratic-Republicans, and one independent.
One of them, Edward Livingston, served as a representative and then senator after being mayor. But that wasn't done in NY: he represented Louisiana in congress. This preceded the 17th amendment by nearly a century, so he wasn't elected as senator either.
The other elected offices are: NY state senate, house of representatives (x3), and governor of NY.
A lot of the same activists probably thought "defund the police" was brilliant or could win majority public support. And Mamdani hasn't altogether convincingly set himself apart from that mentality, either, even if he doesn't say that or similar slogans now.
When asked about it in the interview with The Bulwark, Mr. Mamdani said he believed the phrase spoke to “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” He said the U.S. Holocaust Museum used a similar Arabic term for “uprising” to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising against the Nazis, and stressed his own commitment to nonviolence and fighting antisemitism.
That was stupid on his part, and would make me even less likely to support him if I were a voter there. But this is dangerous territory for Downballot discussion.
Any thoughts on which Democrat would be the most likely to win Georgia's governorship? This post mentioned a few of the Dems running, but I'm wondering who might be the strongest, electorally.
I still hope Lucy McBath changes her mind and decides to run again. I feel like she'd be the strongest since she has represented so much of the state already and has beaten Republicans in competitive races before. Jason Esteves has potential too imo.
Vox: The top priority of progressive politics may be slipping out of reach forever
Democrats can no longer paper over their party’s core contradiction.
The article is referring to Anglo or European style Social Democracy and is a very serious warning which I myself have pondered for quite some time. It's basic economics.
Alas, the Senate is not an obstacle – it is the executioner of Democrats' dreams! The 2026 and 2028 elections may be the last chance to save the American welfare state (even entitlements) and another Republican victory could seal its fate.
It’s the kind of thing that makes you think of the meme: 'Society if Al Gore had won'.
Honestly, Social Security, Medicare, etc. are DOA as soon as a case that challenges their constitutionality gets to the Supreme Court (and that's probably been the case since at least when Sandra Day O'Connor joined the court)-there are at least five justices who will vote to declare those programs unconstitutional.
I truly do hope that my concerns about Martin are wrong, this is definitely an encouraging start! Though I think we have to wait and see Republicans numbers and see if the gap is closing or not, because we’re very far behind.
According to the polling all men are with millennial men most supportive at 42%. I'm wondering if this corresponds with other polling.
Yes, it may well very be an outlier.
Why was the comment deleted? What was the poll about?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-taser-tape-rope-accused-stalking-trying-kidnap-memphis-mayor-rcna214023
Man charged with trying to kidnap Memphis Mayor Paul Young.
These summer days are guaranteed to be much more pleasant with a plentiful supply of David’s Margarita or David’s Daiquiri. Preferably both! Since summer is also (strangely enough) peak season for the common cold, let me share this:
MILK CURE FOR THE COMMON COLD
There is a lot to be said for effective self-medication, so here goes. If you are suffering some or all of the symptoms of a severe cold, or even a slight sniffle, start by gently heating a generous amount of Cognac to slightly above fever temperature. (Do not bring to a boil!) Pour carefully into a glass, preferably one that is purpose-made for this fine beverage.
Now add three drops of milk.
This concoction should be imbibed four times per day.
You are guaranteed to feel much better – and will probably forget all about your ailment!
Although it endorsed each of Mikie Sherrill's campaigns for Congress and endorsed Phil Murphy over Jack Ciattarrelli in the last election for New Jersey governor, it is striking that the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 825 is now siding with Ciattarrelli over Sherrill. It apparently has to do with Sherrill's support for clean energy over more gas pipelines. Sherrill, though, has received the endorsement of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO.
How does the International Union of Operating Engineers fit in to the clean energy vs gas pipeline stance? I don’t see specific information of this union to be gas-based.
NJ as a state is strange. In the past, there have been handfuls Democratic politicians (even local leaders) who endorsed Chris Christie when he was still Governor and running for re-election.
A spokesman for the local, which represents 8,000 heavy equipment operators, explained: "If we wanna fix New Jersey’s energy crisis, add power to the grid as soon as possible, ensure New Jersey’s economic future, ensure that operating engineers have good job opportunities in the future, it is clear that we need Jack Ciattarelli to be our next governor.”
I can maybe recognize why someone who leads an operating engineers union would be in favor of gas pipes over clean energy? (I'm assuming many of their jobs currently involve engineering around gas pipelines). A quote from the union's business manager, Greg Lalevee: “New Jersey has the most mileage of replaceable pipe in the U.S., and the [Board of Public Utilities] asks utility companies to scale them down”. The NJ Globe further reported that "Lalevee cited Ciattarelli’s willingness to create jobs by supporting projects involving natural gas and panned the Democratic nominee, Mikie Sherrill, for 'banking on solar' as a solution to the state’s energy needs."
https://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/operating-engineers-endorse-ciattarelli-for-governor/
One question I have: How are union endorsements given? Is it just Lalevee's decision or is it voted on by the union members?
A more policy-oriented question I have: How can Dems remove the stigma around clean energy? It seems like a lot of jobs would go into providing clean energy, and I'm assuming many engineering jobs as well since these projects require infrastructure that needs to be built and then continuously maintained. Lalevee cited Sherrill's support for solar as a reason he (or the union -- again, I'm not sure how it works) didn't endorse her, but wouldn't solar operations require engineers? I can't think of any reason why these jobs couldn't be (or wouldn't be) union jobs. Why do we struggle to communicate that clean energy can be great for blue collar union jobs?
Note that Lalevee also cited Ciattarelli's support for Trump's immigration policies, which Lalevee thinks will be popular among blue-collar workers. It does seem to be true that blue-collar union workers are becoming more anti-immigration, so maybe the endorsement would have gone to Ciattarelli regardless. But I think my questions around unions and clean energy still stand.
I seem to recall a graph that shows solar/renewable jobs now exceeding the number of jobs in oil/gas/coal.
I only did a quick Google search but it looks like it's at least 4 times as many people in oil and gas as renewables.
Maybe the parameter was jobs associated with "new power generation"?
Definitely exceeds coal by a large amount, but not sure about that combined with O&G (which also fluctuates widely depending on the global price).
It also varies widely by region; the renewables boom has created enough jobs in Texas that the House quashed the major anti-RE bills that came up the past few years, and there's also been a lot in California, Georgia and the Carolinas (and increasingly southwest states like Nevada and New Mexico). Due to its density the share of renewables (outside of hydro) in the north-east/New England has remained relatively small despite overall governmental support, due in part to a lack of available land to build solar and wind farms. This has coincided with a big push in recent years to expand gas pipeline infrastructure across the northeast as coal and oil has declined as a share of electricity (and stupidly, as nuclear plants also closed)
Solar panels can be put on roofs, and there are quite a few in New Rochelle visible from the train. And wind farms can be built offshore when nimbyists don't get to dictate policy.
Also, it was probably right to decommission Indian Point, because it used obsolete, problematic technology.
Stigma or not, fossil fuel jobs are going to disappear one way or another: either because renewables supersede them or due to a catastrophic collapse of global civilization as a result of uncontrolled global warming.
Long term, this is true, but no one in blue collar America wants to hear this. This is one reason I have become more pessimistic long term about Texas.
I don't think there's any long term for fossil fuels.
I'm from coal country in Appalachia and the loss of coal jobs has caused the Democratic party to not only implode in support, but to be outright hated there. I've had people literally scream in my face when they find out that I am a Democrat because they blame us for the loss of the area's coal jobs. I fear that this is already happening in gas and oil country where the Democrats are being blamed for future job losses due to our support of renewable energy and climate change policies. This is a perfect example of a man's politics being determined by who butters his bread.
Nothing can be done about that. Coal went out of fashion a long time back especially due to the fracking revolution and global oil boom.
Democrats cannot control technological innovation. There was simple no other industry in West Virginia and I'm not sure if its geography can support anything else so the reaction is understandable.
So why are you pessimistic about Texas?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/304890/texas-real-gdp-by-industry/
Services are by far the biggest industry in Texas and it has a clean energy industry too lead by wind energy. I think you are imagining 1950s Texas.
Union endorsements are usually made by their executive board.
Interesting. I wonder if the executive board would have interests that differ from the union rank and file, which in turn would influence the endorsement?
I'm concerned that the article says this:
"Lalevee hinted that there are more building trades endorsements on Ciattarelli’s horizon.
'There are powerful statistics about why building trades should go this way,' Lalevee stated."
I question the accuracy of the "powerful statistics" comment, but Sherrill really should try to lock down union endorsements over the coming weeks. Especially since Sweeney and the South Jersey machine probably isn't in her corner.
Sherrill already has garned much wider union support than Ciattarrelli's. After 500 delegates of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO voted unanimously to endorse Sherrill, its president declared: "“Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill has always stood shoulder-to-shoulder with New Jersey’s working people. She understands the dignity of work, the importance of strong unions, and the role that labor plays in building a fair economy. As our next Governor, she’ll fight for quality and accessible health care for every family, for great public schools for every kid, and to make New Jersey more affordable for everyone.”
“With a 100% voting record with labor, Mikie has fought for us in Washington, and we are proud to fight for her now. She’s the leader New Jersey’s labor movement trusts to champion workers’ rights and deliver for all our families.”
The New Jersey State AFL-CIO has 1 million members.
Here's an interesting dive into the Virginia primaries by UVA's Centre For Politics. The "friends and neighbours" effect of candidates running strongly in their home areas had mixed effects: for LG, Stoney may have been sunk by Richmond where he was mayor (Hashmi is also based in the area.) Rouse also ran neck and neck with them by a strong showing in Tidewater/Hampton Roads. That region also helped Jones for AG, but Taylor didn't get a similar boost overall from the Richmond area, where she won her home county of Henrico but not Chesterfield or Richmond City.
Northern Virginia has no favourite son or daughter on either party's ticket this year, but if Stoney and/or Taylor had prevailed they would probably have owed it to NOVA.
https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2025virginiademprimary/
I think the biggest story of the Virginia primaries is how much of a win it was for Clean Virginia. This is the first time in history that all three of our candidates for statewide office are backed by Clean Virginia (i.e. no Dominion Energy-backed candidates on our statewide ticket).
Chaz Nuttycombe also has a writeup on the primaries, which can be found here:
https://statenavigate.org/three-takeaways-from-the-2025-virginia-democratic-statewide-primaries/
With State Navigate (the successor to CNalysis) up and running, this and VPAP will likely be the go-to sources for information on Virginia's elections this fall.
“The mayor of New York is uniquely positioned to play an important role in the future of the national Democratic Party,” Mr. Clyburn said in a statement, adding that Mr. Cuomo had the “experiences, credentials and character to not just serve New York, but also help save the nation.”
I cannot overstate how wrong this is on every count. The octogenarian class defending and putting a sex pest on a pedestal. What a way to tell our voters that we too are totally fine with incompetent nepo sex pests who have resigned in disgrace for behavior that would get them fired from anywhere.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/20/nyregion/clyburn-endorses-cuomo-mayor.html
Not to mention his collaboration with and propping up of the Republican Party. He is the reason the Republicans control the U.S. House.
How specifically has he done that? Did he help prevent a second VRA district from being created in South Carolina?
I think Michael is referring to Cuomo, NY redistricting the IDC and the rest but will let him explain his post.
Yes, and appointing judges to the New York State Court of Appeals who interpreted the "fair districts" amendment to prohibit the Legislature from passing their own redistricting after rejecting the bipartisan commission's suggestions twice.
About that, even Clyburn collaborated with SC Republicans to make his district safer according to a Propublica investigation. We could have had another South Carolina district that would have been competitive in a slightly favorable environment.
Honestly Clyburn just made the perfect argument for why the old guard of the party needs to go. Saying Cuomo should be mayor for his *character*?? So out of touch.
To say the least, don't look for the NYC mayor's race for the future of the Democratic Party:
- For reasons you've stated, Andrew Cuomo is not the future of the Democratic Party nationally, even if he can get elected in NYC after all of his scandals. Cuomo will turn 68 years old not long after the general election for mayor, at a time where a generational shift to younger leaders is increasingly inevitable and has already started to some degree.
- Zohran Mamdani isn't eligible to run for POTUS because he's a naturalized U.S. citizen, which, if he were to somehow win the mayoral election (either by winning the Democratic primary or by getting the Working Families Party nomination, then defeating Cuomo, Eric Adams, and Silwa in the general), would greatly limit his ability to influence the Democratic Party nationally. Also, and I'm saying this as someone who would vote for Mamdani if I lived in NYC, he, unlike AOC, for example, comes across as being way out of his depth as a political candidate.
- I don't think anyone other than Cuomo or Mamdani has any chance of winning the Democratic mayoral primary.
- The NYC mayor's office isn't exactly a springboard to higher office. Just ask Rudy Giuliani, Mike Bloomberg, and Bill de Blasio.
Your last bullet point is the biggest impediment IMO to either Cuomo or Mamdani having much impact.
Too bad Lander and Adams never quite took off (or, let’s be real, Garcia four years ago!)
Garcia’s narrow loss was such a missed opportunity for things to have been so much better for NYC.
I hope you're wrong about no actually good candidate being able to win, though that's what polls have shown so far.
Re your last bullet...or any other NYC mayor, at least as far as the Presidency is concerned. If you want to move up, you'd be better off as the NYC Port/Custom House Collector.
I suspect that this endorsement means to hold your nose and vote Cuomo because Mamdani has the potential to be a real train wreck who causes long term damage and no one else is in a position to win. Brad Lander would be a good choice but he is mired in single digits right now.
What a stupid concept for an endorsement. Vote for the known train wreck a gross incompetent sex pest who resigned in disgrace on "character" to stop a "potential train wreck".
It’s really fucking annoying how often we will see the worst, most incompetent candidates sold to us with the “proven” or “experienced” description.
I do value experience, yes, but why should anyone with known *bad* experience be given any credence? Yeah Cuomo has experience, it just so happens to be him proving he’s bad.
It’s pathetic that anyone will tell us he’s good along those lines, all with a straight face.
Adrienne Adams and Zellnor Myrie seem completely fine, too, unless you know something I don't know.
i'd rank Mamdani at least fifth even with reservations because sexual harassment and transactional vengeance are the worst of politics and governance in my view and giving this clown another chance to embarrass us nationally is unacceptable. That said as you say Clyburn could have endorsed any other candidate or stayed out but instead he endorsed the sex pest on "character" it's disgraceful.
I just don't understand why so many of these politicians are spitting on their own legacy to endorse a heinous man like Cuomo.
Because they are transactional cowards who don't give a shit about women being harassed and assaulted in the work place. So long as they can get a scrap appointment or at the very least avoid the creep's wrath they are content.
The harassment thing is minor compared to Cuomo’s other transgressions.
He is a wife abuser too according to her biographer.
I will rank him last, but I don't know if I can find 4 people I'd rather support. I may leave the 4th rank blank.
Does having a gap in your ballot make it void?
I don’t believe so. You can just rank 1 if you want.
No. Why would it?
I don't think they have much support right now and are mired at the back of the pack.
We know that.
Yes, play it safe. The default position for Democrats. Which is how we ended up with Trump.
At this point the whole party just needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. This ossified leadership sucks.
Elaborate on how that's true. What unsafe move would have prevented Trump from winning?
Calling him a fascist felon, criminal, insurrectionist, in speeches, in advertising and social media over and over again would have helped.
I doubt that, we called him all that. 50% of voters obviously don't care
Who’s this we? Certainly not Harris and Walz, not Biden, not the Democratic leadership in congress, not . . . .
Democrats have never stuck to a consistent message on Trump.
Every messaging approach gets abandoned within a few months before being replaced with something else.
So, technically, sure, our party messengers and candidates called him a felon and insurrectionist and everything else... But not for long enough.
This is one of the big things democrats consistently do wrong on messaging and republicans consistently get right. Pick an attack line that is simple and stick to it. For the entire campaign. Even better, start the attack line before the campaign begins.
Our messaging is consistently inconsistent. I don't know what's actually going on behind the scenes but it feels like they're poll-testing or focus-grouping everything and when it fails to make headway after three months it gets abandoned for something else.
Not much. Unfortunately, a large number of American voters are ignorant, stupid and prejudiced and either don't believe anyone will actually get rid of elections or don't care. Harris did her best to make the election about democracy and the future, but the idiots made it about believing Trump could roll back inflation, etc.
And the American electorate decided to pretend that COVID NEVER happened. Do not underestimate how much that helped Orange Man.
Once again, the presumption that Democratic politicians get the same leeway that Republican politicians do.
And I'm sure that the constant sabotage and kneecapping from the far left had nothing to do with it.
Was there really that much of that?
in a race where less than 2% in three states decided 270 you can point to any factor that could equal 2% in those states as decisive.
True. Do you really think that made the difference, though?
Not sure what you’re talking about. You don’t want the “far left” in the party but complain when they attack the party from outside the party. Sounds like you want to have it both ways.
Genuine question: what truth is this idea that Mamdani as mayor has "the potential to be a real train wreck who causes long term damage?" Is it because of his ambitious economic plan? Because if that's the case, I'd recommend you read this glowing endorsement from several international economists that released today: https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/economists-zohran-mamdani-new-york-city/
The only other critique I've seen is that he "isn't experienced." My question then is...so? While I definitely believe experience is important, more often it's just used as a cudgel to bolster the defense of those already within the establishment. I think the reason why so many people both in the party and especially on this forum are scared of Zohran as mayor is that his plans are ambitious and inconceivable to the establishment liberal, and they're frightened of admitting defeat if said plans are successful.
In general (not towards anyone on this board) I think it's a combo of what you said, the practicality/ability to implement his plans, ageism and a little islamophobia sprinkled on top.
Also, his tendency to obsess about that certain divisive issue that we aren't supposed to talk about. Our support has not cratered in the New York suburbs and Long Island because people there want our candidates to take more far left stances on that one issue and on criminal justice.
The first isn't likely to have any practical governing consequences but I would agree it is likely to be divisive within the NYC primary electorate. The second from what I've seen does not sound far off from the STAR program implemented in Denver that didn't cost Democrats anything in CO but to be generous there are no guarantees he will be able to implement something similar and successfully and the two electorates may be in different places on crime despite the similarity in policies/where the cities/suburbs are on the red-blue spectrum.
https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Public-Health-Environment/Community-Behavioral-Health/Behavioral-Health-Strategies/Support-Team-Assisted-Response-STAR-Program
The progressive reforms on crime had the bad luck to come out right when we had a small spike in crime after Covid and the messaging on them was terrible. Whoever came up with the slogan "Defund the police" should forever be banished from left leaning politics. There is plenty of room for criminal justice reform but it takes nuance and political savvy which many true believers like Mamdani seem to completely lack.
New York has a very different history with public sensitivity to perceived increases in crime than Denver (and most other Western cities for that matter)
*His* tendency? From what I've seen it's his opponents and rags like the Post trying to paint him as something he's not.
Democratic plans have to add up. Republicans can promise pie in the sky and don’t spend a second worrying about the reaction. Look who wins more often than not.
So if Democrats start saying a bunch of bullshit, maybe they'll be more likely to win? Even if so, that will further damage democracy, as neither party will be trustworthy.
There are economists who buy his pledges to freeze grocery prices and rent and yet get 200,000 affordable housing units built? Did they go to the Mickey Mouse School of Economics?
These are tenured professors and researchers, thank you very much. If you bothered to read the endorsement, you'd see that.
Not really too interested unless they explain how those things, which he promised, make sense. As I said, I'm inclined to rank him 5th just because he unfortunately seems to be the main opponent to Cuomo, but he insults our intelligence.
Sure boss.
Side note: where did you get the freeze grocery prices thing? I can't find a single link on Google where he says that's his plan. He talks about city-run grocery stores and rent freezes, but not *grocery* freezes.
Ok, so second paragraph:
"At the heart of Mamdani’s platform is his plan for a rent freeze, offering urgent relief to over 2 million tenants in rent-stabilized apartments facing inflationary shocks and displacement. As economists, we recognize that unchecked rent spikes destabilize neighborhoods, increase homelessness—a far costlier public burden—and drain local economies. A rent freeze, together with long-term commitments to building at least 200,000 additional rent-stabilized and public units, is commonsense policy that pairs immediate relief with structural problem-solving."
Who is going to build this housing, with what money, and how does it make any sense to freeze rents in an inflationary economy? It would be much cheaper to subsidize rents for people who can't afford them. I'm a rent stabilized tenant. My rent certainly takes a bite out of my income, but I can afford it, and I'm certainly not rich but not at risk of eviction or homelessness.
"Mamdani’s prioritization of free buses builds on the success already demonstrated by the fare-free bus pilot program on five lines in each borough of New York City. Eliminating fares was shown to increase bus ridership by more than 30 percent, markedly reduce violence against bus drivers, and provide real economic relief for low-income New Yorkers. The data from the pilot confirm that the fare-free bus model works and Mamdani’s proposal to expand it citywide makes clear fiscal sense."
Do you know what makes more sense? No longer treating bus and subway fares as if they're optional and farebeating has no consequences. There simply isn't enough money to maintain and improve service without fares. Again, the solution for poor people is subsidies. Don't get me wrong: I'd love free public transit, but who is going to pay for it?
"His platform’s commitment to universal no-cost childcare is both an imperative for gender equity and an economic necessity. Exorbitant prices of childcare prices out parents, especially women, from the workforce, stifling productivity, and driving families out of the city. By lifting the crushing financial burden on families, Mamdani’s plan would create quality jobs in the care economy and generate a multiplier effect to benefit the entire city. Study after study demonstrates that public investment in childcare yields some of the highest returns of any social spending."
This is a great idea, it's a totally reasonable extension of free public schools and pre-K, and it could be attainable if the city doesn't try to make everything free at once.
"To combat skyrocketing food prices, Mamdani proposes city-owned grocery stores—a “public option,” utilizing economies of scale to supply healthy food at affordable rates. These municipal grocers would sell staples at wholesale prices, leveraging public purchasing power and economies of scale, eliminate food deserts, and provide New Yorkers immediate relief from price gouging. The economic data is clear: When the public sector steps in to correct market failures in the provision of essential goods, consumers benefit."
If all they'd do is use economy of scale and not lose money, they could work, but I have visions of countries that had to increase prices of staple foods during inflationary periods, triggering riots. I again wonder whether subsidies would work better than a bunch of physical government stores, but I'm willing to consider the idea.
"Taken together, Mamdani’s responsibly costed economic policies"
They never explained how the policies were responsibly costed. I hope they respond to challenges about this, as I fail to see how Mamdani's socialist utopia, which I would certainly support if it were attainable, is even possible during the Trump Administration. Does he want to seek permission to borrow the city into a new Fiscal Crisis? I already lived through one that resulted in large part from the innumerate profligacy of a liberal Republican, John Lindsay, whose heart was in the right place. It was horrible, miserable, and took decades to recover from if we even have completely (I'm quite unsure the subways have, and homelessness has been unsolved since the mid to late 70s). I don't want to live through another, if he would even be permitted to borrow the city into insolvency, and I think there are safeguards that would prevent him from doing so.
Brad Lander and Zohran Mamdani agree on basically everything, or at least basically everything that actually concerns NYC. I hate to pull the race card, but I really don't see a reason to oppose Mamdani but support Lander other than racism and Islamophobia.
I don't think Lander has made any innumerate promises, and he's been a very sensible Comptroller.
I don't want to dismiss the stupidity and frustrations of politicians making promises they can never deliver on. Because that is legitimately bad and reinforces a lot of voter apathy issues and makes the system worse.
That clarification out of the way: I feel this is an issue being targeted at Mamdani disproportionately. Almost every politician is either (a) making undeliverable promises, or (b) making vague and unspecific policy promise.
Mamdani seems to be making even more impossible promises than usual, but the principle here still exists. Checking Lander's website one of his first policy bullet points says "Brad will stop retail theft — and free items behind lock and key at drugstores." There's no practical way that any mayor of NYC can pull that off.
Adrienne Adams, as best I can tell, has no specific policy promises of any kind, instead doing a combo of past accomplishments + vague "make things better" promises. I refuse to spend much time skimming his website but from a quick glance Cuomo is victim of this too. Lots of vague "tackle this problem" promises without any policy meat behind it.
Stringer is the only one whose website I've skimmed just now that has concrete promises that are plausible to do. Not going to assess the merit of fulfilling those promises, but at least on paper they look like things that a mayor has the authority and plausible budgetary resources to do.
Mamdani definitely deserves minus points for lots of impossible promises here... but realistically so do nearly all of the candidates, and certainly all of the candidates with much of any chance of winning.
Ok, that looks like a fair comment, and thanks for digging into their websites. I’ve based a lot of my reactions on literature sent to me to promote campaigns (I usually disregard attack mail) and what I know about some of their records in current or former offices.
I should say, Stringer has done a lot of good things in previous offices, but I find it hard to dismiss the sexual harassment complaints against him, so I'm having trouble with the idea of ranking him.
I remember thinking positively of Stringer in the 2021 primary before those allegations came out and his campaign imploded. If I lived in NYC I wouldn't have ranked him then and I cannot imagine I'd rank him now. Since I don't get a say in this primary I haven't put much thought into all five potential names I'd rank and how I'd rank them, but I'd rank Lander ahead of Mamdani I suspect.
I'm curious at the difference between candidate literature and candidate websites now. I'm definitely not up for putting in the effort to go over it in sufficient detail, but your comment makes me curious if there's a meaningful divergence into how this is done, especially for offices below the presidency (and thus with far less money to do specific targeting).
I'm not a fan of Lander, or anyone in this election, but he's not lying off his ass all the time, I think.
I had never heard of Mamdani until a few months ago. I'm a socialist and used to live in a Muslim country, so I was happy to consider him until I got a flyer from his campaign in which he promised to freeze rents and get 200,000 units of affordable housing built and also promised to make bus fares free. With what money from whom? I'd like to turn my water into wine, too.
Even if you ignore Cuomo’s scandals, sexual harassment, corruption, incompetence, and teaming up with Republicans, which you shouldn’t, a 67-year old mayor does not have much of a role to play in the future of the party.
Mayor of New York has always been a dead end job.
Being Mayor of San Francisco seems to have been the complete opposite.
-The late Dianne Feinstein served as Mayor from 1977-1988. Ran for Governor of CA and lost but ran for the Senate, won and easily won re-election to the Senate multiple times.
-CA Governor Gavin Newsom. Ran for Mayor back in 2003 and served from 2004-2011, then became Lt. Governor from 2011-2019 and has served as Governor from 2019 to present.
On the other hand, being mayor of California's largest city is a dead end job, like that of NYC. Just ask Tom Bradley, Sam Yorty, Dick Riordan or Antonio Villaraigosa. None of those Los Angeles Mayors were elected Governor or Senator when they ran for those offices. The only one still alive is Antonio, who hasn't figured it out yet and is running for CA-Gov again. I don't know who will win, but it ain't gonna be Antonio V.
Much smaller city, but same story for Boston. The most recent Boston mayors to be elected elsewhere afterwards both served as mayor in the 1940s.
For Chicago, our most recent example is Edward Dunne who was mayor from 1905-1907 and then elected governor in 1912.
Mayor of the biggest city around is typically a poor springboard.
Much smaller city than NYC or San Francisco?
LA’s population is well over SF’s and it encompasses a significant swath of land in LA County.
Yeah, LA has never had a good track record with this.
SF just seems to have more appeal than LA. For starters, LA doesn’t have a Fisherman’s Wharf or cable car rail line.
Don't go there. Los Angeles and San Francisco are very different cities with some similarities. Some people prefer S.F. and some like L.A. San Francisco is prettier but Los Angeles is more livable.
Actually Los Angeles does have a cable car line. It just doesn't go very far. In fact, Angels Flight is sometimes called "the shortest railway in the world" which might or might not be true. It runs from Hill St up to the top of Bunker Hill, a short but steep block uphill.
The previous commenter was comparing Boston to NYC and L.A. not San Francisco. S.F. is much smaller; it is at best the fourth largest city in California after L.A., San Diego and San Jose. San Francisco County is probably not even in the top ten most populous counties in our state.
Who's the last Mayor of New York that won a higher office?
Unless I missed one, the last mayor of NYC to be elected to any office afterwards is Ardolph Kline, who was elected to the US house... in 1920. And in his case it comes with a big asterisk, as he was only an acting mayor from Sept 10 to Dec 31 of 1913.
Robert Wagner was the last one to hold a higher unelected office, being appointed ambassador to Spain in 1968.
The most recent person I can find that was elected to be mayor of NYC that was elected to another office afterwards is John Hoffman, who was mayor from 1866-1868, and was elected as governor in 1868.
So... yeah. Not a good springboard for any office after the fact, not even for lower offices.
Amazing!
I was curious and kept digging. Going back to the US Revolution, I found five more NYC mayors who have been elected to anything else after the fact. All five were before Hoffman, with the next most recent being elected mayor in 1858.
Only one of them was a member of either of our current two major parties. The remainder of the group contains one Federalist, two Democratic-Republicans, and one independent.
One of them, Edward Livingston, served as a representative and then senator after being mayor. But that wasn't done in NY: he represented Louisiana in congress. This preceded the 17th amendment by nearly a century, so he wasn't elected as senator either.
The other elected offices are: NY state senate, house of representatives (x3), and governor of NY.
So. So. So. Gross. I'm hating this out-of-touch party leadership more and more every day.
Character? No surprise from another hack who was about as adamant as anyone in objecting to Biden dropping out.
Zohran should have disavowed "globalize the intifada." It's about as poisoned a word as "kampf" or "jihad."
Exactly! There aren't any good Arabic words for struggle or resistance anymore. Why can't these activists use simple English is beyond my mind.
A lot of the same activists probably thought "defund the police" was brilliant or could win majority public support. And Mamdani hasn't altogether convincingly set himself apart from that mentality, either, even if he doesn't say that or similar slogans now.
He said that? Did he explain what he means by that? Throwing rocks at City Hall or blowing up suicide bombs in Times Square?
When asked about it in the interview with The Bulwark, Mr. Mamdani said he believed the phrase spoke to “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” He said the U.S. Holocaust Museum used a similar Arabic term for “uprising” to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising against the Nazis, and stressed his own commitment to nonviolence and fighting antisemitism.
What an idiot!
Not an idiot, but that doesn't explain what an Intifada he'd support in the U.S. would mean and what methods it would use.
That was stupid on his part, and would make me even less likely to support him if I were a voter there. But this is dangerous territory for Downballot discussion.
Yup. I deleted a reply and it shouldn't be discussed. I don't support the slogan BTW.
Any thoughts on which Democrat would be the most likely to win Georgia's governorship? This post mentioned a few of the Dems running, but I'm wondering who might be the strongest, electorally.
I still hope Lucy McBath changes her mind and decides to run again. I feel like she'd be the strongest since she has represented so much of the state already and has beaten Republicans in competitive races before. Jason Esteves has potential too imo.
I heard that her decision to not run is due to her husband being ill.
That’s a good reason.
Finally when there's a decent chance to win the Nunns and Carters don't want to run. I guess they prefer their uphill battles
Has Jason Carter officially said no? I thought he was seriously considering
Yes due to his wife's cancer diagnosis.
Nunn was a pretty weak candidate in 2014.
Was she? It was 2014 so it wasn't going to matter.
As of now Jason Esteves is the strongest Democratic candidate running.
https://archive.ph/J5Cxj
Vox: The top priority of progressive politics may be slipping out of reach forever
Democrats can no longer paper over their party’s core contradiction.
The article is referring to Anglo or European style Social Democracy and is a very serious warning which I myself have pondered for quite some time. It's basic economics.
Alas, the Senate is not an obstacle – it is the executioner of Democrats' dreams! The 2026 and 2028 elections may be the last chance to save the American welfare state (even entitlements) and another Republican victory could seal its fate.
It’s the kind of thing that makes you think of the meme: 'Society if Al Gore had won'.
Honestly, Social Security, Medicare, etc. are DOA as soon as a case that challenges their constitutionality gets to the Supreme Court (and that's probably been the case since at least when Sandra Day O'Connor joined the court)-there are at least five justices who will vote to declare those programs unconstitutional.
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/20/dnc-fundraising-record-ken-martin
I truly do hope that my concerns about Martin are wrong, this is definitely an encouraging start! Though I think we have to wait and see Republicans numbers and see if the gap is closing or not, because we’re very far behind.