I'll be honest, the only person who should be pleased about a Mamdami win(other than Mamdami himself), is Eric Adams-if any of the other Democrats on the ballot (even Cuomo) had won, he'd have no path to victory-with Mamdami winning he now has a very narrow path to victory.
Why do you expect that? Do you think Trump will endorse Adams over Sliwa? That could make a difference in terms of Republican votes but would also guarantee his loss in the general election if nothing else already does (and I think he has no shot).
I expect Trump to stay out of the race-but I expect certain Republican leaning groups (Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn for example) to endorse Adams over Silwa.
Adams is the incumbent-they won't endorse Mamdami (who's the likely winner) for religious/Israel/Palestine reasons, and many of Orthodox Jews do think Trump is an anti-semite, and I don't think Sliwa can distance himself from him enough to earn their endorsement/votes.
OK, I'm not seeing that as likely, and I think that Sliwa's long service in New York going back to the beginning of the Guardian Angels in 1979 distinguishes him from Trump, but I understand your argument.
I do too. Silwa may be the "Republican", but Adams has all of the vibes that the current iteration of the Republican party (read: MAGA) loves. I think he'll be a real competitor for Mamdani and, while I think Mamdani is the favorite, it is not difficult to see Adams winning.
Yes, I've been corrected on Sliwa's spelling multiple times now-I'll be glad when he loses and the New York GOP nominates a Mayoral candidate with an easier last name for me to spell in 2029.
Adams has effectively no shot. He is insanely unpopular. It's not an accident that he didn't even try to run in the dem primary.
If Mamdani loses it's going to be to Cuomo staying in the general and winning, or Sliwa winning because the dem vote ends up split across too many candidates.
I suspect he was planning to argue that Mamdani only won because RCV is terrible, or something to that effect. His first round loss takes away that line. He would essentially have to repudiate the primary instead.
I suspect he was seeing polling that had him behind both Mamdami and Adams (or Silwa) in a general election-which is why he's being quiet about continuing his campaign.
I would be absolutely shocked if Cuomo didn't run in the general election. He has nothing to lose, a ton of money, and contempt for the other people in the race. What more motivation does he need?
Anyone else find it interesting that the Mamdani-Cuomo margin basically stayed the same the entire night… between 7-9%? When the early/mail votes dropped there was a lot of dooming that the margin wasn’t large enough to overcome the Cuomo-heavy Election Day vote, but then… the margin basically stayed the same til the end.
Tells me that early voting is becoming normalized. We've only had it since 2019 in NY and the pandemic immediately made early voting a partisan issue. Now that we're a few years out, I think people are pretty used to the idea.
We'll see once official results are posted, but it looks like almost exactly 1,000,000 people voted in the NYC Dem primary.
This is only a marginal improvement from 2021 when 942,000 people voted. Looking up that result, I was again struck by the injustice of the 140,000 exhausted ballots. Limiting people to only ranking 5 candidates is really stupid. I hope NYC reconsiders their system. Something like what Alaska has would be a lot fairer.
Even with a 15% exhaust rate it's still better than FPTP. Not everyone is going to bother to rank 5 candidates (honestly if your first choice is Mamdani or Cuomo, what's the point?), let alone all 11. I agree I think the Alaska system is better but we don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good either.
I’m very suspicious in general of arguments against RCV because a lot of people who oppose it do so because candidates of the center may be more likely to lose under it. Not saying that anyone here is arguing that but I do question some of the criticism.
It seems to me like centrist candidates are just as likely to win or lose as under regular voting. Maybe moreso. Ranked choice voting is about picking the candidate most people can accept, not necessarily the one most liked.
Slight correction then: the perception that centrists are more likely to lose is a motivator, even if it isn't actually true.
Personally I'm in favor of national RCV, and I'm also in favor of multi-member U.S. House districts coupled with it. I believe such a proposal would help with both ensuring representation of groups that otherwise wouldn't have any (NYT had a piece a while back arguing for this that noted a lack of Arkansas Dems or NYC Republicans in Congress, despite the existence of both, as an illustration of this phenomenon), and would also hopefully help put an end to all the nasty primary showdowns we've been having. Even if a candidate doesn't make it to #1, they could make #2, #3, or potentially even more depending on how many members a district could have under such a proposal. Reforming the U.S. Senate is also a key part of my proposal, but I haven't thought too in-depth about how it would be accomplished so I'm not going to push for it here. (And of course abolishing gerrymandering, but that is fairly obvious.)
I'm well aware my idea is likely a pipe dream, but I think, were it to be implemented, it would be one way to solve a number of problems we have with our elections.
I really don't think the perception exists. In 2021 Adams, the most conservative candidate, would have easily won the election if it weren't ranked choice voting.ranked choice narrowed his lead significantly, allowing a more centrist candidate to gain on him. That didn't happen in this election, with the most leftwing candidate triumphing, but I think it is a natural outcome.
I believe the RCV system in Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco limits people to vote for three candidates in the mayoral races but I’d have to double check.
Why is it needed to allow ranking for more than five candidates? Most voters who cast votes aren’t necessarily thinking of having a choice beyond 1-3 candidates at best. I have no problem with removing the limitations but practically, I don’t think residents of Berkeley (where I live) have the mindset of looking at more than three choices. I suppose it depends on who you talk to.
5 candidates is a lot and seems like enough to me. My girlfriend voted her conscience, not ranking either Mamdani or Cuomo. Having more than 5 choices wouldn't have changed that.
On a technical level 5 candidates is almost certainly sufficient. It'd be nice for people to be able to rank the whole slate though.
I'm the kind of person that would rank the entire ballot all the way through for everyone that I felt was even marginally better than someone else. Even though realistically voters can stop at ~3 in >90% of cases.
Saying it doesn't matter in 90% of the cases is rather vacuous. In 90% of the cases the FPTP winner also wins the instant runoff. So if the goal is 90% accuracy, why bother with RCV at all?
Moreover, it almost certainly did make a difference last go around, where the exhausted ballots was around 20x the final margin.
That's a good point. I think even with the limit it's a good bit better than FTPT.
But to be clear I fully support allowing people to rank up to every single candidate if they want to do so. The process should be able to be handled entirely electronically so the added complexity for counting the ballots is not a meaningful obstacle. There's no serious costs to increasing the limit and it improves the system.
And like you I am curious how many exhausted ballots ranked less than the maximum. I'd assume it's a decent portion, but it's only an assumption with no data behind it.
In this case it was pretty obvious who the final two candidates would be, but that was not the case in 2021. However I would be curious what percentage of the exhausted ballots voted for fewer than 5 candidates. I'm not sure if the BoE ever published that data.
I should also note that if you did have the ability to fully rank the ballot she could have ranked them 11 and 12 and thus still vote her conscience and have her vote count in the decisive round.
If it is true, as several of you have suggested, that voters don't have the attention span for more than 5 candidates, then that's even more of reason to switch to an Alaska style system. To remind you, that means the first round is Top 4 and the second round is RCV.
I'm not sure if I believe that though. In a situation like you had in 2021 where there were more than 5 viable candidates, people would have ranked more, I believe. (In Cambridge MA, near where I live, voters routinely rank as many as 25 candidates for their local elections) If anyone knows if there's data as to what percentage of ballots were fully marked, that would be useful.
Scott Brown has officially announced his campaign for Senate in New Hampshire.
I honestly think Brown might have had a better chance of winning if he'd moved back to Massachusetts and ran for Senate there-and he'd still be a very heavy underdog in Massachusetts-that's how strong Chris Pappas is compared to whoever could hypothetically defeat Ed Markey in a primary.
I don't think Ed Markey will get primaried, at least not successfully. He's a hero to the environmentalist movement and Kennedy already tried the "we need someone younger and hotter" angle.
Arguably Kennedy lost because of his last name-dynasty politics have really gone out of style. A different member of the congressional delegation might well have defeated Markey.
I remember a lot of progressives didn’t like Kennedy either because he apparently took oil money or something like that. There was suspicion that he’d be less progressive than Markey. Whether that was true or not, it did contribute to why Markey had left support.
I agree I think the name ended up being a liability towards the end, but at the same time his last name was probably the only reason he got as close as he did in the first place.
In retrospect I find that aspect of the primary fascinating.
Surely JPK3 would be aware of Ted Kennedy's 1980 presidential run and how one of its most damaging moments was the interview where he failed to articulate a reason for him to run. You'd think he would have seen past family failures and compensated for them.
Obviously his political career was propped up in a major way by his last name, but I had never gotten the sense of amateurism from his time in office before that failed primary.
I don't remember Ted Kennedy having trouble articulating his challenge to Carter from the left. I remember him articulating it very strongly and clearly. What was the question and what was the answer?
"On November 4, 1979, [Kennedy] was interviewed by Roger Mudd and was later criticized for his rambling answer to "Senator, why do you want to be President?" as Kennedy was holding off his presidential announcement."
Thanks. I don't remember the interview, but the context suggests that Kennedy was not yet ready to announce his campaign at that point. I note the comments quoted in the following paragraph, though:
"Jeffrey Hart described the first week of Kennedy's campaign as a snowman dissolving in early spring due to his poor performance during Mudd's interview. Governor Hugh Carey reportedly did not endorse Kennedy because of the interview, and described him as a plummeting star in private."
I didn't know who Jeffrey Hart was, but Hugh Carey's non-endorsement was a huge deal.
I think most blue seat Democrats in office are going to get a primary challenge in 2026. Markey is a very shrewd and formidable incumbent politician, I think it can fairly be argued either way whether a primary is successful or not. But there’s a big caveat to that comparison that bears enormously on this hypothetical: a lot has happened since then.
Trump won a 2nd term, Democratic voters stayed home or voted for Republicans in 2024. Democrats over the last 3 presidential elections barely managed 1 win after COVID killed Americans, the economy was shuttered and Trump’s chaos in office was top of mine. Trump still almost won again. This is all happening under current Democratic leadership and office holders. The party is as unpopular with voters as it’s ever been.
So to imply that Markey can’t be successfully primaried because Kennedy failed to do it, is misguided and not understanding a full picture of the different circumstances of politics right now in Democratic Party circles compared to back then.
And I strongly believe that if any Democrat in Massachusetts who did not have the last name Kennedy attempted to primary Markey in 2020, he would have lost then and there.
In 2020 there wasn't really anyone with the name recognition and platform to do this other than Healey or Kennedy. All of the representatives were either too new or too old. Healey was obviously bidding her time to run for governor, so she was out.
If Kennedy had waited until this cycle I think he would have won, but no guarantee.
Last night showed how Democrats can fix their messaging issue. Zohran went from a no-name state assemblymember to the presumptive Democratic nominee for NYC mayor over the course a few months, almost all due to his strong ground game and messaging. People were actually *excited* to vote/canvass/volunteer for his campaign: that's how he was able to knock on 1.5 million doors over one weekend. Democrats would be remiss to not learn from Zohran's victory, but because he's not with the establishment, I doubt they'll learn anything.
Yeah. The message people should take away from Cuomo's defeat is not only GOTV and meet with people (like Zohran) but be unapologetic about your party affiliation. People are more likely to vote for you if you're up front with them.
It may also just be a moment. I get the contrast you're making with Sanders, but Liz Warren's unabashed Democratic Party membership has been sufficient only for a Senate seat.
I think the Democratic Party is under its own Tea Party moment where voters want more representatives that fight back against Trump, but fresh faces too. Cuomo had a lot of sex pest related baggage.
Liz Warren wanted to ban fracking, decriminalize border crossings and ban private health insurance in addition to Medicare for All which alone was okay. Utterly brain-dead positions. She could have been the populist progressive candidate without the baggage of socialism. Trump reportedly feared her the most before the primaries.
Yeah, think that is all media bullshit. And there is no way Thiel thought Warren was a problem. Trump would have been overjoyed to run against a female college professor from Mass with limited charisma.
Correct, but then doesn't that go back to the point that maybe Sanders, while running for president, would not have benefited by stating even more radical positions?
I have environmental concerns regarding fracking so I’ll have to disagree there, although I’m not going to argue because I admittedly don’t know enough about it.
100 percent of all oil in America is extracted through fracking. The economic slowdown in every sector will be insane if it's banned. It's better to use the revenue to invest in green energy than ban it.
And there's no path to victory without winning Colorado and Pennsylvania.
If 100% of oil in the U.S. were extracted through fracking, what about the offshore oil wells in California or the legacy ones from the 1950s or whatever in Long Beach?
Harris had a strong ground game, right? But yeah, promising pie in the sky did seem to produce a lot of passionate support in New York City this time, surprisingly to me. I expected Cuomo to win.
Harris's campaign knocked on 20 million doors over the course of the campaign. Zohran's knocked on 1.5 million doors in NYC alone in one weekend. Make of that what you will.
And since my remark here looks a little sour: Keep in mind, I am a socialist. I in theory support everything Mamdani wants to do, if there is somehow money to pay for it. And while I wish someone like Lander had won, I'm relieved and happy that Cuomo appears to have lost.
What could be more impactful than the Comptroller position he gave up? I think Lander is great, and I'd love to see him advise Mamdani in some useful way, but I think he will seek higher or at least another (possibly federal) office.
The NH state liquor stores are even cheaper than all the neighboring states by enough of a margin that a meaningful number of sales come from people crossing the border to buy cheaper alcohol. A lot of national data on alcohol sales shows NH looking seemingly alcoholic due to this.
All of the busiest state border crossing have an outlet there.
Anecdotally I remember when I was younger that just about every time that family or family-friends visited us from Maine, Massachusetts, or Vermont that they would make a point to stop at a state liquor store on their way home.
Not objecting to anything you say, but my experience as a college student in MA at the turn of the century was more about the fact that NH sold liquor on Sundays.
Most Democrats don't call themselves socialists. At least Mamdani is actually advocating for state run enterprises to compete with the private sector, unlike that weakling Bernie Sanders.
I'm all for recognizing that sort of thing, but is that what he ran on when he ran for president? What I remember is that he wasn't advocating for things like municipally run power companies, which Howie Hawkins ran on in our mayoral election in 2005 as a Green.
I'm just saying that Mamdani is saying the things out loud that a lot of Democrats have been thinking for a long time and even Bernie didn't cross this line. Can it work? We'll find out.
I was skeptical of the grocery store plan too, but he has said the idea is just a pilot program of 5 stores, 1 in each borough, and that if it doesn’t work they’ll end the program. I think that’s a great idea, we need to try out new policies to see if they work.
Yeah, he laid down a marker, and he said he's prepared to walk away from the idea if it doesn't work. A small innovation like this is worth pursuing. If it pays off, that could be great!
Isn't the point of the government to spend money on things the private sector isn't capable of providing? The government "hemorrhages money" on everything!
This reminds me of a consistent issue we face on public communications.
So often some program or the other will come up as costing more money than it generates in revenue. Whether it be public transit or the post office or anything of the like. So long as it has a non-zero fee attached to it at some stage, the discourse gets altered and the attack lines of "XYZ is hemorrhaging money" appear constantly.
More specifically, this attack is used on government services favored by the left. No one complains that the military isn't self-sufficient on budget (though people do complain about the extent of the budget...), or that highways don't pay for themselves.
More forcefully pushing back with the "public good" line like you say might be helpful on this front.
Yeah, my thoughts too. For the record, I don't think it's a great idea and am cynical about it having any impact on prices, but I don't see any harm in trying it.
Right, and that’s my biggest concern with Mamdani. Less so as a candidate (though it’s there) but when push comes to shove in running City Hall. Dem voters more so than Reps who just want to own libs tend to have longer memories when it comes to campaign promises. For all his significant policy accomplishments Biden really was damaged by public perception that he wasn’t forgiving enough student debt or sending out big enough stimmy checks (a non-negligible number of voters went Trump last fall because they legit thought he’d send them checks again like in 2020)
If he wins and ends up being competent and uncontroversial, I could see him getting away with not being able to implement a lot of goals.
NYC has had two disliked mayors in a row and I suspect general competence would be enough to paper over a lot of other disappointments.
For whatever reason people expect presidents to be far more capable to enacting an agenda and will hold them far more to account for failures to implement policy than they will all other holders of all other offices.
"If he wins and ends up being competent and uncontroversial" is kind of the whole point of being skeptical of a 30 something year old becoming Mayor of New York City. He has a LOT to prove.
I agree. We'll need to wait and see (assuming he wins). I'm not worried about his age on that front, more his lack of evidence of executive competence due to being a legislator right now with only so much experience.
Michelle Wu was elected mayor at 36 with no executive experience either and is doing quite well on the competence and uncontroversial front. Doesn't mean Mamdani will too, but I'm not hedging bets for or against currently. Fully wait and see.
I'm not sure Mayor of Boston is a much less difficult job than Mayor of New York. Its population is lower in large part because it never annexed suburbs that could help it a lot with its tax base, whereas New York City is the Greater New York of 1898 that unified the "Outer Boroughs" with Manhattan. And I think Boston has all the same kinds of problems New York has, with the exception that it presumably benefits from being the state capital.
That's kind of my point, the mayor of Boston doesn't have to worry about Cambridge, Brookline, Sommerville, Medford, Chelsea, Needham, Newton, et cetera.
But for people like my girlfriend, whose college debts were irrevocably cancelled after decades of being weighed down and having her life choices blocked by them, it really does matter. She will be eternally grateful to President Biden for that, no matter what else happens.
Suddenly Democrats have two different tailor made successful campaigns to implement in order to start winning elections again.
Dan Osborn showed last year how to get back the old Democratic WWC coalition, the red state Democrats version, a thoroughly working class guy running as an independent, breaking with the party on some key issues.
Zohran Mamdani just showed the blue state version: a working class minority with a relentlessly positive vision focused on affordability (the overwhelming topic of concern for voters) to take everywhere that excites Democrats to go vote either in person or with simple, savvy social media videos that go viral.
This, this is the impact on the grassroots and how organic campaign energy can be created in people who never did anything political before. Democrats would be unwise to ignore this impact.
Kathy Cutler, 27, said she started canvassing for Mr. Mamdani in January after a friend encouraged her to check out his campaign. She had never volunteered for a candidate before.
“Before this campaign, I was politically aware, but now I’m politically active,” Ms. Cutler said.
Ms. Cutler said Mr. Mamdani’s youth and vitality appealed to her, along with his proposal for free buses and his support for L.G.B.T.Q. New Yorkers. She had been up since dawn for one last day of canvassing — 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. — before taking an Uber to the watch party.
“I’ve never really been spurred to believe in something this hard,” she said.
I'm a little skeptical about Osborn, as he hasn't won yet. Let's see if he and candidates like him can actually win.
As for Mamdani, if he completes the victory in the general election, he will have set up huge expectations, and that creates an obvious danger if whatever doesn't pass is considered a huge letdown and deflates the enthusiasm and voting of people like Ms. Cutler. Of course the other side of the coin is you have to win first before you can do anything, but I'm keeping in mind all of the amazing things Biden was able to do domestically and how little any of them helped in the 2024 election, because he wasn't able to get his entire program passed or use his magic wand to make inflation reverse itself without the recession the media kept harping on and on about until voters thought it existed.
Here’s the thing about Osborn, yes, he didn’t win. I’m not talking about Democrats winning Trump +15 states. Partisanship and polarization is far too strong for that to happen. But it was a successful campaign for Democrats to follow in any red areas because though you won’t win, you’ll overperform any Democrat running as a Democrat. This is the formula to win states like Iowa and Ohio, not Indiana and Missouri.
He only lost by 6.6% when Trump won the state by 21 points on the same ballot. That’s a remarkable performance and if replicated, puts reach seats and states in play. To dismiss him because he didn’t win a 20 point Trump state is missing the forest for the trees imo.
This may sound crass or uncaring of people there, but it doesn’t matter if his agenda gets passed politically speaking. Democrats need to win elections in order to stop MAGA/Trump, however they get there doesn’t matter. If his coalition breaks apart the day after being sworn in: it doesn’t matter.
We’ve been so wrongly focused as a party on doing what’s currently possible, instead of inspiring voters to create a better future. Voters don’t care about pay-fors or minutiae that educated Democrats feel are necessary to focus on. The point is to win 1 primary and 1 general election campaign.
Before someone says “policy matters” to me, yes it does, but first you need to be handed power and how you get that result is the only thing that should matter politically.
You're right, inasmuch as blocking fascism is an emergency. Side point, but are you sure a Democrat couldn't win a state-wide election in Iowa next year? That seems maybe possible.
I’m really not sure regarding Iowa, I do think there’s a narrow path for a Democrat to win the Governorship and even smaller path for a Senate race. But the path to victory is much wider if a Democrat ran as an independent instead of as a Democrat, that much I’m sure of. Obviously it won’t happen in 2026, so it’s a moot point regardless.
Yesterday was not a good day for disgraced politicians. Not only was Andrew Cuomo defeated in his race for mayor of New York City, but the egregious Anthony Weiner finished fourth in his campaign to return to City Council.
We've gone from Dubya to Rick Perry and to Greg Abbott. That's literally an eternity if you think about how long since the 90's all of the years these governors have been in office and what it's meant for representation in TX.
Ahhh yes. Dubya was pro-comprehensive immigration reform, which would make him a liberal for sure in today’s GOP.
Perry though has never exactly been a Trumper but he’d also a hybrid of being a Bush Republican + Tea Party nut. Him though calling social security a Ponzi scheme is just pulling crap out of his ass so it really wouldn’t exactly make him more “liberal” in the eyes of the Trumpers.
Perry though did serve as Energy Secretary under Trump’s first term as POTUS although he was remarkably low profile compared to how he used to he.
Rick Perry defended his policy on allowing undocumented immigrants to attend Texas colleges at in state tuition rates and was aggressively attacked by the rest of the 2012 field for it from the right (notably by Romney) - that’s more what I’m getting at
Yeah, true. Perry’s definitely a liberal according to MAGA and would likely not survive in a primary if he were to run for political office again in TX.
We think of post 9/11 Bush, but the guy who ran for election in 2000 was totally a moderate Republican who focused on education policy and not getting involved in foreign wars.
It was an act. He was obviously extreme to people who were watching closely. It's just that considering what's happened to the Republican Party since, his radicality is not as dramatic...
This ^^ and then Lying us into war and then, when people started asking questions about that, demonizing lgbt people in the constitution was dramatic enough.
Yeah but that was all about this “compassionate conservatism” agenda Dubya had when he ran back in 2000.
Otherwise, before 9/11 Bush made no real headlines that gave him the image he had. Not at least I remember back during college and the summer of 2001. Those were quite peaceful times, even if the dot.com boom had ended.
I remember Nader was the one who really fired up our generation, least because he was doing a lot more to challenge the status quo than Bush and Gore. Both in living wage, Wall Street and other issues.
That said, by contrast to Gore, Bush ran a pretty standard campaign back in 2000. Many fellow liberals were warning about the deregulation and corporate ass kissing Bush and his administration would likely do (which ended up happening, including being pro-outsourcing) coming into the White House but Bush himself came across pretty normal as a presidential candidate charisma wise.
I was in my early 20’s when in college back in 2000. Gore’s environmental history I do remember.
However, he also did not run on reforming Wall Street and other issues that Nader was specifically challenging.
For the record, I did not support or vote for Nader. Gore was my guy because even while I had my issues with Clinton (Glass Steagall included), it was still better to stay the course and get Gore in. He’s more liberal than Clinton and likely would have been this way as POTUS.
I was 35 in 2000 and had gotten my Doctorate 6 years earlier, and I knew GW Bush was horrible, but I had no way of knowing just how horrible he was going to be.
And even influence outsourcing too! Remember when someone in the Bush Administration said, “Outsourcing is good for the economy?”
Bush had that agenda you are describing. He also was, like his father, corporations’ best friend.
What I am referring to is that prior to 9/11, Bush really didn’t generate that much in headlines compared to post-9/11. Irrespective of what his agenda was, most of it came later.
I recall it was 2005 when the push to privatize social security was at its peak. That’s when Bush’s approval ratings started tanking, along with the War in Iraq being increasingly unpopular.
Yeah, exactly! That warning should have gotten the Bush Administration more on the move to address the problem and beef up security so that the 9/11 hijackers could have not been successful in their plans.
In fact, the very end of the 1997 HBO TV Film Path to Paradise: The Untold Story of the World Trade Center Bombing had already given hints four years before about the bombings. In the film, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef (played by Art Malik), the mastermind s behind the 1993 World Trade Center, says:
I also recall Bush’s approval ratings increased primarily because of the handling of 9/11.
Other than that, nothing exactly moved the needle for Bush’s approval ratings before 9/11. The U.S. government also had a big surplus and no real budget deficit.
Squandering the surplus was my biggest objection to Bush in 2000. What kind of "fiscal conservative" chooses to voluntarily give away our country's first surplus in decades?
Bush was talking about blowing the U.S. budget surplus back in 2000?
Most of the budget deficit and debt from Bush’s days was as a result of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Perhaps my memory is more faint compared to how it was back in 2000 during the actual campaign itself.
A couple of great articles on the strategies Mamdani employed to go from 0% afterthought, to Democratic primary victor and slayer of the front runner Cuomo despite labor/nyt/establishment endorsements in his corner with $25m spent in ads against him. Every Democrat needs to do what Mamdani did stylistically/social media wise in their midterm campaigns. The issues of course will vary by state and district, but how he presented himself is a must for any Democrat to follow.
I would not recommend democrats run as socialists unless they are in dark blue cities. We still rely on suburbs in many states and this would be a turnoff.
Yes, I agree with this. While I'm not a Mamdani supporter but any means, he does have that Obama-esque style about him that is highly effective and we'd be wise to emulate it as much as we can elsewhere. James Talarico in TX has it a bit too...
The argument is more about engagement than ideology. Cuomo didn't try, Mamdani tried. When you are asking for a vote over who will rule us, it's nice to see the people in question actually engage.
Well, I didn't think he could win in New York City. And let's be cautious about whether he will. I could see a lot of normally Democratic-voting Jews and other white people voting for Sliwa.
A Mamdani-Adams race would be interesting. An optimistic challenger running as a booster of his city versus a fear mongering incumbent attacking his city as a crime-ridden hellhole. Stay out of the subways!
I honestly think that Pritzker is vulnerable to a primary challenge-I get the feeling that most of the base would like for the Governor to not be a billionaire plutocrat-I think someone like Chuy Garcia or Kwame Raoul would be able to defeat Pritzker in the primary-especially if they attempt to demonize his wealth.
I agree with you. I don't see any real pathway for him to lose. Maybe if he was going for a 4th term and there was voter fatigue for someone sticking around so long, but governors without term limits seem generally able to run for a third term without being automatically punished for it.
I haven't heard any serious voicing of complaints about Pritzker's job in office. Certainly his status as a billionaire is sub-optimal but he hasn't done anything stand out awful as governor. I was expecting him to be a disappointment after 2018 and have been pleasantly surprised with the result.
Plus Pritzker is very popular with progressives (the kind of people who would support a primary typically) for the work he’s done in IL. I was once recommended a Twitter account called “Socialists for Pritzker”. Pritzker is widely popular and in my opinion will be easily re-elected.
I was a big Biss supporter but I've definitely been pleasantly surprised by Pritzker. I doubt we need to worry about him running for a 4th term though.
Where are you getting that from? The Democratic base loves Pritzker, he’s seen as the best governor Illinois has had this century and one of the strongest voices against Trump in the country.
Not beyond the realm of possibility. He is still mayor, which can have its advantages. But Sliwa will cipher a slice of the anti-Mamdani votes. And if Cuomo stays in, I don’t see Adams having any chance.
Apparently, Oregon State Senator Daniel Bonham (R-SD 26) cares more about the Portland Trail Blazers trading Anfernee Simons to Boston than he does about actually governing the State of Oregon.
I mean, putting Jasmine Crockett (or a Squad member or Squad-adjacent member) on the ticket is probably mandatory if we don't nominate a person of color in 2028-so he's not quite wrong.
In the case of when President Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, he made a big deal publicly more than once that he was going to nominate a black woman. Not a black man but a black woman. This coming after he intended to do the same with Kamala Harris, who was the first woman elected as VP and on any presidential ticket in history.
In the case of Gavin Newsom, as Governor he pulled a Biden by saying he was going to nominate a black woman to replace Dianne Feinstein in the Senate after she passed away. He did this with Laphonza Butler when he appointed her.
Point is, just nominate someone of color and don’t make a big deal out of saying so publicly before it’s done. It makes the Democratic Party look ridiculous and gives ammunition for the GOP.
I don't disagree with that (although I agree with Zero Cool that we shouldn't make a big deal about it). My question is - why does it have to be a Squad member? Why not someone like Whitmer or Wes Moore (or some other mainstream Dem who happens to be female or AA/Latino)?
I think both Whitmer and Moore would make more sense as Presidential nominees-and I'm not sure either would accept being Vice President.
Also other than Talib/Omar, the Squad/Squad adjacent politicians are popular with the base-there are electoral benefits to putting say AOC on the ticket.
I agree on Whitmer/Moore - I was just using them as an example. Regarding your point about the Squad, AOC may be popular with the base (unclear the others are) but I think the downsides far outweigh the upsides with her.
The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear a challenge brought by Democrats seeking to throw out the battleground state’s current congressional district boundaries before the 2026 midterms.
Didn’t give a reason. Which means that Democrats didn’t offer a sufficient reason for them to redraw it. Especially since Evers had a lot of input on the map that was adopted.
So a Cuomo billionaire donor says he's backing Mamdani and that he actually voted for Lander not Cuomo but donated the money to be in Cuomo's good books.
I'll be honest, the only person who should be pleased about a Mamdami win(other than Mamdami himself), is Eric Adams-if any of the other Democrats on the ballot (even Cuomo) had won, he'd have no path to victory-with Mamdami winning he now has a very narrow path to victory.
With 15% in the polls and universal name recognition, I would say exceedingly narrow.
It's a significantly better chance than Silwa does.
Adams is deeply unpopular in NYC. I live nearby and he is a laughingstock due to his scandals. Adams will not win.
I disagree. What's Adams' base of support now? Sliwa has support from all Republican areas.
Adams and Silwa are essentially competing for the same base-I expect Republicans to ultimately vote for Adams over Silwa.
Why do you expect that? Do you think Trump will endorse Adams over Sliwa? That could make a difference in terms of Republican votes but would also guarantee his loss in the general election if nothing else already does (and I think he has no shot).
I expect Trump to stay out of the race-but I expect certain Republican leaning groups (Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn for example) to endorse Adams over Silwa.
It's Curtis Sliwa, not Silwa. I really hope it doesn't seem like I'm badgering you, but why would you think they would do that?
Adams is the incumbent-they won't endorse Mamdami (who's the likely winner) for religious/Israel/Palestine reasons, and many of Orthodox Jews do think Trump is an anti-semite, and I don't think Sliwa can distance himself from him enough to earn their endorsement/votes.
OK, I'm not seeing that as likely, and I think that Sliwa's long service in New York going back to the beginning of the Guardian Angels in 1979 distinguishes him from Trump, but I understand your argument.
I do too. Silwa may be the "Republican", but Adams has all of the vibes that the current iteration of the Republican party (read: MAGA) loves. I think he'll be a real competitor for Mamdani and, while I think Mamdani is the favorite, it is not difficult to see Adams winning.
Sliwa
Yes, I've been corrected on Sliwa's spelling multiple times now-I'll be glad when he loses and the New York GOP nominates a Mayoral candidate with an easier last name for me to spell in 2029.
Adams has an approval rating of 20%
So did Harry Truman when he won reelection in 1948
Gallup had his approval in June 1948 (the last poll taken before the election) at 40%. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/harry-s-truman-public-approval
And if they polled right before the 1948 election, I bet you he would have been close to 50%.
The only thing Eric Adams can possibly be pleased about, and looking forward to, is lots of free Turkish coffee – for services previously rendered.
Yeah, Eric Adams has the Turkish lobbyist vote solidly behind him. It is a good thing that he is not running for Mayor of Glendale CA...
Adams has effectively no shot. He is insanely unpopular. It's not an accident that he didn't even try to run in the dem primary.
If Mamdani loses it's going to be to Cuomo staying in the general and winning, or Sliwa winning because the dem vote ends up split across too many candidates.
I don’t think Sliwa could get enough to win even in the event of a split.
Probably not. I think that unlikely scenario is still a lot more plausible than Adams winning.
Yeah, I don't think Silwa has any juice. A semi-serious Republican would concern me but Silwa isn't that
Before last night I was convinced that if Mamdani won the nomination, Cuomo would use his party line to continue the campaign. Not so sure now.
I suspect he was planning to argue that Mamdani only won because RCV is terrible, or something to that effect. His first round loss takes away that line. He would essentially have to repudiate the primary instead.
I suspect he was seeing polling that had him behind both Mamdami and Adams (or Silwa) in a general election-which is why he's being quiet about continuing his campaign.
I would be absolutely shocked if Cuomo didn't run in the general election. He has nothing to lose, a ton of money, and contempt for the other people in the race. What more motivation does he need?
A preference not to get his ass kicked if that's what he's seeing in polling.
The man is power hungry and I don't see him going down without a fight. And what is the consequence of getting his ass kicked? He's already a pariah.
He may not like the feeling of having his ass kicked. Remember, he did resign from office before, so he is not a Trump.
Fair point
Anyone else find it interesting that the Mamdani-Cuomo margin basically stayed the same the entire night… between 7-9%? When the early/mail votes dropped there was a lot of dooming that the margin wasn’t large enough to overcome the Cuomo-heavy Election Day vote, but then… the margin basically stayed the same til the end.
Tells me that early voting is becoming normalized. We've only had it since 2019 in NY and the pandemic immediately made early voting a partisan issue. Now that we're a few years out, I think people are pretty used to the idea.
We'll see once official results are posted, but it looks like almost exactly 1,000,000 people voted in the NYC Dem primary.
This is only a marginal improvement from 2021 when 942,000 people voted. Looking up that result, I was again struck by the injustice of the 140,000 exhausted ballots. Limiting people to only ranking 5 candidates is really stupid. I hope NYC reconsiders their system. Something like what Alaska has would be a lot fairer.
RCV vs RCV with a straitjacket?
Even with a 15% exhaust rate it's still better than FPTP. Not everyone is going to bother to rank 5 candidates (honestly if your first choice is Mamdani or Cuomo, what's the point?), let alone all 11. I agree I think the Alaska system is better but we don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good either.
I’m very suspicious in general of arguments against RCV because a lot of people who oppose it do so because candidates of the center may be more likely to lose under it. Not saying that anyone here is arguing that but I do question some of the criticism.
It seems to me like centrist candidates are just as likely to win or lose as under regular voting. Maybe moreso. Ranked choice voting is about picking the candidate most people can accept, not necessarily the one most liked.
Slight correction then: the perception that centrists are more likely to lose is a motivator, even if it isn't actually true.
Personally I'm in favor of national RCV, and I'm also in favor of multi-member U.S. House districts coupled with it. I believe such a proposal would help with both ensuring representation of groups that otherwise wouldn't have any (NYT had a piece a while back arguing for this that noted a lack of Arkansas Dems or NYC Republicans in Congress, despite the existence of both, as an illustration of this phenomenon), and would also hopefully help put an end to all the nasty primary showdowns we've been having. Even if a candidate doesn't make it to #1, they could make #2, #3, or potentially even more depending on how many members a district could have under such a proposal. Reforming the U.S. Senate is also a key part of my proposal, but I haven't thought too in-depth about how it would be accomplished so I'm not going to push for it here. (And of course abolishing gerrymandering, but that is fairly obvious.)
I'm well aware my idea is likely a pipe dream, but I think, were it to be implemented, it would be one way to solve a number of problems we have with our elections.
I really don't think the perception exists. In 2021 Adams, the most conservative candidate, would have easily won the election if it weren't ranked choice voting.ranked choice narrowed his lead significantly, allowing a more centrist candidate to gain on him. That didn't happen in this election, with the most leftwing candidate triumphing, but I think it is a natural outcome.
Perhaps.
I still stand by my RCV/multi-member districts/anti-gerrymandering proposal though.
Wasn't the argument in favor of RCV that it would increase the likelihood of moderate candidates winning?
Motivations are irrelevant. If an argument is valid, it's valid.
I believe the RCV system in Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco limits people to vote for three candidates in the mayoral races but I’d have to double check.
Why is it needed to allow ranking for more than five candidates? Most voters who cast votes aren’t necessarily thinking of having a choice beyond 1-3 candidates at best. I have no problem with removing the limitations but practically, I don’t think residents of Berkeley (where I live) have the mindset of looking at more than three choices. I suppose it depends on who you talk to.
Oakland lets you pick five. Agree that there is no reason any locale needs more.
Ok.
I live in Berkeley but it also just started to implement RCV last year.
I am not against the principle of more than five choices but this is not needed right now to make RCV work. There’s much bigger goals to be addressed.
5 candidates is a lot and seems like enough to me. My girlfriend voted her conscience, not ranking either Mamdani or Cuomo. Having more than 5 choices wouldn't have changed that.
On a technical level 5 candidates is almost certainly sufficient. It'd be nice for people to be able to rank the whole slate though.
I'm the kind of person that would rank the entire ballot all the way through for everyone that I felt was even marginally better than someone else. Even though realistically voters can stop at ~3 in >90% of cases.
Saying it doesn't matter in 90% of the cases is rather vacuous. In 90% of the cases the FPTP winner also wins the instant runoff. So if the goal is 90% accuracy, why bother with RCV at all?
Moreover, it almost certainly did make a difference last go around, where the exhausted ballots was around 20x the final margin.
That's a good point. I think even with the limit it's a good bit better than FTPT.
But to be clear I fully support allowing people to rank up to every single candidate if they want to do so. The process should be able to be handled entirely electronically so the added complexity for counting the ballots is not a meaningful obstacle. There's no serious costs to increasing the limit and it improves the system.
And like you I am curious how many exhausted ballots ranked less than the maximum. I'd assume it's a decent portion, but it's only an assumption with no data behind it.
In this case it was pretty obvious who the final two candidates would be, but that was not the case in 2021. However I would be curious what percentage of the exhausted ballots voted for fewer than 5 candidates. I'm not sure if the BoE ever published that data.
I should also note that if you did have the ability to fully rank the ballot she could have ranked them 11 and 12 and thus still vote her conscience and have her vote count in the decisive round.
She would not have done so.
(Responding to multiple comments)
If it is true, as several of you have suggested, that voters don't have the attention span for more than 5 candidates, then that's even more of reason to switch to an Alaska style system. To remind you, that means the first round is Top 4 and the second round is RCV.
I'm not sure if I believe that though. In a situation like you had in 2021 where there were more than 5 viable candidates, people would have ranked more, I believe. (In Cambridge MA, near where I live, voters routinely rank as many as 25 candidates for their local elections) If anyone knows if there's data as to what percentage of ballots were fully marked, that would be useful.
Highest turnout since 1989! People were excited to go vote for Democrats instead of choosing them as an anti-Republican vote.
That was Koch-Dinkins.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/25/scott-brown-new-hampshire-senate-2026-midterms-00422703
Scott Brown has officially announced his campaign for Senate in New Hampshire.
I honestly think Brown might have had a better chance of winning if he'd moved back to Massachusetts and ran for Senate there-and he'd still be a very heavy underdog in Massachusetts-that's how strong Chris Pappas is compared to whoever could hypothetically defeat Ed Markey in a primary.
I don't think Ed Markey will get primaried, at least not successfully. He's a hero to the environmentalist movement and Kennedy already tried the "we need someone younger and hotter" angle.
Arguably Kennedy lost because of his last name-dynasty politics have really gone out of style. A different member of the congressional delegation might well have defeated Markey.
I remember a lot of progressives didn’t like Kennedy either because he apparently took oil money or something like that. There was suspicion that he’d be less progressive than Markey. Whether that was true or not, it did contribute to why Markey had left support.
I agree I think the name ended up being a liability towards the end, but at the same time his last name was probably the only reason he got as close as he did in the first place.
High-floor, low-ceiling kind of situation. ;-)
Another impediment was that Kennedy never could give a good reason why he wanted to replace Ed Markey.
In retrospect I find that aspect of the primary fascinating.
Surely JPK3 would be aware of Ted Kennedy's 1980 presidential run and how one of its most damaging moments was the interview where he failed to articulate a reason for him to run. You'd think he would have seen past family failures and compensated for them.
Obviously his political career was propped up in a major way by his last name, but I had never gotten the sense of amateurism from his time in office before that failed primary.
I don't remember Ted Kennedy having trouble articulating his challenge to Carter from the left. I remember him articulating it very strongly and clearly. What was the question and what was the answer?
I was thinking of this moment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy_1980_presidential_campaign#Announcement
"On November 4, 1979, [Kennedy] was interviewed by Roger Mudd and was later criticized for his rambling answer to "Senator, why do you want to be President?" as Kennedy was holding off his presidential announcement."
Thanks. I don't remember the interview, but the context suggests that Kennedy was not yet ready to announce his campaign at that point. I note the comments quoted in the following paragraph, though:
"Jeffrey Hart described the first week of Kennedy's campaign as a snowman dissolving in early spring due to his poor performance during Mudd's interview. Governor Hugh Carey reportedly did not endorse Kennedy because of the interview, and described him as a plummeting star in private."
I didn't know who Jeffrey Hart was, but Hugh Carey's non-endorsement was a huge deal.
fwiw it was something of an ambush, ruger mudd was a life long friend and it not expected to be a hard hitting interview
I tend to think anyone with less of a name would have done worse.
I think most blue seat Democrats in office are going to get a primary challenge in 2026. Markey is a very shrewd and formidable incumbent politician, I think it can fairly be argued either way whether a primary is successful or not. But there’s a big caveat to that comparison that bears enormously on this hypothetical: a lot has happened since then.
Trump won a 2nd term, Democratic voters stayed home or voted for Republicans in 2024. Democrats over the last 3 presidential elections barely managed 1 win after COVID killed Americans, the economy was shuttered and Trump’s chaos in office was top of mine. Trump still almost won again. This is all happening under current Democratic leadership and office holders. The party is as unpopular with voters as it’s ever been.
So to imply that Markey can’t be successfully primaried because Kennedy failed to do it, is misguided and not understanding a full picture of the different circumstances of politics right now in Democratic Party circles compared to back then.
And I strongly believe that if any Democrat in Massachusetts who did not have the last name Kennedy attempted to primary Markey in 2020, he would have lost then and there.
In 2020 there wasn't really anyone with the name recognition and platform to do this other than Healey or Kennedy. All of the representatives were either too new or too old. Healey was obviously bidding her time to run for governor, so she was out.
If Kennedy had waited until this cycle I think he would have won, but no guarantee.
And he’s old!
On the face of it, I would mildly disagree with you and still think his small chance of victory would be even smaller in MA.
I agree. Pappas is fine, but NH is MUCH less blue than MA...
Last night showed how Democrats can fix their messaging issue. Zohran went from a no-name state assemblymember to the presumptive Democratic nominee for NYC mayor over the course a few months, almost all due to his strong ground game and messaging. People were actually *excited* to vote/canvass/volunteer for his campaign: that's how he was able to knock on 1.5 million doors over one weekend. Democrats would be remiss to not learn from Zohran's victory, but because he's not with the establishment, I doubt they'll learn anything.
Yeah. The message people should take away from Cuomo's defeat is not only GOTV and meet with people (like Zohran) but be unapologetic about your party affiliation. People are more likely to vote for you if you're up front with them.
People like it when other people are confident. It's consistent across so much of life. Fits perfectly in with politics too.
It may also just be a moment. I get the contrast you're making with Sanders, but Liz Warren's unabashed Democratic Party membership has been sufficient only for a Senate seat.
I think the Democratic Party is under its own Tea Party moment where voters want more representatives that fight back against Trump, but fresh faces too. Cuomo had a lot of sex pest related baggage.
He absolutely does.
Liz Warren wanted to ban fracking, decriminalize border crossings and ban private health insurance in addition to Medicare for All which alone was okay. Utterly brain-dead positions. She could have been the populist progressive candidate without the baggage of socialism. Trump reportedly feared her the most before the primaries.
There is no way that Trump was the least bit fearful of Warren.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-team-worried-about-elizabeth-warren-2020-democrats-2019-9
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/campaign/476995-why-trump-should-fear-sanders-much-more-than-warren-in-2020/amp/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/05/05/nation/new-book-says-trump-feared-elizabeth-warren-an-opponent-more-than-biden/
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/16/peter-thiel-elizabeth-warren-most-dangerous-democrat-for-trump.html
Yeah, think that is all media bullshit. And there is no way Thiel thought Warren was a problem. Trump would have been overjoyed to run against a female college professor from Mass with limited charisma.
Mamdani has even more radical positions than that.
He isn't running for President.
Correct, but then doesn't that go back to the point that maybe Sanders, while running for president, would not have benefited by stating even more radical positions?
Obviously.
In which case, you would appear to disagree with MPC and agree with me.
I have environmental concerns regarding fracking so I’ll have to disagree there, although I’m not going to argue because I admittedly don’t know enough about it.
100 percent of all oil in America is extracted through fracking. The economic slowdown in every sector will be insane if it's banned. It's better to use the revenue to invest in green energy than ban it.
And there's no path to victory without winning Colorado and Pennsylvania.
If 100% of oil in the U.S. were extracted through fracking, what about the offshore oil wells in California or the legacy ones from the 1950s or whatever in Long Beach?
I see that it's 80 percent, still very high.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/fracking-gas-chemicals-health-pennsylvania
OK, thanks for checking.
He’s very charismatic. That helps.
I actually didn't notice charisma, but that's because I didn't listen to speeches. Is he a charismatic speaker?
I’ve only seen him speak in informal settings, interviews, ads and such.
Harris had a strong ground game, right? But yeah, promising pie in the sky did seem to produce a lot of passionate support in New York City this time, surprisingly to me. I expected Cuomo to win.
Harris's campaign knocked on 20 million doors over the course of the campaign. Zohran's knocked on 1.5 million doors in NYC alone in one weekend. Make of that what you will.
That's very impressive and puts things in a clear perspective.
NYC is about a fortieth of the country so extrapolating that’s the equivalent of 60 million nationwide.
And since my remark here looks a little sour: Keep in mind, I am a socialist. I in theory support everything Mamdani wants to do, if there is somehow money to pay for it. And while I wish someone like Lander had won, I'm relieved and happy that Cuomo appears to have lost.
I would like to see Mamdani appoint Brad Lander to a prominent position where he can do good for New Yorkers.
(I too wish Lander had won, but I soon realized that just wasn’t going to happen. Cuomo an Mamdani were taking up all the oxygen in the room.)
I doubt he would accept a Deputy Mayorship, but we shall see.
I was thinking more like a key position with well-defined responsibility, where Lander can make a profound impact on a vital sector.
What could be more impactful than the Comptroller position he gave up? I think Lander is great, and I'd love to see him advise Mamdani in some useful way, but I think he will seek higher or at least another (possibly federal) office.
Pie in the sky promises still work! I'm sure Trump will get around to getting rid of inflation any day now.
They hadn't been working for Democrats. That's a difference.
No democrat has run on anything as ridiculous as government run grocery stores although i'm curious if he can make that happen.
Why are government-run grocery stores inherently ridiculous? Lots of states have government-run liquor stores.
thank you David! there's a real discussion to be had regarding how many people were sick of the Zohran bashing and ended up giving him a chance/vote.
NH is a great example of that.
The NH state liquor stores are even cheaper than all the neighboring states by enough of a margin that a meaningful number of sales come from people crossing the border to buy cheaper alcohol. A lot of national data on alcohol sales shows NH looking seemingly alcoholic due to this.
All of the busiest state border crossing have an outlet there.
Anecdotally I remember when I was younger that just about every time that family or family-friends visited us from Maine, Massachusetts, or Vermont that they would make a point to stop at a state liquor store on their way home.
Not objecting to anything you say, but my experience as a college student in MA at the turn of the century was more about the fact that NH sold liquor on Sundays.
Here in PA we call 'em "state stores" (though I think "commonwealth store" would be much classier)...
Most Democrats don't call themselves socialists. At least Mamdani is actually advocating for state run enterprises to compete with the private sector, unlike that weakling Bernie Sanders.
Be fair. Sanders got billions of dollars for government-run health care centers in the ACA, did he not?
I'm all for recognizing that sort of thing, but is that what he ran on when he ran for president? What I remember is that he wasn't advocating for things like municipally run power companies, which Howie Hawkins ran on in our mayoral election in 2005 as a Green.
I'm just saying that Mamdani is saying the things out loud that a lot of Democrats have been thinking for a long time and even Bernie didn't cross this line. Can it work? We'll find out.
Points taken.
That bourgeois revisionist/Bonapartist, Bernard Sanders! /s
I was skeptical of the grocery store plan too, but he has said the idea is just a pilot program of 5 stores, 1 in each borough, and that if it doesn’t work they’ll end the program. I think that’s a great idea, we need to try out new policies to see if they work.
Yeah, he laid down a marker, and he said he's prepared to walk away from the idea if it doesn't work. A small innovation like this is worth pursuing. If it pays off, that could be great!
I'm sure the public will love it but the government will hemorrhage money
Supposedly, they will use economy of scale to offer lower prices.
Isn't the point of the government to spend money on things the private sector isn't capable of providing? The government "hemorrhages money" on everything!
"Libraries aren't profitable" they aren't supposed to be! It's a public good!
This reminds me of a consistent issue we face on public communications.
So often some program or the other will come up as costing more money than it generates in revenue. Whether it be public transit or the post office or anything of the like. So long as it has a non-zero fee attached to it at some stage, the discourse gets altered and the attack lines of "XYZ is hemorrhaging money" appear constantly.
More specifically, this attack is used on government services favored by the left. No one complains that the military isn't self-sufficient on budget (though people do complain about the extent of the budget...), or that highways don't pay for themselves.
More forcefully pushing back with the "public good" line like you say might be helpful on this front.
Yeah, my thoughts too. For the record, I don't think it's a great idea and am cynical about it having any impact on prices, but I don't see any harm in trying it.
I don't think it's inherently ridiculous, but I'd imagine subsidies for poor families to shop at existing supermarkets would be cheaper.
Right, and that’s my biggest concern with Mamdani. Less so as a candidate (though it’s there) but when push comes to shove in running City Hall. Dem voters more so than Reps who just want to own libs tend to have longer memories when it comes to campaign promises. For all his significant policy accomplishments Biden really was damaged by public perception that he wasn’t forgiving enough student debt or sending out big enough stimmy checks (a non-negligible number of voters went Trump last fall because they legit thought he’d send them checks again like in 2020)
If he wins and ends up being competent and uncontroversial, I could see him getting away with not being able to implement a lot of goals.
NYC has had two disliked mayors in a row and I suspect general competence would be enough to paper over a lot of other disappointments.
For whatever reason people expect presidents to be far more capable to enacting an agenda and will hold them far more to account for failures to implement policy than they will all other holders of all other offices.
"If he wins and ends up being competent and uncontroversial" is kind of the whole point of being skeptical of a 30 something year old becoming Mayor of New York City. He has a LOT to prove.
I agree. We'll need to wait and see (assuming he wins). I'm not worried about his age on that front, more his lack of evidence of executive competence due to being a legislator right now with only so much experience.
Michelle Wu was elected mayor at 36 with no executive experience either and is doing quite well on the competence and uncontroversial front. Doesn't mean Mamdani will too, but I'm not hedging bets for or against currently. Fully wait and see.
Boston has less than a tenth of the population of NYC, the enormity of the job is incomparable.
I'm a socialist, I would vote for Mamdani and hoped for the best if I lived in NYC, but I won't be surprised if he's passed the Peter Principle line.
I'm not sure Mayor of Boston is a much less difficult job than Mayor of New York. Its population is lower in large part because it never annexed suburbs that could help it a lot with its tax base, whereas New York City is the Greater New York of 1898 that unified the "Outer Boroughs" with Manhattan. And I think Boston has all the same kinds of problems New York has, with the exception that it presumably benefits from being the state capital.
That's kind of my point, the mayor of Boston doesn't have to worry about Cambridge, Brookline, Sommerville, Medford, Chelsea, Needham, Newton, et cetera.
That's really maddening, because he tried so hard and did so much but kept getting blocked by the Supreme Court.
I keep thinking of the Linkin Park song:
"I tried so hard, and got so far
But in the end, it doesn't even matter"
But for people like my girlfriend, whose college debts were irrevocably cancelled after decades of being weighed down and having her life choices blocked by them, it really does matter. She will be eternally grateful to President Biden for that, no matter what else happens.
Suddenly Democrats have two different tailor made successful campaigns to implement in order to start winning elections again.
Dan Osborn showed last year how to get back the old Democratic WWC coalition, the red state Democrats version, a thoroughly working class guy running as an independent, breaking with the party on some key issues.
Zohran Mamdani just showed the blue state version: a working class minority with a relentlessly positive vision focused on affordability (the overwhelming topic of concern for voters) to take everywhere that excites Democrats to go vote either in person or with simple, savvy social media videos that go viral.
This, this is the impact on the grassroots and how organic campaign energy can be created in people who never did anything political before. Democrats would be unwise to ignore this impact.
https://archive.ph/NIVBI
Kathy Cutler, 27, said she started canvassing for Mr. Mamdani in January after a friend encouraged her to check out his campaign. She had never volunteered for a candidate before.
“Before this campaign, I was politically aware, but now I’m politically active,” Ms. Cutler said.
Ms. Cutler said Mr. Mamdani’s youth and vitality appealed to her, along with his proposal for free buses and his support for L.G.B.T.Q. New Yorkers. She had been up since dawn for one last day of canvassing — 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. — before taking an Uber to the watch party.
“I’ve never really been spurred to believe in something this hard,” she said.
That's a great quote; tell us your source.
I'm a little skeptical about Osborn, as he hasn't won yet. Let's see if he and candidates like him can actually win.
As for Mamdani, if he completes the victory in the general election, he will have set up huge expectations, and that creates an obvious danger if whatever doesn't pass is considered a huge letdown and deflates the enthusiasm and voting of people like Ms. Cutler. Of course the other side of the coin is you have to win first before you can do anything, but I'm keeping in mind all of the amazing things Biden was able to do domestically and how little any of them helped in the 2024 election, because he wasn't able to get his entire program passed or use his magic wand to make inflation reverse itself without the recession the media kept harping on and on about until voters thought it existed.
I edited in the source for you.
Here’s the thing about Osborn, yes, he didn’t win. I’m not talking about Democrats winning Trump +15 states. Partisanship and polarization is far too strong for that to happen. But it was a successful campaign for Democrats to follow in any red areas because though you won’t win, you’ll overperform any Democrat running as a Democrat. This is the formula to win states like Iowa and Ohio, not Indiana and Missouri.
He only lost by 6.6% when Trump won the state by 21 points on the same ballot. That’s a remarkable performance and if replicated, puts reach seats and states in play. To dismiss him because he didn’t win a 20 point Trump state is missing the forest for the trees imo.
This may sound crass or uncaring of people there, but it doesn’t matter if his agenda gets passed politically speaking. Democrats need to win elections in order to stop MAGA/Trump, however they get there doesn’t matter. If his coalition breaks apart the day after being sworn in: it doesn’t matter.
We’ve been so wrongly focused as a party on doing what’s currently possible, instead of inspiring voters to create a better future. Voters don’t care about pay-fors or minutiae that educated Democrats feel are necessary to focus on. The point is to win 1 primary and 1 general election campaign.
Before someone says “policy matters” to me, yes it does, but first you need to be handed power and how you get that result is the only thing that should matter politically.
You're right, inasmuch as blocking fascism is an emergency. Side point, but are you sure a Democrat couldn't win a state-wide election in Iowa next year? That seems maybe possible.
I’m really not sure regarding Iowa, I do think there’s a narrow path for a Democrat to win the Governorship and even smaller path for a Senate race. But the path to victory is much wider if a Democrat ran as an independent instead of as a Democrat, that much I’m sure of. Obviously it won’t happen in 2026, so it’s a moot point regardless.
Yesterday was not a good day for disgraced politicians. Not only was Andrew Cuomo defeated in his race for mayor of New York City, but the egregious Anthony Weiner finished fourth in his campaign to return to City Council.
Good. Disgraced politicians stay away, please.
Bobby Cole, an East Texas dairy farmer, has announced his candidacy as a Democrat to defeat Greg Abbott as governor. https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/bobby-cole-texas-governor-20391255.php
We've gone from Dubya to Rick Perry and to Greg Abbott. That's literally an eternity if you think about how long since the 90's all of the years these governors have been in office and what it's meant for representation in TX.
Dubya and, hell, even Perry are liberals compared to Abbott
Different times. They might not have been able to get away with some of the really damaging stuff Abbott has done.
Ahhh yes. Dubya was pro-comprehensive immigration reform, which would make him a liberal for sure in today’s GOP.
Perry though has never exactly been a Trumper but he’d also a hybrid of being a Bush Republican + Tea Party nut. Him though calling social security a Ponzi scheme is just pulling crap out of his ass so it really wouldn’t exactly make him more “liberal” in the eyes of the Trumpers.
Perry though did serve as Energy Secretary under Trump’s first term as POTUS although he was remarkably low profile compared to how he used to he.
Rick Perry defended his policy on allowing undocumented immigrants to attend Texas colleges at in state tuition rates and was aggressively attacked by the rest of the 2012 field for it from the right (notably by Romney) - that’s more what I’m getting at
Yeah, true. Perry’s definitely a liberal according to MAGA and would likely not survive in a primary if he were to run for political office again in TX.
We think of post 9/11 Bush, but the guy who ran for election in 2000 was totally a moderate Republican who focused on education policy and not getting involved in foreign wars.
It was an act. He was obviously extreme to people who were watching closely. It's just that considering what's happened to the Republican Party since, his radicality is not as dramatic...
This ^^ and then Lying us into war and then, when people started asking questions about that, demonizing lgbt people in the constitution was dramatic enough.
Not to mention flip flopping on nation building.
Back in 2000, Bush was against nation building.
Wait, then later in 2003 the invasion of Iraq happened and then the Bush Administration worked to build Iraq as a nation from the ground up.
Yeah but that was all about this “compassionate conservatism” agenda Dubya had when he ran back in 2000.
Otherwise, before 9/11 Bush made no real headlines that gave him the image he had. Not at least I remember back during college and the summer of 2001. Those were quite peaceful times, even if the dot.com boom had ended.
I was also in college at the time and very much a Nader supporter because Bush didn't scare me.
I remember Nader was the one who really fired up our generation, least because he was doing a lot more to challenge the status quo than Bush and Gore. Both in living wage, Wall Street and other issues.
That said, by contrast to Gore, Bush ran a pretty standard campaign back in 2000. Many fellow liberals were warning about the deregulation and corporate ass kissing Bush and his administration would likely do (which ended up happening, including being pro-outsourcing) coming into the White House but Bush himself came across pretty normal as a presidential candidate charisma wise.
How old are you again? Gore's environmentalism was plenty exciting for me and would have made a fucking big deal!
I was in my early 20’s when in college back in 2000. Gore’s environmental history I do remember.
However, he also did not run on reforming Wall Street and other issues that Nader was specifically challenging.
For the record, I did not support or vote for Nader. Gore was my guy because even while I had my issues with Clinton (Glass Steagall included), it was still better to stay the course and get Gore in. He’s more liberal than Clinton and likely would have been this way as POTUS.
I was 35 in 2000 and had gotten my Doctorate 6 years earlier, and I knew GW Bush was horrible, but I had no way of knowing just how horrible he was going to be.
You mean the guy who wanted to at least partially privatize social security and public education?
And even influence outsourcing too! Remember when someone in the Bush Administration said, “Outsourcing is good for the economy?”
Bush had that agenda you are describing. He also was, like his father, corporations’ best friend.
What I am referring to is that prior to 9/11, Bush really didn’t generate that much in headlines compared to post-9/11. Irrespective of what his agenda was, most of it came later.
I recall it was 2005 when the push to privatize social security was at its peak. That’s when Bush’s approval ratings started tanking, along with the War in Iraq being increasingly unpopular.
The invasion of Iraq was already planned before the 2000 election, and Bush was an abortion-prohibitionist.
Yes I do remember that.
However, the optics might have been different had there been no 9/11.
Then again, the Bush Administration pretty much dropped the ball until 9/11 happened.
You mean he dropped the ball on warnings that if heeded would have enabled the prevention of the Sept. 11th atrocities, or something else?
Yeah, exactly! That warning should have gotten the Bush Administration more on the move to address the problem and beef up security so that the 9/11 hijackers could have not been successful in their plans.
In fact, the very end of the 1997 HBO TV Film Path to Paradise: The Untold Story of the World Trade Center Bombing had already given hints four years before about the bombings. In the film, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef (played by Art Malik), the mastermind s behind the 1993 World Trade Center, says:
“Next time, we will bring them BOTH down.”
9/11 was about eight months into Bush's first term. Of course he generated far fewer headlines before then.
I also recall Bush’s approval ratings increased primarily because of the handling of 9/11.
Other than that, nothing exactly moved the needle for Bush’s approval ratings before 9/11. The U.S. government also had a big surplus and no real budget deficit.
Squandering the surplus was my biggest objection to Bush in 2000. What kind of "fiscal conservative" chooses to voluntarily give away our country's first surplus in decades?
Bush was talking about blowing the U.S. budget surplus back in 2000?
Most of the budget deficit and debt from Bush’s days was as a result of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Perhaps my memory is more faint compared to how it was back in 2000 during the actual campaign itself.
A couple of great articles on the strategies Mamdani employed to go from 0% afterthought, to Democratic primary victor and slayer of the front runner Cuomo despite labor/nyt/establishment endorsements in his corner with $25m spent in ads against him. Every Democrat needs to do what Mamdani did stylistically/social media wise in their midterm campaigns. The issues of course will vary by state and district, but how he presented himself is a must for any Democrat to follow.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/zohran-mamdani-morris-katz-campaign.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/zohran-mamdani-remade-american-politics-in-nyc-mayor-race.html
I would not recommend democrats run as socialists unless they are in dark blue cities. We still rely on suburbs in many states and this would be a turnoff.
Agreed but his style of campaigning should be studied and more importantly, emulated.
Yes, I agree with this. While I'm not a Mamdani supporter but any means, he does have that Obama-esque style about him that is highly effective and we'd be wise to emulate it as much as we can elsewhere. James Talarico in TX has it a bit too...
James Talarico can really defeat Ken Paxton imo, another scandal ridden politician.
I believe I specified stylistically and said Democrats should run campaigns that fit their constituency. Do you disagree with what I said?
I will say his message was very important in his victory.
The argument is more about engagement than ideology. Cuomo didn't try, Mamdani tried. When you are asking for a vote over who will rule us, it's nice to see the people in question actually engage.
Well, I didn't think he could win in New York City. And let's be cautious about whether he will. I could see a lot of normally Democratic-voting Jews and other white people voting for Sliwa.
Is there a non-paywalled link to the first one?
Sure, archive.ph always has the articles up moments after being published, here you go:
https://archive.ph/BEzC3
Thanks.
Thank you! Great article.
A Mamdani-Adams race would be interesting. An optimistic challenger running as a booster of his city versus a fear mongering incumbent attacking his city as a crime-ridden hellhole. Stay out of the subways!
Fetterman's Net Approval in Pennsylvania Among:
All: +4%
Republicans: +8%
Independents: +2%
Democrats: +1%
Susquehanna: June 21, 2025
Surprisingly good and broad-based.
This is one of the better polls for him.
Sen. Fetterman has low approval among Pa. Democratic primary voters, new poll shows
The poll from progressive PAC Forward Blue found just 28% of Democratic primary voters in the state hold a favorable view of him. June 2.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/gov-pritzker-set-to-announce-hes-running-for-a-third-term-sources/3775005/
J.B Pritzker to announce run for third term.
I honestly think that Pritzker is vulnerable to a primary challenge-I get the feeling that most of the base would like for the Governor to not be a billionaire plutocrat-I think someone like Chuy Garcia or Kwame Raoul would be able to defeat Pritzker in the primary-especially if they attempt to demonize his wealth.
That's certainly a hot take, I will disagree, I think he's safe from any primary challenge.
I agree with you. I don't see any real pathway for him to lose. Maybe if he was going for a 4th term and there was voter fatigue for someone sticking around so long, but governors without term limits seem generally able to run for a third term without being automatically punished for it.
I haven't heard any serious voicing of complaints about Pritzker's job in office. Certainly his status as a billionaire is sub-optimal but he hasn't done anything stand out awful as governor. I was expecting him to be a disappointment after 2018 and have been pleasantly surprised with the result.
Plus Pritzker is very popular with progressives (the kind of people who would support a primary typically) for the work he’s done in IL. I was once recommended a Twitter account called “Socialists for Pritzker”. Pritzker is widely popular and in my opinion will be easily re-elected.
I was a big Biss supporter but I've definitely been pleasantly surprised by Pritzker. I doubt we need to worry about him running for a 4th term though.
Where are you getting that from? The Democratic base loves Pritzker, he’s seen as the best governor Illinois has had this century and one of the strongest voices against Trump in the country.
The competition for best 21st-century Illinois governor isn't exactly tough, but...yes, agreed on all points.
Pritzker is who Jim Justice should have been.
Different state, different politics.
I know, I meant in terms of attitude and steadfastness.
I don't really know what you mean. Justice was not going to be a liberal Democrat in West Virginia.
Big money appears to be writing off Cuomo and moving to Adams.
https://www.semafor.com/article/06/25/2025/eric-adams-suddenly-finds-overwhelming-support-from-nycs-desperate-business-elites
Weird that they would think Adams could win.
Not beyond the realm of possibility. He is still mayor, which can have its advantages. But Sliwa will cipher a slice of the anti-Mamdani votes. And if Cuomo stays in, I don’t see Adams having any chance.
I think it's more likely for Sliwa to win than Adams. Adams is corrupt.
https://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/2025/06/oregon-senator-calls-trading-anfernee-simons-for-jrue-holiday-crazy.html
Apparently, Oregon State Senator Daniel Bonham (R-SD 26) cares more about the Portland Trail Blazers trading Anfernee Simons to Boston than he does about actually governing the State of Oregon.
https://x.com/PopBase/status/1937957759909249411
Trump's deranged tweets Part 2 and 3 just dropped.
I mean, putting Jasmine Crockett (or a Squad member or Squad-adjacent member) on the ticket is probably mandatory if we don't nominate a person of color in 2028-so he's not quite wrong.
No, I don't think there's much appetite for forced intersectionality anymore.
yikes at "forced". What's your alternative, white guys only? That isn't any less forced in a party this diverse.
You’re missing the point.
In the case of when President Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, he made a big deal publicly more than once that he was going to nominate a black woman. Not a black man but a black woman. This coming after he intended to do the same with Kamala Harris, who was the first woman elected as VP and on any presidential ticket in history.
In the case of Gavin Newsom, as Governor he pulled a Biden by saying he was going to nominate a black woman to replace Dianne Feinstein in the Senate after she passed away. He did this with Laphonza Butler when he appointed her.
Point is, just nominate someone of color and don’t make a big deal out of saying so publicly before it’s done. It makes the Democratic Party look ridiculous and gives ammunition for the GOP.
I agree with you.
Ummm . . .no
Huh?? Why? Based on what?
I think we basically have to have a woman or a person of color on the ticket (not necessarily both) if we want to maintain our base in 2028.
I don't disagree with that (although I agree with Zero Cool that we shouldn't make a big deal about it). My question is - why does it have to be a Squad member? Why not someone like Whitmer or Wes Moore (or some other mainstream Dem who happens to be female or AA/Latino)?
I think both Whitmer and Moore would make more sense as Presidential nominees-and I'm not sure either would accept being Vice President.
Also other than Talib/Omar, the Squad/Squad adjacent politicians are popular with the base-there are electoral benefits to putting say AOC on the ticket.
I agree on Whitmer/Moore - I was just using them as an example. Regarding your point about the Squad, AOC may be popular with the base (unclear the others are) but I think the downsides far outweigh the upsides with her.
BREAKING:
The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear a challenge brought by Democrats seeking to throw out the battleground state’s current congressional district boundaries before the 2026 midterms.
We aRe tHe paRty of dEmoCracY!
What was their reasoning?
Didn’t give a reason. Which means that Democrats didn’t offer a sufficient reason for them to redraw it. Especially since Evers had a lot of input on the map that was adopted.
https://www.channel3000.com/news/wisconsin-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-challenges-to-the-states-congressional-district-boundaries/article_943c8a64-e857-5526-b4fa-6ac207fb7761.html
I think the SCOWI sees Democrats taking a state trifecta next year and will let them draw their own Congressional maps.
https://x.com/teddyschleifer/status/1938008472794042809
So a Cuomo billionaire donor says he's backing Mamdani and that he actually voted for Lander not Cuomo but donated the money to be in Cuomo's good books.
Nice to have that much money to blow on “good will.”
I wouldn't be shocked if that was the reasoning for a lot of Cuomo's donations-much of that money would be going to Adams or Sliwa otherwise.