I have a white friend who live is NJ, but works in NYC, she is mid 40s, 2 kids and a husband. She is all for Mamdani, she is a CPA working in a legal firm. She said she is all for him, and says the dems need some fire for god sake. I’m an old adult but came of age in Vietnam protest, civil rights era, late 60s, and I don’t live there but am impressed with his approach. Yes, energy, like Obama. So this columns sums it up to me.
"Millions of voters think politicians are too old, too boring, and too phony." This statement does not seem apply for Kamala Harris. Why did she lose then?
I didn’t say that . And look at Bernie, he’s bringing the fire even though he’s old. So it’s all about attitude really and I’m sick as an old lady of people making assumptions about me on the account of my age so I don’t judge any politician for being old, I judge them for being Uninspired and unimaginative and unwilling to bring the fire.
I know my theory: sexism and racism. Dressed up however, a majority of voters went with the devil they knew because they couldn't take a chance on someone who made them feel "uncomfortable." (Or whatever word they used for it.)
Exactly, this is it, they would rather elect someone who’s known criminal, misogynist, crook, etc., than take a chance on a smart woman of color. Somethings never change.
Says Pam: "Exactly, this is it, they would rather elect someone who’s known criminal, misogynist, crook, etc., than take a chance on a smart woman of color."
Of course. Blame the loss entirely on sexism and racism. Let's not consider for one moment that voters had issues with the Democratic Party and their policies from the previous four years that Harris wanted to continue. Let's forget the fact that we were lied to about Biden's cognitive decline. Let's not consider the shift to the right of groups that the Left had taken for granted and the reasons for such. Despite Trump's many flaws, Kamala Harris was not exactly a "smart woman", regardless of skin color or the positions she's held. She couldn't handle a free-form interview without resorting to word-salad responses. She skipped Joe Rogan and the Al Smith Dinner. So we should only consider sexism and racism for Harris' loss because the Democratic Party and Harris have no issues whatsoever? Give me a break...
You can't fix a problem unless you first recognize you have a problem.
Neither of us said it was entirely sexism and racism. Just that they're probably the reasons that mattered most. Not appearing in all the spaces low information voters tune into? Fair enough--but did those voters somehow miss the fact that there was a binary choice? If they bought that Trump cared more because he did bro culture better, well, that's sexist in itself.
And if we're getting into the weeds, to say she's "Not exactly a smart woman" is pretty much one of those reasons that has a lot of sexism baked in. Because the race was between two people. That's it. Please don't try to tell me she didn't come off as the smarter of the two. (I got nothing for any folks who disagree on that--she was smarter and more credentialed than Trump was when he first ran. Besides, the man is proudly anti-intellectual. His idea of smart=white.)
I'd go so far as to say anyone who didn't find her "smart enough" was just looking for an excuse to not vote for her. Just like the folks who felt Hillary was "too corrupt" and then voted for the most corrupt guy to ever run for office weren't really concerned about corruption.
The choice was clear. If "being smart" was really a deciding factor for a voter they gave themselves away if they voted for Trump.
But I'll end on a happier note. Americans HAVE been happy to elect women to the state house, so I look forward to Mikie Sherill's and Abigail Spanberger's wins tomorrow.
"Neither of us said it was entirely sexism and racism. Just that they're probably the reasons that mattered most."
Neither one of you bothered to mention what percentage of the vote you attributed to sexism and racism. But you're in good company. No one that I know of on the Left in the political/pundit class ever quantified "sexism and racism" in terms of the number of votes. It's not quantifiable and it's a mentally lazy argument.
"And if we're getting into the weeds, to say she's "Not exactly a smart woman" is pretty much one of those reasons that has a lot of sexism baked in."
Pam's the one who said Kamala was a "smart woman of color" - are you calling her sexist and racist? Isn't that a double standard?
"I'd go so far as to say anyone who didn't find her "smart enough" was just looking for an excuse to not vote for her."
There are plenty of people on the planet who are smarter than me, you, and Pam. And it doesn't really matter their race, sex, or any other number of differences between us all. But those who thought Kamala was "smart enough" clearly didn't see her interviews with an objective eye. And there were absolutely no "smart" reasons to avoid a Joe Rogan interview and the Al Smith Dinner.
Neither one of you ever bothered to attribute Harris' loss to anything related to the Democratic Party or Harris herself. Again, you can't fix a problem unless you first recognize you have a problem. And no one in this forum wants to admit any mistakes the Dems made in their loss last year, including you.
Her biggest problem was relying on the old establishment and its consultants, instead of running a modern campaign.
But Kamala did make up significant ground on important issues, like the economy, in the states she campaigned in. There's an argument to be made that had she had more time, she would have won.
And then, of course, there's the right-wing propaganda machine.
I don't. Do we support democracy? Oppose fascism? Are women still the majority? Are they screwed figuatively and literally under MAGA? Is discrimination against minorities OK? Are tariffs a tax? Do we support Ukraine?
I keep posting. According to Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA) Trumpepstein may cause an "Epstein bomb" causing over 100 Republican members to "jailbreak" from Trump.
Quite a few voters who support democracy, women's rights, etc., did succumb to the personal charisma--if that's what it is--of this president during his first candidacy. I don't think we should underestimate the number of voters whose heads are turned by charisma before policy.
Once I heard a magaloid complaining that her Republican congressman wasn't "hurting the people we elected him to hurt," I knew what this was about. It's not about issues, and it's only about candidates who claim to hate the same people they do.
oh, maybe this is a good place to mention something else?
The attacks on Mamdani from 'moderate' Dems and right wing operatives working directly with Cuomo remind me a lot of the brutal attacks on Bernie Sanders by the DNC and 'moderate' Dems in 2015-16.
This 'big tent' that Rubin mentions - it has never been that way when progressives are taking the lead or getting traction...it is only expected that progressives will support the centrists, which they do more than not (it was people like Sinema and Manchin that thwarted Biden's plans, not The Squad).
Rubin could help change this by mentioning it a lot more often that she has to this point.
She should also be calling out NY's two Senators by name for their lack of support..you could also add Jeffries - his way-too-late endorsement , made only when it was a near certainly that Mamdani will win, only showed his political cowardice.
Many, if not most, vote their heart, their prejudices, and their hopes, and they believed in Trump's sincerity. "Personal charisma" captures the though perfectly. Boy . . . were they wrong.
Charisma without character is a recipe for disaster. So is projecting onto the candidate. Both of those gave us elected people like George Santos and John Fetterman. The first put together a story that seemed to draw from sports hero (volleyball), religion (claimed to be Jewish), nonprofit fundraiser (except he kept the money for himself), etc. Fetterman was someone who wore a hoody and shorts, so he was a perfect screen for the anti-establishment projections and a "shake up Washington mentality."
Bill Clinton was another candidate with charisma but a major character flaw. I will always blame him for Gore's loss to George W. Bush, as it set up an anti-incumbent wave that made it hard for Gore to break through. Just remember how close that election was.
With respect to Fetterman, it's important, if humbling, to remember that many Democratic Party insiders suppressed a whole lot of legitimate unease about the man, in the end promoting his candidacy over that of Conor Lamb, derided by many of the Party Faithful as too "centrist," too "moderate," too military and clean-cut.
The state party, divided, fell for the illusion that Fetterman, because he was abrasive and partisan and physically outre, was an Authentic Man Of The People, whereas Lamb, more cautious and moderate, was "Republican Lite." So the party rallied around Fetterman.
Well, the Man Of The People is now caucusing with Maga and making star turns on Fox. Conor Lamb wouldn't have done that.
I think of Fetterman v Lamb every time I see Democrats attacking this or that potential candidate as "too moderate," or declaring that the Party can only win by going hard to the left.
Thank you for a great comment on how Fetterman won the hearts of PA Dems (myself included, back when he still seemed rational). Conor Lamb is looking better.
Specifics matter. We got George Santos because the inept New York State Democratic party declined to vet him--didn't want to spend the money--even though his fabrications were hiding in plain sight. And Fetterman was running against a carpetbagging health quack (who's now in the administration! Yay!).
Santos was not the Democrats candidate to vet. That was the job of the republicans and the Press. I get that opposition research could have sunk him sooner. Instead Santos became the poster boy for republican rot, and then earned trump’s seal of approval for it.
That election might have gone a whole lot differently if the Supine Court had not stepped in and "in a landmark decision" stopped the Florida vote recount. Isn't what they did effectively election tampering?
What you say about the Supreme Court is true. However, I don't think the election would have been as close as it was if Gore had not been dealing with the Clinton baggage.
Right on, Steve. Bombast and lies are not charisma. It's unfortunate that a significant portion of the electorate confuses bombast, etc. as leadership. Leadership in a democracy is defined by setting policy and then working to accomplish it. It entails sitting down with the opposition; something this president is incapable of doing.
Whatever we call it, he appealed to enough people to win his first election. (Not sure he won the last one.) His appeal may be perverse, masochistic, but it gained him the presidency.
Please remember the scenario before the election. He was talking then about how he was going to cut government expenses, and how the little man would benefit. He had charisma. He's a different person now. As you say, mean, lying, and surley.
Outside of the fact that his denemtia has gotten a lot worse, he is the same nasty conniving piece of work that he always was. The Office of the Presidency gave him a bigger soapbox from which to spew his fear, lies, hate and revenge.
We should also remember that he had a "plan" to replace Obamacare. Eventually it became "a concept of a plan." Even now he won't put forth this plan as an alternative to be considered. Does anyone think he has any plan or goal other than removing anything that has Obama's name attached to it, from public notice?
Charisma? If people would actually listen to Trump's words and employ a little critical thinking, they would come to the conclusion that the man is a fraud and unfit to serve. His voice is a hypnotic drone.
You're right, of course. It's not true charisma. But despite his words, despite his actions, despite that terrible faux voice he seems to think signals profundity: despite all the falseness, he has had the power to suck in a sufficient number of followers. And of course he uses bullying to finish the job. Remember when in 2016 the Republican Party was considering not putting him on the ticket and he threatened that "all hell will break loose" if they defied him and his followers.
It’s unfortunate, but Trump was running against 15 poll-tested Republican Party hacks. The average voter prefers an authentically horrible candidate to an empty suit, and I don’t entirely blame them. The DNC is still run by poll-tested hacks. There must be a changing of the guard.
Your comment brought up so many bad memories I had of arguing with supposed left-leaning voters about Trump, who were somehow suckered into believing he was anti-war, he was pro-union, he would 'shake hings up'...when it was plainly obvious who he was and what he would do for many of us.
Some other descriptions didn't age well. Here are some comments from a right wing writer named Jennifer Rubin in 2015:
"Moreover, the shoe has yet to drop: At some point, if he (Trump) doesn’t blow up on his own, candidates and super PACs will drop negative ads portraying Trump, accurately, they say, as a liberal Democrat on a slew of issues. After all, he is erratic on the issues, a fact that issue-oriented activists will readily concede. Let’s remember, this is only August, when a fraction of primary voters are engaged. A full-blown counterattack against Trump is not likely to get underway for several months."
Trump, the liberal Democrat!
She goes on a length criticizing Trump's supposed 'liberal views' such as his support for 'universal, government-run health care', 'his pro-choice sister as a judge and refusal to commit to defunding Planned Parenthood', his views on 'Iran and Israel'.
She ends by saying that the GOP should ' dump rounds of ads to remind voters he’s a Democrat at heart'.
Has Rubin ever repented for saying garbage like this?, for being so utterly, completely wrong? How can someone so smart be so dumb?
OK, but at the same time let's not underestimate the number of voters whose heads are turned by campaign advertising, especially at the national level. And when it comes to Trump, let's not ignore garden-variety racism and, in 2024, sexism.
In 2024 exit and other polls reported that the top issues with Trump voters were immigration and inflation/the economy. "Immigration" is overwhelmingly about immigrants of color, and by 2024 we'd all seen Trump's 1/6/2021 temper tantrum about the 2020 election results (which he still hasn't accepted). At the very least, racism is a big part of Trump's "charisma."
the survivors had a huge impact on the Epstein pressure. I’ll give Dems some credit but mostly they have been total duds getting us to here and managing the current regime! look at the age of our reps?? party stifled challenges and thus let them get stale.
That's what got DJT elected. It was his cult of followers, not the party. It's those who today listen raptly to his lies, his garish redecorating, his cruelty. They love him, ergo love what he does! So, yes, I agree that it's the person who wins, and I'm definitely cheering for Mamdami!
Maybe you've never been a poll worker and noticed how many voters vote a straight ticket? For the last several decades in most places, true, voting for the best candidate means voting straight Democratic, but here in MA we had a respectable Republican, Charlie Baker, serve two terms as governor as recently as 2015–2023. I'm not sure he would have survived the GOP primary if he'd decided to run for a third term, but I can't remember *any* MA governor running for a third term.
I think that actions and policy are important. But there is something compelling about a candidate who gets behind actions and policies because they truly believe them to be the right ones rather than putting forward a poll-tested portfolio of what they think voters want to hear. It's called integrity and authenticity. When Mamdani outlines his priorities, I believe him. It also happens that affordability and standing up to the broligarchy are of central importance right now.
'there is something compelling about a candidate who gets behind actions and policies because they truly believe them to be the right ones rather than putting forward a poll-tested portfolio of what they think voters want to hear' - bingo.
Also kind of wondering if there is a bit of a backhanded compliment in this article: "He's young, charismatic and good at social media... SEE? that matters more than wonky policy!" But, the thing is, he has policy ideas. They are specific and they are rooted in real concern for working people: taxi drivers who are killing themselves because they can't get ahead of the red-tape, bodega owners who have more regulations to cope with than big businesses, food truck owners who are waiting for months to get approval to operate their businesses because applications are sitting in city hall. If he were "just" a pretty, charismatic face, I don't think he would have half the following.
The whole'he is just likable' argument that is pretty much the tone of this piece has been a 'backhanded' way for 'moderates' to reluctantly accept Mamdani will likely win while also dismissing what he actually stands for and why so many support him for some time now.
Mamdani is proof we've come a long way, baby, since the Hillary Clinton policy wonk days. Note to all: as Jennifer says, first find a great candidate, then figure out the policy agenda details, in that order.
For me, the "right candidate" is the one who has policy agenda details.... that they believe in. Who they are drives the issues they campaign about. So, there is a sense in which I would nuance it differently than Rubin does here. I don't want a "compelling candidate" who is a blank slate. I want the person and the policy to go hand in glove.
True. It's just that we have seen too many voters get hung up on one policy they might disagree with. Look how the Lebanese-American voters shot themselves in the foot because Biden didn't say exactly what they wanted to hear.
When I was doing voter canvassing there was one woman who clearly hated Trump, did not want him in power but she was all hung up on trans athletes and saw them as taking away women's rights/power. Wonder how she is feeling these days as the GOP fights to take away ALL women's rights!
I hear you. But as for candidates, I think they have to put what they actually think on the table, stand behind it, and let the chips fall where they may.
The best candidates don’t get found, they rise. Obama wasn’t found by anyone—he stepped forward and made an eloquent, powerful speech that absolutely captured the moment. Mamdani’s doing likewise. I’m not celebrating until the results are in, but it does seem like New Yorkers are set to deliver a message to the rest of the country. That includes the Democratic Party, which has not exactly covered itself in glory relative to Mamdani’s campaign.
And in that vein, young progressive voters have got to stop looking for the perfect idealistic candidate, writing off anyone with a different opinion on any one policy agenda. You don't have to agree on EVERYthing but look for the energy and intellect that cares about your life. We can talk about specific policy later.
Thank you, Jennifer. The thinning arm of this 87-year-old Jewish grandmother is raised in support of this impressive young man. My only regret is that I live in Chicago and don't have a vote in New York. I am dismayed that many of my countrymen/women/them can't see beyond his measured stance on Israel, and disparage Mamdani when Natanyahu's behavior has disheartened and embarrassed us. And, I also can't fathom why they instead support Cuomo. Don't we have enough lechers in our government? Isn't President Trump, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, enough? Why bring Cuomo back to create a trio of despicables?
Rubin understates the vitriol leveled at Mandami, particularly regarding his views on Israel's genocide, and for simply being a Muslim. She also understates the strong support for his ideas in NYC and beyond, and not just for him personally.
He has been attacked ruthlessly by both 'moderate' Democrats and Republicans for the crime of not being sufficiently pro-Israel. Cuomo, who volunteered to join Netanyahu's legal team to defend him against war crime charges, has leaned into overt Islamophobia out of desperation, joking that Mamdani would like to see another 9-11, while pro-Israel NY Democrats like Charles Schumer still refuse to endorse him.
It's not that 'millions of New Yorkers seem not to care about Mamdani’s identification as a socialist or views on the Middle East', it's that millions of New Yorkers actively support his 'socialist' bold ideas to address affordability, and also support his stance against Israel's carnage, while also saying that he will be the mayor of the city first and foremost.
It's notable that Rubin does not mention 'Israel' by name, the state that has continued to kill Palestinians in Gaza every single day since the 'ceasefire' started.
She is right that 'forcing ideological conformity is self-defeating, if not impossible. Some winning candidates may happen to be progressive, others may happen to be moderate', but she understates what a one way street this is for so many 'moderate' Democrats....and besides that, it isn't simply that Mamdani is charismatic. It's that people really support his ideas.
Her whole article is emblematic of a tack many 'moderates' have taken regarding Mamdani...that his appeal is primarily based on his charisma and personality..which simply is not true.
It is true that he is a great campaigner and, especially next to Cuomo, has personality in spades.
But millions of people are behind him because of his policy ideas. He has built a incredible grassroots campaign based on his policies proposals, not just his personality.
She deeply understates how viciously both Democrats and Republicans have fought against him, and how the former Democratic governor has worked openly with a motley crew of Republican donors and activists to fight him every way hey can.
It's not that the 'Establishment' doesn't 'get him' like the title suggests. They very much get him, and are actively, emphatically opposed to him. Rubin, as a consistent supporter of these same 'moderate' Democrats, can't say this directly.
I did not say that Rubin is not 'perceptive' in everything. She is very perceptive in many things and a highly skilled commentator..She also has some blind spots, particularly regarding progressives in the Democratic Party, and eve more regarding anything to do with Israel.
I agree with you about Jen. She is such a deep, thoughtful thinker and extremely perceptive. I think this piece she wrote was brilliant because her genuine sense of caring comes through and only accentuates and adds to her brilliant mind. She has what I consider "heart/mind". Thus, her writing is so powerful because her mind and heart are so obviously balanced and working together fully and harmoniously. I really like your comment, It's Come To This.
In tomorrow’s election for governor it will be interesting to see how it shakes out. The MAGA candidate is highly “unlikable” but there’s an R behind her name.
On 60 Minutes last night. DJT repeatedly called Mamdami a communist, still one of the worst labels, evidently, worse than racial slurs, words encouraging violence, and sexist rhetoric. Of even a small amount of education or smarts would show that Mamdami is not a communist--neither of which DJT has.
Yeah, that's what we expect from Orange Man of course... but for the billionaires backing Cuomo, being a 'communist' certainly is worse than being a racist or criminal ...
What is more damaging is what some 'moderate' Democrats are saying, like this exchange with Cuomo and a right wing radio host just a few days ago:
"God forbid another 9/11," said Cuomo, who is running as an independent candidate after losing the Democratic primary to Mamdani. "Can you imagine Mamdani in the seat?"
Host Sid Rosenberg, who has referred to Mamdani as a "terrorist," responded: "Yeah, I could. He'd be cheering."
Cuomo briefly paused, then laughed and said: "That's another problem."
Then Cuomo nodded while standing next to his new friend, Democratic NYC mayor Eric Adams, when he said:
'“New York can’t be Europe, folks. You see what’s playing out in other countries because of Islamic extremism, not Muslims. Let’s not mix this up.” '
I have seen Zohran Mamdani interviewed multiple times. What I have found refreshing is that he answered direct questions, articulated where he stood on taking the steps to make the city a better place to live. He said that if elected he would surround himself with intelligent people that would help him to govern and take the best path forward for all New Yorkers. I thought to myself isn't that the way to embody a government by the people for the people. The establishment is afraid of him because he represents change and they don't want anyone elected that would change/fix the way things are being run now because they want the status quo.
I am definitely not a youngster and have been voting since I turned 18 in 1975. And yet my support for candidates and for what is laughingly referred to as the "Left" these days (it isn't: the idea that being a humane person is a radically lefty thing instead of HOW EVERYONE SHOULD FEEL/BEHAVE is insane) is, according to this post, completely different from the opinions of my "peers" in the Boomer Generation. This quotation from Jen's post is what I have been screaming about for years: "Running corrupt, disgraced (but more moderate!) political hacks backed by billionaires was as dumb a move as the 'establishment' could have made. It was exactly what Mamdani needed to make this a contest between two visions of the city." The problem is not always that people are attracted to candidates they find personable. It is that Americans are the laziest people I have ever encountered when it comes to actually becoming informed and learning what the issues are. This leads to the enshittification of the entire political system because corrupt, cynical, billionaire-funded morons like Cuomo can be pushed forward as shills for their deep-pocketed handlers with impunity. Back in the 1990s, when asked why I supported Bill Clinton, I usually replied "I hate him. He's a total asshole. But he is OUR asshole." That is political expediency: one votes and supports the least-bad option and hopes that this will be sufficient. But ALL ALONG THE WAY I have longed for better options. And the Dems consistently shoot themselves in the face when it comes to giving up their addiction to machine politics and acknowledging that humans need new ideas and fresh faces. And please don't trot out all the crap about Liz Warren, AOC, and Bernie (who is not a Democrat): the idea that a tiny minority of successful Dem candidates don't have their heads firmly deposited up their own fundaments simply proves the rule.
> “It reminded me of Obama’s speech on race in 2008,”
I certainly hope our society is making progress on these issues. One might also point out Kennedy's speech on his religion, with him saying "I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic". Now there are 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court.
It's a worry that many are promoting "White Christian Nationalism". That's clearly a step backwards. We now have a vice president who publicly is urging his wife to convert (one might think that would be a private matter). Separation of church and state was paramount to the founding fathers. We should be listening to Thomas Jefferson, not Nick Fuentes.
Like the president, some in the Democratic Party establishment still conflate support for Palestinians with support for Hamas--demonstrated by the continued condemnation of and threats against those who support Palestinian rights. With the help of NYC Jews, Mamdani has been able to overcome this irrational, inflammatory conflation.
Donna, not yet: this is still aspirational. Just as support for the Palestinian people is not support for Hamas or Hezbollah, support for Jews in the world is NOT an endorsement of the horrific policies of the Israeli government. But most Ammurrikans find those distinctions too much to absorb into the tiny spot in their brains not filled up by sports scores, video games, and visual stimulation.
Part of this confusion is due to legacy media not making constant and clear distinctions. We (collectively) aren't getting the clear information that we need.
This is not just a problem here in the USA, though. It's really everywhere. I have traveled a lot over the years (I'm an academic and my research is non-USA based), as well as knowing a lot of scholars from all over the world. What I see most frequently are two things: [1] ALL news media, including highly regarded outlets like the BBC, prefer a reductive simplistic analysis that can be conveyed in 30 seconds to one that requires more time and is more nuanced. This policy works against a real understanding of issues in general, and interethnic conflicts in particular. [2] A presentation of all current events as a series of zero-sum games, which pit "Arabs" against "Jews," "Muslims" against "Christians," and BIPOC and women against white men. By feeding the spurious trope that if someone gets "ahead" another "falls behind," pretty much ALL media outlets create these convenient but false dichotomies. Unfortunately the predictably careless presentation of all ideas, policies, and positions as embodying a Hobbesian war of all against all works against real information, real analysis, and real situations.
Has Andrew Cuomo ever given any evidence that he would be anything other than another creature of big money? Does he have a vision of NYC as something other than million dollar real estate?
I’m 82 and do not live in New York. I’m following the race in NY out of intense interest. I lived through Vietnam, left the country to avoid my husband being drafted, nd frankly, think Mamdani is going to make a very good mayor because he REAL, like Obama is real. I agree that the old brand of politics is done. We will see what replaces it.
I beg to differ about the age issue, which is, sorry to bring it up, crassly ageist. My Senators, Markey and Warren, are as stalwart, as engaged, as charismatic as is Momdani. A younger guy, Rep. Seth Moulton, is running against Markey on the issue of age. Moulton is bigoted against trans people, and he expressed his unfounded opinions in an op/ed published by the WaPo. He's worried that his little girls will be run down on the playing fields by the trans athlete women! This fantasy overshadows real parental fears that our children and grandchildren will be mowed down in their schoolrooms by incel bros with assault rifles. Age is not the issue. Values, courage, leadership are! Please stop beating this bigoted drum.
Yes, good news is most democratic candidates share the basic values and commitment to compassionate governance. We in Maine have an astonishing roster of candidates vying to replace senator Collins, and another lively interesting gathering vying for governor. What a year!
Beautifully written, Jen Rubin. I applaud Zohran Mamdani for being willing to call out the islamophobia not only from the republicans but from grasping, low-road candidates in our party like the disgraced Andrew Cuomo. If Mamdani wins tomorrow as expected, he will have earned it, himself. People can tell he's not a product of the political consultant class, focused grouped into spewing pablum. People are tired of politicians who talk at them instead of to them, and they're responding to his authenticity.
Over the years, the firsts of their kind have had to do what Mamdani did: JFK had to address being a catholic candidate, Obama had to address race, and, sadly, even in 2025, Mamdani has had to address being muslim and a candidate. It's equally sad to see how many old guard Democrats have refused to endorse Zohran Mamdani, treating him as a caricature not a person. Well, hopefully, voters in NYC will set them straight tomorrow. I'm glad to see a Democratic rising star who doesn't look or sound like everyone else. Maybe that's why his star is rising. Food for thought....
Most disappointing to me is Andrew Cuomo. He's been a sleazebag and a bully his whole adult life ("vote for Cuomo, not the homo" was his slogan when his father was running against Ed Koch for office), but this time he's managed to outdo himself. Just when you think he couldn't be even more disgusting, he proves you wrong with his mocking and mist-stating Mamdani's religious beliefs.
I never lived in NYC, and moved out of the metro area over 50 years ago, but from what I remember of Mario Cuomo, particularly his keynote at the Democratic National Convention, he was not like that at all. He spoke in positive, uplifting terms, unlike his sleazebag son. I have a feeling he is rolling over in his grave because of the depths to which his son has stooped in order to capture an office.
I certainly hope the NYC voters toss Andrew Cuomo on the trash heap of history. But don't cry for him-- without a doubt he'll hang out in the Hamptons with his billionaire cronies and spend his aging years lighting his cigars with hundred-dollar-bills.
Andrew Cuomo has gone through life like an entitled nepo baby. He abused the voters' trust when he was governor, covering up the number of nursing home deaths during COVID, stealing COVID assistance to fund his book, and sexually assaulting a number of women including a state police officer. He's a typical didn't-earn-it pol who wouldn't be given the time of day if he didn't have a famous last name. He's the Megan McCain of elected politics. I hope tomorrow's election will be the stake through the heart of his political career - once and for all.
This is an eye opening piece, making me realize I’ve always been an electability voter without really thinking about it and need to stop. I haven’t paid much attention to the NYC mayor race but was riveted by this video of Mamdani (thank you John McWhorter for your recent article on pronouncing names). THAT is the sincere dynamic energy the Democrats need to break away from the MAGA headlock.
I have a white friend who live is NJ, but works in NYC, she is mid 40s, 2 kids and a husband. She is all for Mamdani, she is a CPA working in a legal firm. She said she is all for him, and says the dems need some fire for god sake. I’m an old adult but came of age in Vietnam protest, civil rights era, late 60s, and I don’t live there but am impressed with his approach. Yes, energy, like Obama. So this columns sums it up to me.
"Millions of voters think politicians are too old, too boring, and too phony." This statement does not seem apply for Kamala Harris. Why did she lose then?
I didn’t say that . And look at Bernie, he’s bringing the fire even though he’s old. So it’s all about attitude really and I’m sick as an old lady of people making assumptions about me on the account of my age so I don’t judge any politician for being old, I judge them for being Uninspired and unimaginative and unwilling to bring the fire.
Pam, you are great. Hiro
"This statement does not seem apply for Kamala Harris. Why did she lose then?"
Hiro, don't expect an honest, unbiased answer from most of those in this forum. Don't expect any answer at all from Jen.
Here's a snapshot of the generational breakdown in Congress:
"Age and generation in the 119th Congress: Somewhat younger, with fewer Boomers and more Gen Xers"
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/16/age-and-generation-in-the-119th-congress-somewhat-younger-with-fewer-boomers-and-more-gen-xers/
I know my theory: sexism and racism. Dressed up however, a majority of voters went with the devil they knew because they couldn't take a chance on someone who made them feel "uncomfortable." (Or whatever word they used for it.)
Exactly, this is it, they would rather elect someone who’s known criminal, misogynist, crook, etc., than take a chance on a smart woman of color. Somethings never change.
Says Jodi: "I know my theory: sexism and racism."
Says Pam: "Exactly, this is it, they would rather elect someone who’s known criminal, misogynist, crook, etc., than take a chance on a smart woman of color."
Of course. Blame the loss entirely on sexism and racism. Let's not consider for one moment that voters had issues with the Democratic Party and their policies from the previous four years that Harris wanted to continue. Let's forget the fact that we were lied to about Biden's cognitive decline. Let's not consider the shift to the right of groups that the Left had taken for granted and the reasons for such. Despite Trump's many flaws, Kamala Harris was not exactly a "smart woman", regardless of skin color or the positions she's held. She couldn't handle a free-form interview without resorting to word-salad responses. She skipped Joe Rogan and the Al Smith Dinner. So we should only consider sexism and racism for Harris' loss because the Democratic Party and Harris have no issues whatsoever? Give me a break...
You can't fix a problem unless you first recognize you have a problem.
Neither of us said it was entirely sexism and racism. Just that they're probably the reasons that mattered most. Not appearing in all the spaces low information voters tune into? Fair enough--but did those voters somehow miss the fact that there was a binary choice? If they bought that Trump cared more because he did bro culture better, well, that's sexist in itself.
And if we're getting into the weeds, to say she's "Not exactly a smart woman" is pretty much one of those reasons that has a lot of sexism baked in. Because the race was between two people. That's it. Please don't try to tell me she didn't come off as the smarter of the two. (I got nothing for any folks who disagree on that--she was smarter and more credentialed than Trump was when he first ran. Besides, the man is proudly anti-intellectual. His idea of smart=white.)
I'd go so far as to say anyone who didn't find her "smart enough" was just looking for an excuse to not vote for her. Just like the folks who felt Hillary was "too corrupt" and then voted for the most corrupt guy to ever run for office weren't really concerned about corruption.
The choice was clear. If "being smart" was really a deciding factor for a voter they gave themselves away if they voted for Trump.
But I'll end on a happier note. Americans HAVE been happy to elect women to the state house, so I look forward to Mikie Sherill's and Abigail Spanberger's wins tomorrow.
Jodi, you said what needed saying to Hal. Thank you.
"Neither of us said it was entirely sexism and racism. Just that they're probably the reasons that mattered most."
Neither one of you bothered to mention what percentage of the vote you attributed to sexism and racism. But you're in good company. No one that I know of on the Left in the political/pundit class ever quantified "sexism and racism" in terms of the number of votes. It's not quantifiable and it's a mentally lazy argument.
"And if we're getting into the weeds, to say she's "Not exactly a smart woman" is pretty much one of those reasons that has a lot of sexism baked in."
Pam's the one who said Kamala was a "smart woman of color" - are you calling her sexist and racist? Isn't that a double standard?
"I'd go so far as to say anyone who didn't find her "smart enough" was just looking for an excuse to not vote for her."
There are plenty of people on the planet who are smarter than me, you, and Pam. And it doesn't really matter their race, sex, or any other number of differences between us all. But those who thought Kamala was "smart enough" clearly didn't see her interviews with an objective eye. And there were absolutely no "smart" reasons to avoid a Joe Rogan interview and the Al Smith Dinner.
Neither one of you ever bothered to attribute Harris' loss to anything related to the Democratic Party or Harris herself. Again, you can't fix a problem unless you first recognize you have a problem. And no one in this forum wants to admit any mistakes the Dems made in their loss last year, including you.
Her biggest problem was relying on the old establishment and its consultants, instead of running a modern campaign.
But Kamala did make up significant ground on important issues, like the economy, in the states she campaigned in. There's an argument to be made that had she had more time, she would have won.
And then, of course, there's the right-wing propaganda machine.
Thanks Tim!
I agree wholeheartedly. It is the person we plebs vote for, not the party, and frankly, always has been so.
I don't. Do we support democracy? Oppose fascism? Are women still the majority? Are they screwed figuatively and literally under MAGA? Is discrimination against minorities OK? Are tariffs a tax? Do we support Ukraine?
The Democratic Party has your back. https://blueprint.democrats.org/
Will Contrarian come to DC Nov 18?
I keep posting. According to Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA) Trumpepstein may cause an "Epstein bomb" causing over 100 Republican members to "jailbreak" from Trump.
Massive Congressional visits November 18.
https://www.instagram.com/flare.usa/p/DP_mdOyjdiG/
Visit CongressionalRepublicans.
https://www.mobilize.us/indivisible/event/851451/
I continue to be exasperated by the parties and lawyers with cases when justices and judges who have dispositive records of bribery and prejudice are not challenged. At SCOTUS, Roberts opened the door in November, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf
Quite a few voters who support democracy, women's rights, etc., did succumb to the personal charisma--if that's what it is--of this president during his first candidacy. I don't think we should underestimate the number of voters whose heads are turned by charisma before policy.
Once I heard a magaloid complaining that her Republican congressman wasn't "hurting the people we elected him to hurt," I knew what this was about. It's not about issues, and it's only about candidates who claim to hate the same people they do.
It's all about hate.
Yes, the acceptance of being out in the open with one's hate and bigotry is the biggest legacy of trump. The press has normalized his behavior.
Yep. For the press, hatred and violence are good for business.
oh, maybe this is a good place to mention something else?
The attacks on Mamdani from 'moderate' Dems and right wing operatives working directly with Cuomo remind me a lot of the brutal attacks on Bernie Sanders by the DNC and 'moderate' Dems in 2015-16.
This 'big tent' that Rubin mentions - it has never been that way when progressives are taking the lead or getting traction...it is only expected that progressives will support the centrists, which they do more than not (it was people like Sinema and Manchin that thwarted Biden's plans, not The Squad).
Rubin could help change this by mentioning it a lot more often that she has to this point.
She should also be calling out NY's two Senators by name for their lack of support..you could also add Jeffries - his way-too-late endorsement , made only when it was a near certainly that Mamdani will win, only showed his political cowardice.
Many, if not most, vote their heart, their prejudices, and their hopes, and they believed in Trump's sincerity. "Personal charisma" captures the though perfectly. Boy . . . were they wrong.
Charisma without character is a recipe for disaster. So is projecting onto the candidate. Both of those gave us elected people like George Santos and John Fetterman. The first put together a story that seemed to draw from sports hero (volleyball), religion (claimed to be Jewish), nonprofit fundraiser (except he kept the money for himself), etc. Fetterman was someone who wore a hoody and shorts, so he was a perfect screen for the anti-establishment projections and a "shake up Washington mentality."
Bill Clinton was another candidate with charisma but a major character flaw. I will always blame him for Gore's loss to George W. Bush, as it set up an anti-incumbent wave that made it hard for Gore to break through. Just remember how close that election was.
With respect to Fetterman, it's important, if humbling, to remember that many Democratic Party insiders suppressed a whole lot of legitimate unease about the man, in the end promoting his candidacy over that of Conor Lamb, derided by many of the Party Faithful as too "centrist," too "moderate," too military and clean-cut.
The state party, divided, fell for the illusion that Fetterman, because he was abrasive and partisan and physically outre, was an Authentic Man Of The People, whereas Lamb, more cautious and moderate, was "Republican Lite." So the party rallied around Fetterman.
Well, the Man Of The People is now caucusing with Maga and making star turns on Fox. Conor Lamb wouldn't have done that.
I think of Fetterman v Lamb every time I see Democrats attacking this or that potential candidate as "too moderate," or declaring that the Party can only win by going hard to the left.
Thank you for a great comment on how Fetterman won the hearts of PA Dems (myself included, back when he still seemed rational). Conor Lamb is looking better.
Specifics matter. We got George Santos because the inept New York State Democratic party declined to vet him--didn't want to spend the money--even though his fabrications were hiding in plain sight. And Fetterman was running against a carpetbagging health quack (who's now in the administration! Yay!).
Santos was not the Democrats candidate to vet. That was the job of the republicans and the Press. I get that opposition research could have sunk him sooner. Instead Santos became the poster boy for republican rot, and then earned trump’s seal of approval for it.
I need to clarify. I was referring to Fetterman's Democratic primary race, not the race against that idiot Oz.
That election might have gone a whole lot differently if the Supine Court had not stepped in and "in a landmark decision" stopped the Florida vote recount. Isn't what they did effectively election tampering?
What you say about the Supreme Court is true. However, I don't think the election would have been as close as it was if Gore had not been dealing with the Clinton baggage.
To say that a bully has charisma just does not fit. Spewing threats, lies, fear and hate may be compelling to some, but charisma it ain't.
Right on, Steve. Bombast and lies are not charisma. It's unfortunate that a significant portion of the electorate confuses bombast, etc. as leadership. Leadership in a democracy is defined by setting policy and then working to accomplish it. It entails sitting down with the opposition; something this president is incapable of doing.
Whatever we call it, he appealed to enough people to win his first election. (Not sure he won the last one.) His appeal may be perverse, masochistic, but it gained him the presidency.
I don’t think he won the first time legitimately either. He’s cheated at everything all his life. It’s what he does.
Please remember the scenario before the election. He was talking then about how he was going to cut government expenses, and how the little man would benefit. He had charisma. He's a different person now. As you say, mean, lying, and surley.
Outside of the fact that his denemtia has gotten a lot worse, he is the same nasty conniving piece of work that he always was. The Office of the Presidency gave him a bigger soapbox from which to spew his fear, lies, hate and revenge.
We should also remember that he had a "plan" to replace Obamacare. Eventually it became "a concept of a plan." Even now he won't put forth this plan as an alternative to be considered. Does anyone think he has any plan or goal other than removing anything that has Obama's name attached to it, from public notice?
Charisma? If people would actually listen to Trump's words and employ a little critical thinking, they would come to the conclusion that the man is a fraud and unfit to serve. His voice is a hypnotic drone.
You're right, of course. It's not true charisma. But despite his words, despite his actions, despite that terrible faux voice he seems to think signals profundity: despite all the falseness, he has had the power to suck in a sufficient number of followers. And of course he uses bullying to finish the job. Remember when in 2016 the Republican Party was considering not putting him on the ticket and he threatened that "all hell will break loose" if they defied him and his followers.
And all hell did break loose - after they fell for him (and his followers).
It’s unfortunate, but Trump was running against 15 poll-tested Republican Party hacks. The average voter prefers an authentically horrible candidate to an empty suit, and I don’t entirely blame them. The DNC is still run by poll-tested hacks. There must be a changing of the guard.
Your comment brought up so many bad memories I had of arguing with supposed left-leaning voters about Trump, who were somehow suckered into believing he was anti-war, he was pro-union, he would 'shake hings up'...when it was plainly obvious who he was and what he would do for many of us.
Some other descriptions didn't age well. Here are some comments from a right wing writer named Jennifer Rubin in 2015:
"Moreover, the shoe has yet to drop: At some point, if he (Trump) doesn’t blow up on his own, candidates and super PACs will drop negative ads portraying Trump, accurately, they say, as a liberal Democrat on a slew of issues. After all, he is erratic on the issues, a fact that issue-oriented activists will readily concede. Let’s remember, this is only August, when a fraction of primary voters are engaged. A full-blown counterattack against Trump is not likely to get underway for several months."
Trump, the liberal Democrat!
She goes on a length criticizing Trump's supposed 'liberal views' such as his support for 'universal, government-run health care', 'his pro-choice sister as a judge and refusal to commit to defunding Planned Parenthood', his views on 'Iran and Israel'.
She ends by saying that the GOP should ' dump rounds of ads to remind voters he’s a Democrat at heart'.
Has Rubin ever repented for saying garbage like this?, for being so utterly, completely wrong? How can someone so smart be so dumb?
can we get some good pros and cons about this?
Pros and cons about what?
OK, but at the same time let's not underestimate the number of voters whose heads are turned by campaign advertising, especially at the national level. And when it comes to Trump, let's not ignore garden-variety racism and, in 2024, sexism.
In 2024 exit and other polls reported that the top issues with Trump voters were immigration and inflation/the economy. "Immigration" is overwhelmingly about immigrants of color, and by 2024 we'd all seen Trump's 1/6/2021 temper tantrum about the 2020 election results (which he still hasn't accepted). At the very least, racism is a big part of Trump's "charisma."
the survivors had a huge impact on the Epstein pressure. I’ll give Dems some credit but mostly they have been total duds getting us to here and managing the current regime! look at the age of our reps?? party stifled challenges and thus let them get stale.
That's what got DJT elected. It was his cult of followers, not the party. It's those who today listen raptly to his lies, his garish redecorating, his cruelty. They love him, ergo love what he does! So, yes, I agree that it's the person who wins, and I'm definitely cheering for Mamdami!
After MAGA/Trump hijacked the Republican Party, it's quite appropriate to ask if the Republican Party exists any more.
Maybe you've never been a poll worker and noticed how many voters vote a straight ticket? For the last several decades in most places, true, voting for the best candidate means voting straight Democratic, but here in MA we had a respectable Republican, Charlie Baker, serve two terms as governor as recently as 2015–2023. I'm not sure he would have survived the GOP primary if he'd decided to run for a third term, but I can't remember *any* MA governor running for a third term.
But shouldn’t that person reflect what the people want? It’s a matter of personality, vision, skills and leadership that creates a winner.
I think that actions and policy are important. But there is something compelling about a candidate who gets behind actions and policies because they truly believe them to be the right ones rather than putting forward a poll-tested portfolio of what they think voters want to hear. It's called integrity and authenticity. When Mamdani outlines his priorities, I believe him. It also happens that affordability and standing up to the broligarchy are of central importance right now.
'there is something compelling about a candidate who gets behind actions and policies because they truly believe them to be the right ones rather than putting forward a poll-tested portfolio of what they think voters want to hear' - bingo.
Also kind of wondering if there is a bit of a backhanded compliment in this article: "He's young, charismatic and good at social media... SEE? that matters more than wonky policy!" But, the thing is, he has policy ideas. They are specific and they are rooted in real concern for working people: taxi drivers who are killing themselves because they can't get ahead of the red-tape, bodega owners who have more regulations to cope with than big businesses, food truck owners who are waiting for months to get approval to operate their businesses because applications are sitting in city hall. If he were "just" a pretty, charismatic face, I don't think he would have half the following.
The whole'he is just likable' argument that is pretty much the tone of this piece has been a 'backhanded' way for 'moderates' to reluctantly accept Mamdani will likely win while also dismissing what he actually stands for and why so many support him for some time now.
Yes!
Mamdani is proof we've come a long way, baby, since the Hillary Clinton policy wonk days. Note to all: as Jennifer says, first find a great candidate, then figure out the policy agenda details, in that order.
For me, the "right candidate" is the one who has policy agenda details.... that they believe in. Who they are drives the issues they campaign about. So, there is a sense in which I would nuance it differently than Rubin does here. I don't want a "compelling candidate" who is a blank slate. I want the person and the policy to go hand in glove.
True. It's just that we have seen too many voters get hung up on one policy they might disagree with. Look how the Lebanese-American voters shot themselves in the foot because Biden didn't say exactly what they wanted to hear.
When I was doing voter canvassing there was one woman who clearly hated Trump, did not want him in power but she was all hung up on trans athletes and saw them as taking away women's rights/power. Wonder how she is feeling these days as the GOP fights to take away ALL women's rights!
"seen too many voters get hung up on one policy they might disagree with.” such a good point. are we learning from this??
Ah yes, the one issue voter. We should not ignore the good in a quest for the perfect.
I hear you. But as for candidates, I think they have to put what they actually think on the table, stand behind it, and let the chips fall where they may.
That's a good way of phrasing it.
"For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks." Luke 6:45
The best candidates don’t get found, they rise. Obama wasn’t found by anyone—he stepped forward and made an eloquent, powerful speech that absolutely captured the moment. Mamdani’s doing likewise. I’m not celebrating until the results are in, but it does seem like New Yorkers are set to deliver a message to the rest of the country. That includes the Democratic Party, which has not exactly covered itself in glory relative to Mamdani’s campaign.
And in that vein, young progressive voters have got to stop looking for the perfect idealistic candidate, writing off anyone with a different opinion on any one policy agenda. You don't have to agree on EVERYthing but look for the energy and intellect that cares about your life. We can talk about specific policy later.
I don't think Mamdani appeals because he is perfect, but because he is authentically committed to his agenda.
most long time Dem consultants should repent and show some spine or get out of the way. consultants….. lobbyists…. all the same
Thank you, Jennifer. The thinning arm of this 87-year-old Jewish grandmother is raised in support of this impressive young man. My only regret is that I live in Chicago and don't have a vote in New York. I am dismayed that many of my countrymen/women/them can't see beyond his measured stance on Israel, and disparage Mamdani when Natanyahu's behavior has disheartened and embarrassed us. And, I also can't fathom why they instead support Cuomo. Don't we have enough lechers in our government? Isn't President Trump, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, enough? Why bring Cuomo back to create a trio of despicables?
Rubin understates the vitriol leveled at Mandami, particularly regarding his views on Israel's genocide, and for simply being a Muslim. She also understates the strong support for his ideas in NYC and beyond, and not just for him personally.
He has been attacked ruthlessly by both 'moderate' Democrats and Republicans for the crime of not being sufficiently pro-Israel. Cuomo, who volunteered to join Netanyahu's legal team to defend him against war crime charges, has leaned into overt Islamophobia out of desperation, joking that Mamdani would like to see another 9-11, while pro-Israel NY Democrats like Charles Schumer still refuse to endorse him.
It's not that 'millions of New Yorkers seem not to care about Mamdani’s identification as a socialist or views on the Middle East', it's that millions of New Yorkers actively support his 'socialist' bold ideas to address affordability, and also support his stance against Israel's carnage, while also saying that he will be the mayor of the city first and foremost.
It's notable that Rubin does not mention 'Israel' by name, the state that has continued to kill Palestinians in Gaza every single day since the 'ceasefire' started.
She is right that 'forcing ideological conformity is self-defeating, if not impossible. Some winning candidates may happen to be progressive, others may happen to be moderate', but she understates what a one way street this is for so many 'moderate' Democrats....and besides that, it isn't simply that Mamdani is charismatic. It's that people really support his ideas.
She doesn't understate or underestimate anything, in my opinion. I think she's far more perceptive than you give her credit for.
Nope. You should read the article again.
Her whole article is emblematic of a tack many 'moderates' have taken regarding Mamdani...that his appeal is primarily based on his charisma and personality..which simply is not true.
It is true that he is a great campaigner and, especially next to Cuomo, has personality in spades.
But millions of people are behind him because of his policy ideas. He has built a incredible grassroots campaign based on his policies proposals, not just his personality.
She deeply understates how viciously both Democrats and Republicans have fought against him, and how the former Democratic governor has worked openly with a motley crew of Republican donors and activists to fight him every way hey can.
It's not that the 'Establishment' doesn't 'get him' like the title suggests. They very much get him, and are actively, emphatically opposed to him. Rubin, as a consistent supporter of these same 'moderate' Democrats, can't say this directly.
I did not say that Rubin is not 'perceptive' in everything. She is very perceptive in many things and a highly skilled commentator..She also has some blind spots, particularly regarding progressives in the Democratic Party, and eve more regarding anything to do with Israel.
I agree with you about Jen. She is such a deep, thoughtful thinker and extremely perceptive. I think this piece she wrote was brilliant because her genuine sense of caring comes through and only accentuates and adds to her brilliant mind. She has what I consider "heart/mind". Thus, her writing is so powerful because her mind and heart are so obviously balanced and working together fully and harmoniously. I really like your comment, It's Come To This.
In tomorrow’s election for governor it will be interesting to see how it shakes out. The MAGA candidate is highly “unlikable” but there’s an R behind her name.
On 60 Minutes last night. DJT repeatedly called Mamdami a communist, still one of the worst labels, evidently, worse than racial slurs, words encouraging violence, and sexist rhetoric. Of even a small amount of education or smarts would show that Mamdami is not a communist--neither of which DJT has.
Yeah, that's what we expect from Orange Man of course... but for the billionaires backing Cuomo, being a 'communist' certainly is worse than being a racist or criminal ...
What is more damaging is what some 'moderate' Democrats are saying, like this exchange with Cuomo and a right wing radio host just a few days ago:
"God forbid another 9/11," said Cuomo, who is running as an independent candidate after losing the Democratic primary to Mamdani. "Can you imagine Mamdani in the seat?"
Host Sid Rosenberg, who has referred to Mamdani as a "terrorist," responded: "Yeah, I could. He'd be cheering."
Cuomo briefly paused, then laughed and said: "That's another problem."
Then Cuomo nodded while standing next to his new friend, Democratic NYC mayor Eric Adams, when he said:
'“New York can’t be Europe, folks. You see what’s playing out in other countries because of Islamic extremism, not Muslims. Let’s not mix this up.” '
I have seen Zohran Mamdani interviewed multiple times. What I have found refreshing is that he answered direct questions, articulated where he stood on taking the steps to make the city a better place to live. He said that if elected he would surround himself with intelligent people that would help him to govern and take the best path forward for all New Yorkers. I thought to myself isn't that the way to embody a government by the people for the people. The establishment is afraid of him because he represents change and they don't want anyone elected that would change/fix the way things are being run now because they want the status quo.
I am definitely not a youngster and have been voting since I turned 18 in 1975. And yet my support for candidates and for what is laughingly referred to as the "Left" these days (it isn't: the idea that being a humane person is a radically lefty thing instead of HOW EVERYONE SHOULD FEEL/BEHAVE is insane) is, according to this post, completely different from the opinions of my "peers" in the Boomer Generation. This quotation from Jen's post is what I have been screaming about for years: "Running corrupt, disgraced (but more moderate!) political hacks backed by billionaires was as dumb a move as the 'establishment' could have made. It was exactly what Mamdani needed to make this a contest between two visions of the city." The problem is not always that people are attracted to candidates they find personable. It is that Americans are the laziest people I have ever encountered when it comes to actually becoming informed and learning what the issues are. This leads to the enshittification of the entire political system because corrupt, cynical, billionaire-funded morons like Cuomo can be pushed forward as shills for their deep-pocketed handlers with impunity. Back in the 1990s, when asked why I supported Bill Clinton, I usually replied "I hate him. He's a total asshole. But he is OUR asshole." That is political expediency: one votes and supports the least-bad option and hopes that this will be sufficient. But ALL ALONG THE WAY I have longed for better options. And the Dems consistently shoot themselves in the face when it comes to giving up their addiction to machine politics and acknowledging that humans need new ideas and fresh faces. And please don't trot out all the crap about Liz Warren, AOC, and Bernie (who is not a Democrat): the idea that a tiny minority of successful Dem candidates don't have their heads firmly deposited up their own fundaments simply proves the rule.
> “It reminded me of Obama’s speech on race in 2008,”
I certainly hope our society is making progress on these issues. One might also point out Kennedy's speech on his religion, with him saying "I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic". Now there are 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court.
It's a worry that many are promoting "White Christian Nationalism". That's clearly a step backwards. We now have a vice president who publicly is urging his wife to convert (one might think that would be a private matter). Separation of church and state was paramount to the founding fathers. We should be listening to Thomas Jefferson, not Nick Fuentes.
I expect hillbilly boy will drop brown usha for c jerks wife when he tries to run for pres...
Like the president, some in the Democratic Party establishment still conflate support for Palestinians with support for Hamas--demonstrated by the continued condemnation of and threats against those who support Palestinian rights. With the help of NYC Jews, Mamdani has been able to overcome this irrational, inflammatory conflation.
Donna, not yet: this is still aspirational. Just as support for the Palestinian people is not support for Hamas or Hezbollah, support for Jews in the world is NOT an endorsement of the horrific policies of the Israeli government. But most Ammurrikans find those distinctions too much to absorb into the tiny spot in their brains not filled up by sports scores, video games, and visual stimulation.
Part of this confusion is due to legacy media not making constant and clear distinctions. We (collectively) aren't getting the clear information that we need.
This is not just a problem here in the USA, though. It's really everywhere. I have traveled a lot over the years (I'm an academic and my research is non-USA based), as well as knowing a lot of scholars from all over the world. What I see most frequently are two things: [1] ALL news media, including highly regarded outlets like the BBC, prefer a reductive simplistic analysis that can be conveyed in 30 seconds to one that requires more time and is more nuanced. This policy works against a real understanding of issues in general, and interethnic conflicts in particular. [2] A presentation of all current events as a series of zero-sum games, which pit "Arabs" against "Jews," "Muslims" against "Christians," and BIPOC and women against white men. By feeding the spurious trope that if someone gets "ahead" another "falls behind," pretty much ALL media outlets create these convenient but false dichotomies. Unfortunately the predictably careless presentation of all ideas, policies, and positions as embodying a Hobbesian war of all against all works against real information, real analysis, and real situations.
A,very powerful video, indeed.
Has Andrew Cuomo ever given any evidence that he would be anything other than another creature of big money? Does he have a vision of NYC as something other than million dollar real estate?
no
I’m 82 and do not live in New York. I’m following the race in NY out of intense interest. I lived through Vietnam, left the country to avoid my husband being drafted, nd frankly, think Mamdani is going to make a very good mayor because he REAL, like Obama is real. I agree that the old brand of politics is done. We will see what replaces it.
I beg to differ about the age issue, which is, sorry to bring it up, crassly ageist. My Senators, Markey and Warren, are as stalwart, as engaged, as charismatic as is Momdani. A younger guy, Rep. Seth Moulton, is running against Markey on the issue of age. Moulton is bigoted against trans people, and he expressed his unfounded opinions in an op/ed published by the WaPo. He's worried that his little girls will be run down on the playing fields by the trans athlete women! This fantasy overshadows real parental fears that our children and grandchildren will be mowed down in their schoolrooms by incel bros with assault rifles. Age is not the issue. Values, courage, leadership are! Please stop beating this bigoted drum.
I’m in complete agreement with you Anca. We can have wonderful and terrible leaders from any age. 💔🇺🇸
I don't live in NYC but if I did, this courageous gentleman would have my vote.
If I lived in NYC, and if he didn't support Jewish Voice for Peace and BDS, I'd vote for him. But those are dealbreakers.
Here we have an example of the one-issue voter.
Yes, good news is most democratic candidates share the basic values and commitment to compassionate governance. We in Maine have an astonishing roster of candidates vying to replace senator Collins, and another lively interesting gathering vying for governor. What a year!
Beautifully written, Jen Rubin. I applaud Zohran Mamdani for being willing to call out the islamophobia not only from the republicans but from grasping, low-road candidates in our party like the disgraced Andrew Cuomo. If Mamdani wins tomorrow as expected, he will have earned it, himself. People can tell he's not a product of the political consultant class, focused grouped into spewing pablum. People are tired of politicians who talk at them instead of to them, and they're responding to his authenticity.
Over the years, the firsts of their kind have had to do what Mamdani did: JFK had to address being a catholic candidate, Obama had to address race, and, sadly, even in 2025, Mamdani has had to address being muslim and a candidate. It's equally sad to see how many old guard Democrats have refused to endorse Zohran Mamdani, treating him as a caricature not a person. Well, hopefully, voters in NYC will set them straight tomorrow. I'm glad to see a Democratic rising star who doesn't look or sound like everyone else. Maybe that's why his star is rising. Food for thought....
Most disappointing to me is Andrew Cuomo. He's been a sleazebag and a bully his whole adult life ("vote for Cuomo, not the homo" was his slogan when his father was running against Ed Koch for office), but this time he's managed to outdo himself. Just when you think he couldn't be even more disgusting, he proves you wrong with his mocking and mist-stating Mamdani's religious beliefs.
I never lived in NYC, and moved out of the metro area over 50 years ago, but from what I remember of Mario Cuomo, particularly his keynote at the Democratic National Convention, he was not like that at all. He spoke in positive, uplifting terms, unlike his sleazebag son. I have a feeling he is rolling over in his grave because of the depths to which his son has stooped in order to capture an office.
I certainly hope the NYC voters toss Andrew Cuomo on the trash heap of history. But don't cry for him-- without a doubt he'll hang out in the Hamptons with his billionaire cronies and spend his aging years lighting his cigars with hundred-dollar-bills.
Andrew Cuomo has gone through life like an entitled nepo baby. He abused the voters' trust when he was governor, covering up the number of nursing home deaths during COVID, stealing COVID assistance to fund his book, and sexually assaulting a number of women including a state police officer. He's a typical didn't-earn-it pol who wouldn't be given the time of day if he didn't have a famous last name. He's the Megan McCain of elected politics. I hope tomorrow's election will be the stake through the heart of his political career - once and for all.
This is an eye opening piece, making me realize I’ve always been an electability voter without really thinking about it and need to stop. I haven’t paid much attention to the NYC mayor race but was riveted by this video of Mamdani (thank you John McWhorter for your recent article on pronouncing names). THAT is the sincere dynamic energy the Democrats need to break away from the MAGA headlock.