2025 & 2026 Elections

[akillesheel]

They can’t win. Harris lost because of an ad on prisoners getting taxpayer funded surgeries. A socialist who has the positions this guy has (including calling himself a socialist) has no chance. The ads will write themselves.

it's at least as likely that Harris lost due to attack ads about trans people as it is that she lost because her campaign gave up on the "weird" attack and the energy she was generating around change from the status quo in favor of hammering toughness on the border and palling around with Liz Cheney.

 

[superrific]

The same people now downplaying the result would’ve pointed to it as proof that the left can’t win anywhere, even in NYC.

Because this wouldn't be one data point. It would be one more of thousands of data points of successful red baiting. As you say, the conventional wisdom holds that socialists can't win. Well, the conventional wisdom is usually conventional because there's some truth to it. Don't get me wrong: I'm as anti-conventional wisdom as they come. It's one of my core personality traits: I don't just accept statements without understanding the basis. It's just that the evidentiary burden is much higher when challenging the conventional wisdom than agreeing with it.

By the same token, conventional wisdom usually loses veracity over time for that very reason: accepting anything as true without examining the basis is not actually wisdom at all. And the conventional wisdom can slip into falseness on its own momentum, like a glacier gradually sliding down a slope. In 2006, it was conventional wisdom that a black man would not be elected president any time soon. Heh heh. But again, the conventional wisdom has been formed by multitudes of examples. More than one data point is needed to push back.

 

[Calheel]

No, you really do need to be there. We have a poster here saying that he thinks the result was mostly reflective of Gaza/Israel. You've said that was wrong, but on what basis? I suspect that there were a lot of "never Cuomo" voters and that might be a complete explanation of the result. How many? Well, hard to say -- but it's easier to say if you're living there and surrounded by New Yorkers.

I'm not native to NYC. I was born in NC. I spent much of my childhood there. I didn't move to NYC until after grad school, and the city was different than my expectations. Here's one illustrative example: when we were getting ready to move there, I was talking with a NYer who had relocated. He said, "don't bring your shorts, nobody in NYC wears shorts." I figured he was exaggerating, because it just can't be that the rest of the country wears shorts but not in NYC. It was true. You wear shorts to play sports. Otherwise it's long pants. And I internalized that so much that I still don't like to wear shorts outside.

The point isn't that shorts versus long pants is important. It's that there are unknown unknowns: things you don't know about a place, and you have no idea that you don't know them. It would never have occurred to me that shorts are not a thing in New York. It was different in a way that I couldn't foresee. So maybe it's a good idea to have a bit more humility when making pronouncements about a place that is sui generis if you haven't been there. Hell, even if you have lived there your whole life . . .

P.S. I don't know if the "no shorts" thing is still true. But in the 90s and 2000s, it absolutely was.

The "no shorts" thing was the biggest shock to me when I traveled the world in 2003-04. You could be in some of the hottest, most humid places on earth (India, Thailand, Africa) and nobody but tourists and school kids wore shorts.

 

[tallheel95]

The "no shorts" thing was the biggest shock to me when I traveled the world in 2003-04. You could be in some of the hottest, most humid places on earth (India, Thailand, Africa) and nobody but tourists and school kids wore shorts.

My husband lived in an African country for a few years and still to this day hesitates to wear shorts.

 

[superrific]

If local residency is now the new litmus test for commenting on high-profile political races, we’d all better pack it in.

Plenty of people who actually live in NYC, including those who cover politics for a living, have made the same points I’m making. Gaza played a role, sure, but it didn’t decide the race. Mamdani built a movement around housing, transit, care, and economic dignity. That’s why he surged from 1% to winning. And frankly, it’s condescending to assume that only locals are capable of interpreting publicly available data, polling, and political dynamics in a race that drew national attention and commentary.

1. It's not condescending at all. And note that I'm not a NYC resident any more, so I'm not exactly elevating myself here. What I know about NYC is getting pretty stale. I think I will always understand the city, but I won't understand the particulars.

2. I'm not making local residency a litmus test. I'm saying that there are places where residency is more or less important. Where I live now is not particularly special. It's not as nice as Durham/Chapel Hill or what I imagine Charlotte to be (haven't been there in a long, long time) but it's not that different. I don't think I'm particularly more knowledgeable about the political environment here than people who study American politics.

NYC is different. It's just not like the rest of America and if you haven't been there, it's hard to appreciate. For one thing, the "white" people in NY aren't like white people elsewhere in America. That's largely because a fairly high % of the white people are Europeans and have spent little time in America outside of NY. Even a lot of native "white" people who are residents aren't typical of other places. For instance, my barber in Park Slope was Uzbeki. He looked white and identified as white. But he lived in a Uzbeki neighborhood (yes, there's an Uzbeki neighborhood -- there are hundreds of different ethnic enclaves and fissures arise when they collide) and that surely remained an important shaper of his views. He likely had little experience of American racial politics.

One of the more reliable predictors of political leanings is the personality trait 'openness to experience." NYC -- at least parts of it -- is openness to experience realized on Earth. 7th Avenue in Brooklyn is the commercial strip for NYC. When I was there, there was precisely one "American" restaurant: a diner. Within walking distance, there was a Peruvian restaurant, two Thai places, an Indian place, an Asian future, a legit authentic Mexican place, a couple of Italian places where the staff had Italian accidents, and I'm sure a couple that I'm forgetting. Oh, the corner delis were all Korean.

To walk on 7th Avenue is to have a completely different experience than pretty much anywhere in America. As mentioned before, it is racially diverse almost to a comical degree, and everything is international. That's not to say that there aren't racial tensions (there are, especially over education) but it's a different world.

 

[Duke Mu]

Just to be clear - populism doesn't mean pro-Gaza or pro-Hamas or pro-socialism...but an anti-establishment campaign rooted on popular issues that affect real people. You have to connect. Schumer, Cuomo, Jeffries don't connect.

In 2016, both Bernie and Trump (for the billionaires) both conducted anti-establishment, populist campaigns. A lot of BErnie voters crossed over or didn't vote for Hillary, the establishment, corporate candidate.

Biden's return to normalcy/establishment campaign worked during COVID, but was unable to address inflation fast enough. Kamala's only chance to win was a populist campaign against Trump as the crooked establishment candidate. She let O'Malley steer them in the wrong direction.

 

[Duke Mu]

My husband lived in an African country for a few years and still to this day hesitates to wear shorts.

Every insect is trying to kill you in Africa.

 

[nycfan]

 

[Paine]

1. It's not condescending at all. And note that I'm not a NYC resident any more, so I'm not exactly elevating myself here. What I know about NYC is getting pretty stale. I think I will always understand the city, but I won't understand the particulars.

2. I'm not making local residency a litmus test. I'm saying that there are places where residency is more or less important. Where I live now is not particularly special. It's not as nice as Durham/Chapel Hill or what I imagine Charlotte to be (haven't been there in a long, long time) but it's not that different. I don't think I'm particularly more knowledgeable about the political environment here than people who study American politics.

NYC is different. It's just not like the rest of America and if you haven't been there, it's hard to appreciate. For one thing, the "white" people in NY aren't like white people elsewhere in America. That's largely because a fairly high % of the white people are Europeans and have spent little time in America outside of NY. Even a lot of native "white" people who are residents aren't typical of other places. For instance, my barber in Park Slope was Uzbeki. He looked white and identified as white. But he lived in a Uzbeki neighborhood (yes, there's an Uzbeki neighborhood -- there are hundreds of different ethnic enclaves and fissures arise when they collide) and that surely remained an important shaper of his views. He likely had little experience of American racial politics.

One of the more reliable predictors of political leanings is the personality trait 'openness to experience." NYC -- at least parts of it -- is openness to experience realized on Earth. 7th Avenue in Brooklyn is the commercial strip for NYC. When I was there, there was precisely one "American" restaurant: a diner. Within walking distance, there was a Peruvian restaurant, two Thai places, an Indian place, an Asian future, a legit authentic Mexican place, a couple of Italian places where the staff had Italian accidents, and I'm sure a couple that I'm forgetting. Oh, the corner delis were all Korean.

To walk on 7th Avenue is to have a completely different experience than pretty much anywhere in America. As mentioned before, it is racially diverse almost to a comical degree, and everything is international. That's not to say that there aren't racial tensions (there are, especially over education) but it's a different world.

I’ve been to NYC by the way. All of this cultural description is vivid, but it doesn’t refute the core point: Mamdani won a high-profile primary despite heavy red-baiting and institutional opposition. NYC might be culturally distinct in a thousand fascinating ways, but this primary wasn’t decided by Uzbek barbers. It was decided by voters, of all kinds, responding to housing costs, transit needs, care infrastructure, and economic dignity. That’s a message that applies far beyond NYC.

Dismissing a clear and highly visible political result because NYC is “different” misses the point. The city isn’t isolated from America, it’s often where national trends begin. Ignoring that, or claiming that outsiders can’t possibly understand the implications, seems less like humility and more like a convenient way to dodge uncomfortable evidence.

 

[Calheel]

a couple of Italian places where the staff had Italian accidents

 

[StrangePackage]

What a disaster of choices for New York and the Democratic Party. Mamdani will provide a wealth of material for the mouth breathers on the Right. And on the other side - imagine thinking, "Cuomo is our guy."

The mouth breathers on the right are going to make shit up regardless. The Democrats could run Jesus Ghandi Mandela Siddhartha and the right wing mouth breathers would find reasons to smear him.

The Democratic establishment has failed here. Let's at least give this guy a chance to fuck up on his own.

 

[Paine]

Just to be clear - populism doesn't mean pro-Gaza or pro-Hamas or pro-socialism...but an anti-establishment campaign rooted on popular issues that affect real people. You have to connect. Schumer, Cuomo, Jeffries don't connect.

In 2016, both Bernie and Trump (for the billionaires) both conducted anti-establishment, populist campaigns. A lot of BErnie voters crossed over or didn't vote for Hillary, the establishment, corporate candidate.

Biden's return to normalcy/establishment campaign worked during COVID, but was unable to address inflation fast enough. Kamala's only chance to win was a populist campaign against Trump as the crooked establishment candidate. She let O'Malley steer them in the wrong direction.

Exactly. Populism means tapping into real material concerns and frustrations. It means speaking directly to issues that matter deeply to working people, rather than abstract slogans or elite signaling. Bernie showed how powerful that can be, and Mamdani’s campaign is another example of how organizing around clear, relatable issues can break through even against huge institutional pressure.

That’s the lesson here, not that the left automatically wins everywhere, but that there’s real energy behind anti-establishment, working-class campaigns if Democrats are willing to lean into them.

 

[Kingpin]

it's at least as likely that Harris lost due to attack ads about trans people as it is that she lost because her campaign gave up on the "weird" attack and the energy she was generating around change from the status quo in favor of hammering toughness on the border and palling around with Liz Cheney.

Harris lost because she is a woman and one with brown skin. An under aged 70 straight white man would have beaten Trump. Unfortunately, that is where this country is right now and Dems need to remember that in upcoming elections.

 

[Calheel]

Harris lost because she is a woman and one with brown skin. An under aged 70 straight white man would have beaten Trump. Unfortunately, that is where this country is right now and Dems need to remember that in upcoming elections.

I doubt it. Impossible to prove one way or the other, but I think inflation in 22-23 was the albatross that sunk the democrats in 24.

 

[superrific]

I’ve been to NYC by the way. All of this cultural description is vivid, but it doesn’t refute the core point: Mamdani won a high-profile primary despite heavy red-baiting and institutional opposition. NYC might be culturally distinct in a thousand fascinating ways, but this primary wasn’t decided by Uzbek barbers. It was decided by voters, of all kinds, responding to housing costs, transit needs, care infrastructure, and economic dignity. That’s a message that applies far beyond NYC.

Look, we're both speculating -- everyone is, see the Jane Coaston tweet above -- but I'm going to push back on your quip about Uzbek barbers. The election absolutely was decided by Uzbek barbers. I mean, not specifically Uzbek but nationalities across the board. According to wikipedia:

about 750K Chinese (including maybe 400K citizens)
200K Haitian
100K Bangladesh
30K Japanese
80K Filipino
700K Domincans
600K Puerto Ricans
250K Indian-Americans
200K Pakistani Americans

It didn't give numerical estimates for other ethnicities (I'm sure they are available) but NYC is the largest Korean community outside of Korea. It's the largest West Indian community outside the West Indies (there are SO MANY West Indians -- I lived right by Grand Army Plaza and would go to the West Indian Day parade every year. OMG the parade went for miles). It's even the third largest Cuban community in the country.

And that's to say nothing of the other 120+ ethnic enclaves around.

NYC politics absolutely is decided by Uzbek barbers and the like. That you didn't realize this is telling. New York is not like other places. Race just functions very differently there than you're used to.

 

[Paine]

Look, we're both speculating -- everyone is, see the Jane Coaston tweet above -- but I'm going to push back on your quip about Uzbek barbers. The election absolutely was decided by Uzbek barbers. I mean, not specifically Uzbek but nationalities across the board. According to wikipedia:

about 750K Chinese (including maybe 400K citizens)
200K Haitian
100K Bangladesh
30K Japanese
80K Filipino
700K Domincans
600K Puerto Ricans
250K Indian-Americans
200K Pakistani Americans

It didn't give numerical estimates for other ethnicities (I'm sure they are available) but NYC is the largest Korean community outside of Korea. It's the largest West Indian community outside the West Indies (there are SO MANY West Indians -- I lived right by Grand Army Plaza and would go to the West Indian Day parade every year. OMG the parade went for miles). It's even the third largest Cuban community in the country.

And that's to say nothing of the other 120+ ethnic enclaves around.

NYC politics absolutely is decided by Uzbek barbers and the like. That you didn't realize this is telling. New York is not like other places. Race just functions very differently there than you're used to.

That’s my point. Immediately after that line, I said: “It was decided by voters, of all kinds, responding to housing costs, transit needs, care infrastructure, and economic dignity. That’s a message that applies far beyond NYC.” That’s what binds all these different groups together. Material issues.

Precisely because NYC is so diverse, you can’t win a citywide race on narrow cultural appeals alone. You have to offer something broader, something that resonates across many different communities. Mamdani did that by centering housing, transit, care, and dignity. And that’s exactly why his win matters beyond the city itself.

 

[superrific]

That’s my point. Immediately after that line, I said: “It was decided by voters, of all kinds, responding to housing costs, transit needs, care infrastructure, and economic dignity. That’s a message that applies far beyond NYC.” That’s what binds all these different groups together. Material issues.

Precisely because NYC is so diverse, you can’t win a citywide race on narrow cultural appeals alone. You have to offer something broader, something that resonates across many different communities. Mamdani did that by centering housing, transit, care, and dignity. And that’s exactly why his win matters beyond the city itself.

You're embarrassing yourself. You have no idea what you're talking about. By my estimate, there isn't a single current or former NYC resident agreeing with you. Why are you doing the board MAGA thing in which you speak confidently about something you know nothing about based on assumptions?

Mamdani apparently won Brooklyn by 17%, according to NYT. But Cuomo won the Bronx by 18%. So I guess Brooklynites are really interested in housing and transit, and the Bronx folks not so much? What's your explanation for this disparity? Why do you think Mandami ran so strongly in Brooklyn and underperformed in the Bronx by 35 points?!? He's from Queens but he only won Queens by 7, and Manhattan by 5. Any ideas?

Mamdani won Park Slope by 11. That's less than I would have thought, but then I noticed that Cuomo got 13%. That's what I expected. I guess Park Slope was pretty evenly split between Mamdani and Brad Lander.

But then look at East Flatbush -- it went for Cuomo. Not what I would have expected, given the population there. He cleaned up in Williamsburg, which was expected given the residential profile there -- but he cleaned up even more in Greenpoint. Williamsburg is more progressive and more open to socialists; Greenwood is an old Polish community. I know why. Do you?

 

[donbosco]

I get the feeling that women don't particularly want Cuomo to be the mayor. My wife was a fan of his during the pandemic, and he did do a very good job treating it real IMO. She voted Mamdani as did my daughter. That said my wife voted Cuomo #2 because she really, really hates Eric Adams.

 

[Paine]

You're embarrassing yourself. You have no idea what you're talking about. By my estimate, there isn't a single current or former NYC resident agreeing with you. Why are you doing the board MAGA thing in which you speak confidently about something you know nothing about based on assumptions?

Mamdani apparently won Brooklyn by 17%, according to NYT. But Cuomo won the Bronx by 18%. So I guess Brooklynites are really interested in housing and transit, and the Bronx folks not so much? What's your explanation for this disparity? Why do you think Mandami ran so strongly in Brooklyn and underperformed in the Bronx by 35 points?!? He's from Queens but he only won Queens by 7, and Manhattan by 5. Any ideas?

Mamdani won Park Slope by 11. That's less than I would have thought, but then I noticed that Cuomo got 13%. That's what I expected. I guess Park Slope was pretty evenly split between Mamdani and Brad Lander.

But then look at East Flatbush -- it went for Cuomo. Not what I would have expected, given the population there. He cleaned up in Williamsburg, which was expected given the residential profile there -- but he cleaned up even more in Greenpoint. Williamsburg is more progressive and more open to socialists; Greenwood is an old Polish community. I know why. Do you?

Your reactions continue to prove my point.

I’ll say it once more: I’m arguing that Mamdani’s message, grounded in housing, transit, and care, cut across communities and helped him overcome red-baiting and a 1% starting point. You responded with borough trivia and personal insults. Why? Because I didn’t memorize a precinct map?

Let’s actually engage the argument. Yes, different boroughs voted differently. That’s true in every citywide race. It doesn’t disprove that material appeals helped Mamdani surge, especially in places where the left has built real organizing infrastructure, like DSA in Brooklyn. And yes, some communities leaned toward Cuomo, for all kinds of reasons: residual name recognition, conservatism on certain issues, lack of engagement by Mamdani’s campaign. That’s called politics.

But you’re twisting basic electoral variation into a gotcha, as if a left candidate needs to sweep every borough for his message to be taken seriously. He was outspent, red-baited, and still won a high-turnout primary in the nation’s media capital. That’s a crack in the narrative you’ve spent this thread defending. And it scares you, so now it’s about me and my supposed ignorance.

I’m not embarrassed. But you seem awfully defensive.

 

[Kingpin]

I doubt it. Impossible to prove one way or the other, but I think inflation in 22-23 was the albatross that sunk the democrats in 24.

Biden (a man) got 81 million votes. Harris and HRC (women) got in the mid-low 70 millions. Trump got close to the same # votes all 3 elections. Trump is the constant and Dems are the variable in this experiment.