Voters in the largest city in America are choosing a Democratic nominee for mayor via ranked-choice voting. The crowded field is led by former governor Andrew Cuomo, who resigned from the state’s top office four years ago following sexual harassment allegations; state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani, who snagged key endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York); Comptroller Brad Lander, who made headlines when he was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at an immigration hearing last week; and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams.
This is a ranked-choice primary – only first-choice votes will be tabulated on election night. Final vote calculations will be released July 1 and updated weekly until all ballots are counted. Republican Curtis Sliwa is uncontested in his primary.
IIRC many people also put Mamdani as their second choice.
We are going to see the NYT’s official endorsement of Curtis Sliwa very soon.
It could happen in the general, but in the primary the 3rd ranked candidate (Brad Lander) has cross-endorsed with Mamdani
edit: also Cuomo conceded the primary
Wonder how this guy is going to turn out to be a disappointment.
I said it first so I get to be right a year from now! Write it down.
Well he is a liberal zionist. I don't think it really matters, and I don't know if I would say anything different to him were I in his position (I don't think it would win a lot of votes to say "I would make use of the armed forces of the NYPD to assist Hamas with doing 1000 more Al Aqsa Floods"). Not to mention he will probably have to be fighting the state government on everything.
He is? I interpreted his response in that debate as endorsing the one-state solution but maybe I was wrong?
It's a bit tomato tomahto. In theory, if Israel recognizes equal rights for Palestinians, then that's great and it would be a one state solution. In practice, that will never happen as long as "Israel" occupies Palestine. So if he was running for a position where his beliefs about Occupied Palestine actually mattered, I would want him to be pressed on how he thinks Israel should become a country where equal rights for Jews and Arabs are upheld, because that's the difference between liberal zionism and antizionism (liberal zionists would be happy to just wait for equal rights to materialize from nothing, antizionists believe in resistance and overthrowing the occupiers).
. In practice, that will never happen as long as "Israel" occupies Palestine.
I think he already knows this and his position is to not do any "no nos" and to at most lie by omission rather than lie outright. Would he have won if he didn't play that game anyway? Tough to say at this point; perhaps it would have been closer but I think he actually would have but I don't think zohran thought he would have at the time
imagine if everyone in the west bank/gaza and the diapora could vote to elect seats into the knesset... it would never happen.... but we could just advocate for it anyway and use it as a shield to beat the zios back with and what can they say? this would never happen but if it actually did I could only assume the knesset would at some point vote to change the name of the state to palestine.<---- no liberal zionist actually desires to allow this to happen but zohrans position was to exist in this weird position of thought so he didn't have to sacrifice his views on the question of Palestinians while still being able to stay stuff like "israel has a right to exist with equal rights" .
Yeah I absolutely agree which is why I said it's only a technical difference, not to mention it simply doesn't matter as mayor of NYC. He's a good lad.
Palestinians in the West Bank literally live under military occupation, are not protected by Israeli law, and are tried at Israeli military courts. And Arab Israelis are still broadly discriminated against in an Apartheid system that's internationally recognized as such. Just one example: Jewish neighborhoods are required to be built with bomb shelters, while Arab neighborhoods have no such requirement and it must be requested for a shelter to be built; in practice, they are almost never built. That's why casualties from rocket attacks on Israel are disproportionately Arab Israelis. And that's the situation for Arab Israeli citizens!
West Bank inhabitants are not Israelis.
Very strange twisting of the words where Israel claims the land but the people who actually live there aren't included in the "people-having-rights" quota. I wonder why you're defining it like that. Hmmmmmm. Slaves weren't considered citizens, so the US constitution never lied about equal rights, either, I guess. "I'm not touching you".
Al Jazeera source about Jewish Israeli citizens excluding Arabs from shelters. There was also a source on Hexbear last week explaining how new developments for Arab Israelis almost never get bomb shelters built, but I can't find it now. Either way, are Arabic people just more prone to getting hit by missiles? What else could explain it.
That is just not true at all. Just look at court cases involving Arabs in Israel. I know that you have done absolutely zero research on the subject and won't respond to anything anyone says.
I don't think it would win a lot of votes to say "I would make use of the armed forces of the NYPD to assist Hamas with doing 1000 more Al Aqsa Floods"
Sir, do you have any idea how BASED you were posting?
Well he is a liberal zionist.
Is he that bad? I do not think a liberal would be posting like this?
Show
No he just said he believes Israel has a right to exist as a nation with equal rights. A cop out answer (which is almost definitely the correct move when you're running for a position that has literally nothing to do with Israel)
Yeah I don't believe that's his real position he just wants to avoid being bogged down in that being the only topic he ever gets to talk about (it is anyway but you know). Every time I've seen him the media behaviour has reminded me so much of Corbyn it's uncanny.
Well, technically speaking that "with equal rights" part is essentially what the resistance demands. 'Israel' wouldn't be 'Israel' if it had equal rights. This could be a very cautious, borderline cowardly, way to express a sensible position.
It's pretty funny when you frame it this way because it shows that applying the same views that MLK had about Black people in the US to Palestine will prescribe you to support Hamas. You want equal rights? Get ready to put a grenade in a Merkava, buddy
Talking head on NY1 said that they were expecting going into the night that Mamdani would have the early lead from early voting but as same day votes came in his lead over Cuomo would shrink. Except it’s held steady. He said we’re in “would require a statistical anomaly” territory for Cuomo to come back.
Yeah, it stayed steady as the votes came in. Barring any crazy RCV surprises he is the dem nominee
Can somebody please explain to me how this works? Because I've read that the "final" vote isn't until November - so what the hell is this?
This is the Democratic primary race. It’s ranked-choice, final results for this vote will be out on July 1st, but Mamdani is expected to gain over Cuomo from 2nd-ranks if anything, and Cuomo already conceded the primary to him. This is considered the Big Thing because most NYC residents are dems and so the dem primary is basically the mayoral race. That might be different this year as the (widely disliked) incumbent and Cuomo will be running as independents in the general mayoral election in November, and we might see a centrist bloc coalesce, but I wouldn’t underestimate the power of the (D) appearing by Mamdani’s name.
Edit: the general in November is not ranked-choice, so the centrist/conservative vote will be split 3-way. I’d be very surprised if Mamdani lost
I don’t think the repubs would want to make a show out of helping Cuomo/Adams to defeat Mamdani. Especially when they’re trying to attack every democrat by tying them to him. As far as they’re concerned, every democrat is a socialist, and Mamdani only proves it. I’m sure the nyc bourgeoisie would prefer a united front against him but I think the democrat and republican parties both know it’d make them look bad.
I mean, if I was a billionaire in New York, I know I would be pulling every string I could find to get Adams and the Republican candidate to drop out because this is an existential threat. The bourgeoisie showed that they were capable of doing that to stop Bernie in 2016 and 2020, why not now?
Bernie was a much larger threat, and it was internal to the Democratic Party. Stopping Mamdani here would require obvious inter-party collusion against him, which would hurt both national parties in the long run, over an admittedly large threat but not a Bernie-level one
I’m excitedly awaiting nyt or the atlantic or whoever to publish an article about how, if only there had been a united moderate front, Mamdani could have been stopped. Just imagine the title: “How Ranked Choice Voting propelled Mamdani’s success— and how it could have foiled his campaign.”
They do instant run off or whatever version its called. One ballot where you rank, then they tabulate based on your ranking - he's a lib but CGP grey had a good series on voting systems (the systems were all for an imaginary animal based monarchy lol). Instant in this case sure feels like a stretch.
It's the Democratic primary, the general still has to happen. It was basically assumed that the Democratic nominee would win the general.
Oh my fucking god Americans do party politics for municipal elections too?
Jesus. Clown ass country. Deeply unserious.
im rooting for eric adams, hes gonna make all haters waiters at the table of success
"Authoritarianism is on the rise in NYC." —WaPo, next week (probably)
So now the "vote blue no matter who" crowd will vote red?
This is going to make so many shitty people so mad.
