That’s what I figured; but then, I don’t understand why multiple people keep bringing it up as if it means anything.
My guess is that he has no relevance to anything, but people keep linking him here anyways.
Because it’s funny?
Because it’s an amusing, succinct but accurate representation of the blatantly evident attitude of the entrenched and largely geriatric (Jeffries aside) Democratic Party leadership regarding “young, energetic candidates with fresh ideas who can excite voters”.
So yes, it remains relevant.
It’s a joke. The punchline is that old established Democrats don’t actually want to be replaced by young charismatic people who don’t agree with them on every issue.
Anyway, Mamdani immigrated when he was a small child. And i was born in this country. And i only learned after researching it for this thread that there’s a legal definition of “African American” that he doesn’t meet. Not that I’ve ever had occasion to care. But… It’s just not that big a deal. He didn’t get in.
I’ll tell you a secret i inferred from interviewing a lot of kids for Harvard. Being an immigrant from Africa doesn’t actually gain you much preference (even before the ruling to stop doing that). Those African American preferences were for kids who grew up disadvantaged due to being Black, from families that inherited disadvantages from decades of racism. I’ve had some really promising kids who were Black immigrants from Africa, with professor parents, who weren’t accepted. If they’d been Black Americans, I’m pretty sure they would have been.
This is really a nothingburger, and the news is that the NYT decided to publish a hit piece. Thus, the joke about assassinating charismatic young Democrats.
Yeah, so you say, but other than making this joke over and over again, you haven’t provided any evidence of this.
Hey, I’m not the one who asked for a cite for Seal Team 6 Schumer!
I was agreeing with you. My husband says I’m bad at agreeing with people 
Not just a hitpiece, but a hitpiece from data hacked/provided by a white supremacist, rushed out in order to “beat” a supposed scoop from another white supremacist, and used in exchange for hiding the white supremacist’s identity.
The NYT article is evidence of it.
Forget it, he’s rolling.
You can bet that if one of those recent African immigrants, or their children, are stopped by the police, the police will treat them as “black people”, rather than inquiring as to their ancestry and the reason for their skin color. Heck, the same is probably true for a Maori in America, even though they’re about as far removed from “African” as it’s possible for a human to be.
Racism isn’t logical.
The NYT article is evidence that the Democratic Establishment hates young and dynamic voices?
Where’s David Hogg these days? And why did any Democrat support Andrew Cuomo, a deeply toxic candidate, over Mamdani and why do some continue to do so?
I imagine Pelosi and Schumer would be thrilled by a young, dynamic centrist Dem candidate who could inspire more turnout among young voters. If they ever find one, I’m sure they’ll go all out in supporting him.
He was kicked out of his position at the DNC for having a penis, because apparently the DNC has a rule about having the same number of officials who are male and female?
Is Kalyn Free the “Democratic Establishment” now? She’s the one whose complaint led to Hogg’s removal.
Because they strongly disagree with Mamdani’s policy?
If there was a 30-something-year-old energetic liberal candidate, I’d support them over either Mamdani or Cuomo. But I draw the line at Social Democrats; anyone further on the spectrum than that is simply not politically aligned with me, just like anyone right of center is not politically aligned with me. Why would I support someone whose policies I disagree with?
I agree (sort of, depending on what you mean by “centrist”. I assume you mean “a Liberal, not a Leftist”, in which case, yes).
My question is, what’s wrong with that?
And while they’re certainly not jumping for joy about Mamdani, they’re also not literally or figuratively sniping his career.
I assume, then, you have no issue with progressives who refused to vote for Harris because they disagreed with her policies? I gather you’d still take issue with them because they support progressive policies, of course, because you disagree with progressive policies, but you’re generally okay with progressives staying home when the candidate is a centrist because centrists don’t represent them politically?
I have no issues with people who would support someone other than Harris in the primary. Sort of like the people who supported Cuomo over Mamdani.
I don’t think people should stay home or vote Republican now that he’s the nominee, though.
I’m not sure which “progressive policies” you’re referring to. I’m generally supportive of most progressive policies (although progressive is a really fuzzy term that covers everything from liberals and social Democrats, who I like, to democratic socialists and full on tankies, who I don’t).
Did I tell anyone to stay home or vote Republican? Or even for Eric Adams the Trump puppet?
Okay, fair enough on that front.
I have to suppose, that at the time they decided who to back, they figured one had a known, if admittedly degraded, fundraising record, network of “friends” on the inside, and ledger of owed favors. The other did not.
BUT… more to the question: Hell, their choice did not even have to be Mamdani vs. Cuomo. At filing time Brad Lander was the best-established member of the Progressive wing, holding a citywide office as incumbent Comptroller. You’d expect him to have been the obvious un-Adams choice. But the ball takes funny bounces, doesn’ it.