We’ll see. We already know that Cuomo can’t run anything complicated without a bunch of sexual abuse and corruption. I’d pick Lander first, but a well-meaning, intelligent, and charismatic but inexperienced person is a much, much better candidate than an experienced, corrupt, and sexually abusive person.
He’s one of three living former Democractic Presidents. How much more establishment can you get?
Where? Mayor is the lowest executive there is in government. And outside of government, well, do you really want to say that only CEOs are allowed to run for mayor of New York? That sounds like a disastrous policy.
Well maybe not everyone’s qualified to be mayor of NYC then. I just don’t know if a state rep with five years experience in Albany has what it takes to run the largest city in the US.
But there have to be other positions within city government that would be considered a stepping stone. Clerk? Comptroller? Borough president? Chancellor of schools?
Brad Lander, Comptroller, is running, and he’s a fine candidate. But he’s not getting nearly the traction of Mamdani. Either are orders of magnitude better than Cuomo. No more sexual abusers in government. It’s amazing that this even needs to be said.
Then were I an NYC resident, he is who I would be voting for, campaigning for and donating to, even if Mamdani is closer to me politically/ideologically.
When it comes to running municipal government, people feel incompetence and inexperience so much more directly than the same level of incompetence and inexperience at the state or federal level. Schools, streets, crime, garbage, parks… people feel on a daily basis when these things aren’t being run well, and some young guy with a few years experience in the state legislature isn’t gonna (imo) have the know-how to make all this run.
Me too. But it’s ranked choice. You get to rank them. And considering Cuomo and Mamdani are the two leading candidates by far, if you don’t rank either one, then chances are your vote isn’t going to count.
I’d rank Lander #1 and Mamdani #2 if I were a NYC resident. Not sure about the rest, but hell no to Cuomo.
But on the flip side, it being ranked choice means that even if you do rank Lander first, and he’s way behind, your vote is still going to count.
Are you suggesting that if your vote isn’t for the guy who wins, your vote doesn’t count?
- All votes count
- In Ranked Choice your vote counts for either the guy who wins or the guy who comes second (unless the poll allows preferences to exhaust)
Right, but it’s still possible to leave some candidates unranked. It’s basically never to your advantage to do so, but it’s possible.
When they’ve had a chance to use it, voters have been reporting high levels of satisfaction with RCV. The Democratic Party has generally appeared to just remain quiet and hope the movement goes away, the GOP is actively opposed and a few red state legislatures have banned its use in county and municipal elections.
I think the purposes are (1) to give voters freedom to vote their true choices instead of strategically voting for a bad candidate over one who they feel is even worse, (2) to prevent election winners from emerging from a crowded field with substantially less than a majority of the votes and (3) where rules dictate a majority vote to win, obviate the need for a second runoff election.
Okay, I didn’t exactly mean that, but for ranked choice voting, if you don’t rank at least one of the top two, it’s likely your vote will have no impact on the race.
No.
If you rank every candidate, your vote will always count, even if it’s your lowest preference finishing 2nd.
If you chose not to rank either candidate who finishes top 2; after allocation of ranked choice your vote is discarded and will have no impact.
I’m not sure how that conflicts with what I said, but it sounds right to me.
Yes, I saw that.
What they need to factor in is that if you change the electoral system, political movements have a vested interest in adjusting strategy to take advantage. Often the first election is a bit of a buggers muddle but by the second parties are getting their act together.
For example if the US went to straight popular voting for POTUS, candidates would start spending a whole lot more time campaigning in CA and NY
Establishment to me means actual active politicians. He’s been retired for 25 years. I don’t think anyone was calling Jimmy Carter establishment before he died.
I do. And results so far look like the establishment has no ability to tell voters how to vote. (Cuomo was expected to be behind in early results, but not by this much.)
Also, Cuomo is the candidate with the most establishment endorsements, per The NY Times.
Ranked choice means we may not know the final result for days, but everything on social media and betting markets is indicating that Mamdani has this in the bag. And this is excellent news - it likely means the end of sexual abuser Cuomo’s political career.
Carter positioned himself on the left of his party. Bill Clinton is as mainstream as they come.
And owned by the oligarchs.
…Donald Trump is possibly the stupidest man in America, perhaps one of the stupidest people in the whole damn world, has plenty of experience of running things badly, is in charge of the most ridiculously complicated country in the world, and the American people thought he was good enough to be President so much they didn’t just elect him once: they elected him twice.
I find the whole “he’s not experienced enough” argument to be completely hollow. Especially in light of the way the world is today. My countries greatest Prime Minister’s first job was working in a fish-and-chip shop. She saw us through crisis after crisis, Covid, mass shootings, storms, volcanoes, the economy.Comparing Jacinda Ardern’s political background and Mamdani’s they are remarkably similar and he is on a similar trajectory. He’s worked closely with people in the community, been in politics since 2015, been serving as a member of the New York State Assembly since 2021.
What more do you want? Does he need to host a reality show? Be a billionaire? Be the CEO of a souless start-up thats just laid off a thousand staff? What difference does “executive” experience give you? Is Donald Trump any better after having been President for five years?
The actual work of “of running schools, picking up garbage, plowing streets, fixing roads” has nearly always been done better by progressives because they understand that you need money to fund these things, people to do it, and a commitment to actually getting the job done. They aren’t in the pocket of corporate interests. They don’t bow down to lobbyists. Their agenda is open because they have an actual plan.
Because progressives actually live in the real world: not ivory towers. The biggest obstacle to getting things done isn’t the actual “picking up garbage”: its both the Republican AND the Democrat establishment who will throw roadblocks in the way AND actively try and sabotage whatever progressives try and do.
As for “working with cops”: do you remember when the NYPD Sergeants Benevolent Association did this to Mayor Bill de Blasio’s daughter?
Does the Mayor have to work with the police? Sure. But the NYPD is one of the most corrupt police institutions in the world. Misconduct cost them 205 million dollars last year. 1.4 billion dollars in overtime. They threaten and intimidate and are institutionally racist. Any Mayor that pushes back in ANY way will be in the NYPD crossfire. And that won’t be the fault of the Mayor.
It seems clear that you can elect the stupidest person in the world as the President of the United States who literally fires much of the Federal government and the country still manages to continue. And if Trump were elected Mayor of NYC the schools would still run, the garbage still get picked up, the streets would get ploughed, the roads would get fixed.
The ONLY way electing Mamdani would impact these things would be if both the Republicans and establishment Democrats collectively decided to sabotage him. And if that’s what you meant: then you should just say that.
People have forgotten the point of why we have elections. One of the BIGGEST reasons Harris lost the election IMHO was because both she and the Democrat establishment didn’t stand for anything. They didn’t believe in anything. It was all focus-tested corporate talking points. They went right down the centre, tried to be Republican-lite, stuck to their talking points and didn’t try to say anything that might get labelled “woke” by their opponents, and they didn’t give anyone anything to actually vote for.
I think you should vote for people that are honest, have integrity, and stand for what they believe in.