An important thing to remember is that the Democratic Party is its voters much, much more than it is its current senior office holders and candidates. Especially when out of power. The voters decide who wins, not the party “leaders”.
We’ll see on this one. It’s a perfect “run it up the flagpole and see who salutes” situation. Democratic leaders: Your move.
Exhibit A: Mamdani himself
And I see this quote from Cuomo:
Only 13 percent of New Yorkers voted in the June primary. The general election is in November and I am in it to win it.
Uh huh. Can you bring ‘em out any better in November than you did in June?
(Last time the NYC mayoral general had more than 26% turnout, Bloomberg was on the ticket.)
NYC might have its next mayor elected while receiving 30% of the vote and I don’t think I can express my disdain for that outcome. No matter who “wins.”
Which Democrats? Despite not living there I’ve been inundated with New York City politics my entire life due to having 90% of my news from there. I would have to look up the name of my current mayor but I could recite every NYC mayor back to LaGuardia. It is a huge mistake to look at NYC politics as a microcosm of the nation’s political landscape. There is some crossover but NYC is its own universe. This election is going to be 1 Democratic candidate versus 2 independents with the Republican as barely an afterthought.
An Independent who lost in the Democratic primary has a unique idea about what it means to be independent.
But as I mentioned, we’ll see who salutes.
As does the independent who won the previous primary, won the general election and is now running as an independent. Nothing about this election is analogous to politics on a national scale. If it wasn’t for Fox fear mongering for ratings this wouldn’t get half the attention that it is.
I take it that New York doesn’t have a “sore loser” law? In some states, if you run in and lose a primary, you’re not allowed to run as an independent in the general.
Bernie catching strays in an NYC thread?
If there were three rounds of elections instead of two, some of the more knuckleheaded candidates might have a go running as a Democrat, an Independent and a Republican!
The electoral rules of New York allow you to run on multiple ballot lines, so…
The ultimate fraud of equity is its circular reasoning: that as soon as you identify an inequality of outcome, that somehow implies inequality in opportunity. I reject the premise entirely.
Same continent as certain famous white South Africans, who I’m confident would not get the same treatment.
I’ve been working with (white) South African immigrants (several of whom are now citizens) since '99 and while we’ve all joked about them being “African American”, none of us for a second thought that they actually counted as that.
If that’s what he did, it’s even worse, because it means he still checked Black/African American (presumably without qualification) and then also checked “Other - Ugandan”.
But there’s no need for him to have done that, since everything in the lower section of the form had a spot to write something in, and so he most likely just checked Black/African American and wrote Ugandan next to it.
He also checked “Asian American”. No one reading that form would have thought he was just assume Black kid.
It’s not clear that anyone at the university actually read the form except for data entry purposes. As far as the university database was concerned, he was “BLACK NON-HISPANIC”. Seems that Black beats Asian as far as racial identity goes, at least at Columbia.
“As soon as” in this case is the entire history of education discriminating against non-White people. It’s not like we’re proposing some hypothetical discrimination, it’s literally what happened everywhere all the time.
Right, the questioning of why is there an inequality doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
…so if I’m to understand this correctly, if Cuomo does decide to run, out of the three leading candidates for NYC Mayor:
- one of them has so many sexual harassment allegations against them that he has his own Wikipedia page, allegedly interfered with the anti-corruption commission he founded, and has been accused of a lack of transparency over the deaths in rest homes during covid.
- The other leading candidate was just today accused (along with top NYPD officials) of using thier “power and authority to run a what he called a “criminal enterprise”. US prosecutors had “accused him of bribery and fraud as part of a “long-running” scheme to enrich himself while working with foreign officials” before those charges were dropped in circumstances that were not suspicious at all.
- And the third candidate… :: checks notes :: ticked the wrong box on a form when he was seventeen.
And it’s the third candidate that we’ve circled back to, to talk about today. The box-checking guy.
Does that about sum it up?
I think if sexual harassment and open corruption are not disqualifying or worthy of debate, then I don’t think ticking the wrong box should be either. Can we just pretend that it didn’t happen, like we do with the other candidates that are credibly accused of doing things like actual crimes? We could just turn our heads and not say anything about it at all.
If we can do it for the guy “alleged to have accepted gifts totalling more than $100,000 (£75,000) from Turkish citizens in exchange for favours.” And for the guy who allegedly “repeatedly subjected these female employees to unwelcome, non-consensual sexual contact; ogling; unwelcome sexual comments; gender-based nicknames; comments on their physical appearances; and/or preferential treatment based on their physical appearances.” So let’s give Mamdani a free-pass here. This is his scandal. His tan-suit. Shall we let him off?
Or do some of you think there is a bigger principle at play here? Because if you do, then I’d genuinely like to hear your arguments.
I’m experiencing two situations where people seem to be blissfully unaware or willfully blind to the impact of past discrimination.
My daughter is an intern in engineering. One of 32 interns at this company (vast majority Engineering students).
Except for my daughter, who is Asian, and one Black intern, the interns are ALL related to mostly senior level employees at the company. The management ranks of this company are at least 95% white. Of course, idiots are scrutinizing why my daughter and the Black girl got in. My daughter got in because I know a VP there. The Black girl got in because there is an agreement with an organization of Black Engineering students to take on one of their members each summer (technically their members could be not Black, but in practice they almost all are).
Of course most of the actual engineering staff is Asian, though very few of the managers are and none of the directors and VPs.
At our company (grocery chain) we pay lip service to our talent pool in the stores. But we almost never hire store employees into corporate jobs. Every year hundreds of (mostly part time) store employees get college degrees. We hired between zero and one of these graduates into corporate jobs in Accounting, Finance, Marketing, etc.
There is a Workplace Excellence task force comprised of people in corporate from all levels. They have been looking into why. They heard from store employees that when they apply for jobs after graduation they got at best a series of generic “thank you for your interest” emails. So they went to talk to the head of Talent Acquisition. She said that they have given up forwarding candidates from the stores because they aren’t just rejected 100% of the time, they are often angrily rejected.
A VP in Finance said he didn’t want to see resumes of “people who are struggling through college working part time jobs”. He wants to see those who have internships and global experience (he means study abroad or volunteer trips). Basically we want to hire people from upper middle class families who can afford to pay for four years of college and some nice extras. “That’s the profile we have found to have success here”
Who are of course 99+% white and Asian around here.
No racial discrimination to overcome in either of these situations, you see.
Yeah, absolutely. The only reasons anyone should actually support or oppose Mamdani are his policies, not his 17 year old idiocy.