Boy, I have a hard time letting the comment that DeBlasio was "better than Bloomberg on some fronts, worse on others" stand unchallenged... I still reminisce about those Bloomberg years. I lived in NYC with Bloomberg as my mayor and Obama as my president, and all seemed Good and Technocratic with the world.
Bloomberg downzoned huge swaths of the city -- while upzoning certain neighborhoods near the waterfronts -- that resulted in stymying incremental housing development in less dense neighborhoods.
That one TED talk from someone in his administration bragging about not allowing more density around certain transit hubs made me want to slam my head in a drawer.
These downzonings were utterly inconsequential and ridiculously overrated. No, you were never going to get high rise multifamily housing in Midwood or Bayside. Doing those downzonings bought him room to maneuver to unlock tremendous capacity in places like Astoria, Downtown Brooklyn, and LIC. What’s that? The slow boring of hard boards sometimes requires tradeoffs and prioritization? I’ve never heard that before!
I think what we got was an overall loss in housing capacity, because the value of turning single family homes into small apartment buildings in places like Midwood and Bayside wasn't made up for by those big upzonings (where, remember, every project needs to make more to pencil out because larger buildings are more expensive).
Funny, that's how I tend to think of the Biden years. A lot of terminally online people talk as if was the low point in all of US history. But I rather enjoyed 2021-2025. I feel all warm and tingly when I browse my phone photos and look back on, say, the summer of 2023.
Yes, we had inflation. But we also had a return to normalcy as the pandemic lifted. But the monster had not yet returned. A brief, golden age. Hell, there was even talk of how China might not surpass the USA in nominal GDP after all. When's the last time you heard that? (Answer, sometime before January of 2025).
Mamdani's best issues are around urbanism. Things like universal daylighting, the end of parking mandates, continuing the previous administration's efforts to get trash off the streets, etc. These would be very noticeable and a mayor could actually help deliver them. I'm no fan of Mamdani, I voted for five other candidates in the primary before begrudgingly voting against the gerontocracy, but it might be nice to have a major who likes living in NYC and wants to improve life for the residents instead of New Jersey commuters. Eric Adams and De Blasio shared the trait of being a little too car brained for a city where most residents don't own one.
This was Cuomo's downfall. He just didn't seem to like or care very much about NYC. I think Mamdani is obviously a charismatic politician, but Mamdani's charisma was also magnified by Cuomo's dourness.
Would be interesting to see if Kathryn Garcia was in this race. I think she would have consolidated the anti-Mamdani vote and then picked off younger progressives who wanted a female mayor.
The candidates in the last two mayoral primaries have been so bad. Just a complete lack of charisma. I don't know why NYC can't find replacement level politicians.
A huge systematic disadvantage of moderation in politics is that there rarely is an obvious reason for moderates to coalesce around one candidate other than electability. It almost is built into the process that you need plausible candidates with a chance to step aside-not a great formula for success with people with egos large enough to run for office.
To LaGuardia's point, though, this isn't a left or right issue, just a getting it done issue. Philadelphia Mayor Parker came to office on the similar issues, and she certainly isn't a Mamdani-style lefty. She wanted to bring in the National Guard to restore order in parts of the city (Shapiro said no). I saw her give a town hall on the city budget at a large Pentecostal church, where the pastor introduced her as a "woman of God", she said, You all believed in me when nobody else did, and everyone held out their hands to her and prayed for her, and then she did her thing. Mamdani might be a fit for NYC, but I think Parker's style of politics has more potential to transfer to other parts of the country, such as the South or elsewhere.
Which (like progressives winning big-city mayor's races) is the furthest thing from a new phenomenon. At least until very recently, the vast majority of successful black urban politicians were extremely closely connected to the black church. Some of them were literal ministers.
Apropos of not all that much, it is striking to see how the Mamdani win is dominating national and global coverage of the election. For my money it was at best only the fourth most important contest yesterday:
(1) The California ballot initiative could cost Republicans the House of Representatives. And it's a big personal win that might well help propel Gavin Newsom to the presidency.
(2) Virginia is a large and important state, Democrats flipped the governorship. That's a net pick up for them, and a net loss for Trump's party, right in his own backyard. Spangerger might even have won herself a place on a future national ticket.
(3) NJ looked dicey for Democrats, and the trends in that state for some time had looked worrying for them. Mikie Sherrill didn't just win. She crushed it.
But yeah, I get it. New York City is New York City. And what happens there gets noticed. So it's hardly surprising that that Mamdani's win is getting so much coverage. But still...
If it's one thing I've learned from the last 7 years of American politics, it's that Democrats should recruit every woman who ever worked for the CIA and run them in every state.
Ironically, I voted against a former CIA officer who ran in a primary for a local office in Virginia since he platform was just NIMBYism in a place that needs me housing.
I completely agree. Which D victory is more impressive? The one who got 50.4% in a place that hasn't elected a Republican in decades? Or the one who got 57.4% (!!!) and flipped the office from R to D?
I lived in VA in the Warner/Kaine years, so I certainly knew Spanberger would likely win, but a 15 point margin is really very impressive.
I realize the context is different, but that makes Spanberger more impressive by comparison, not less. Mamdani ran against a sore loser and barely broke 50%!
Apparently there was a big shift in Hispanic and South Asian voters in NJ relative to 2024. Maybe Republican's decision to spend to the past year telling minorities that they openly despise them over and over has eroded the gains they made with minorities in 2024.
See how Republicans have kicked out Vivek Ramaswamy. See how JD Vance dehumanizes his wife and children. See how MAGA venerates state violence and criminal violations of people's Constitutional rights over melanin.
I posted this on last night's thread, but it seems apt:
I've been thinking (ok, hoping) that the Hispanic vote has become the classic "show me the deliverables swing vote" — and the elections 2020 and 2024 were simply reflective of that. Trump cannily took up the mantle of "I want to open up the economy so you can get your job back" in 2020. And in 2024 he ran on "Democrats are making food and rent too expensive."
Well, he's had ten months to deal with the cost of living crisis, and Hispanic voters aren't stupid.
It could be! But I'm a little cautious about reading too much into odd-year election results. Maybe turnout in NJ for their gov race was high, but in PA yesterday, at least, my polling place felt deserted.
When it comes to the 2028 election, the low turnout voters who will show up will not be "like" the voters who showed up yesterday, even if they might appear that way on paper.
Turnout is driven by heated, competitive races. That's why, bloviating about turnout aside, 2024 totals for Harris worsened compared to Biden: a whole lot of Harris supporters in deep red and deep blue states didn't show up. Anyway, I'm thinking that explains Pennsylvannia?
Democrats also won the PA Supreme Court election in a landslide which will prevent gerrymandering and other election shenanigans in one of the most important swing states.
Spanberger didn't just win (which was expected). She obliterated Earle-Sears, and allowed Democrats to ride her coattails to elect Jones as AG (despite his violent texting scandal) and flip at least 10 (!!) seats in the House of Delegates to give Democrats a governing triumvirate with at least a 61-39 advantage in the House. She outperformed Harris --- i.e., shifted the vote left --- (often significantly) in 89 out of 93 of VA's districts.
Would love to see some more analysis of this and how transferrable it is to the midterms. VA is quirky because of having so many federal employees and contractors that are especially pissed at Trump et al for all the DOGE cuts, so I'm trying to temper my expectations about the transferability of this blue wave. But then again, Sherrill crushed it too without the same quirks, so maybe there's a case for some cautious optimism.
It's amazing that in order you have 1) a ballot initiative in a large state that is home to much of America's entertainment media, 2) a major state right next to DC where the Pentagon is also located and 3) a major state right next to New York, yet they are all receiving so much less news coverage. All three feature people who are much more likely to be on a national ticket than Mamdani.
Not saying that some media actors don't have other motives, but the main thing is that the media knows what's going to get clicks, and that matters to them a lot more than what's "important".
And even on a local level, the YIMBY NYC charter amendments that passed last night are IMO almost as consequential as the mayoral election, since their potential impact on NYC's housing shortage is considerable. As an ex-New Yorkers, those ballot proposals were what I had my eye on.
It’s headline news on the BBC and Israeli papers. I am confident that there are more important things going on in Israel at the moment than the election of an anti-Israel politician to an office that has literally no influence on the US-Israel relationship. I don’t know much about British affairs, but I’m gonna guess that’s the case there too, given that the US-Israel relationship itself has no influence on British affairs! It’s weird as hell man.
I mean, that was true in the last few weeks, sure. I don't think it was a foregone conclusion when the measure first made it to the ballot. I recall seeing polling several months ago suggesting it was likely to be a close affair. Good on Newsom for having the balls for investing some political capital early on.
I don’t know about governing but he will probably sustain enthusiasm longer than De Baslio just because he seems better at retail politics and media. He seems like a political animal in the way of Gavin Newsom or Bill Clinton in the sense that he seems to like doing the dirty work of politics, even listening to and cajoling the wealthy! He’s very much unlike Bernie and even De Blasio in that respect.
I met him a few times when I did by reporting trip for Zellnor Myrie's campaign (RIP). He definitely had that Bill Clinton-esque ability to make you feel like the most important person in the room.
Not a NYC resident but could see him just happily hyping small ball wins and as long as nothing rocks the boat too hard...could work for him? Work out as in he won't be viscerally disliked.
Yes. Politicking is important even after you win. And the most important part of that is going to be his inevitable clashes with the Trump administration. Symbolic or not, that’s how you be a “progressive hero” in 2025. Mamdani has to walk a fine line between publicly standing up to Trump in a way that feels satisfying to his base while minimizing/managing the material consequences of whatever bullshit Trump may try to throw st NYC … and most importantly, while also delivering on the boring day to day governance stuff. But having Trump as foil is more blessing than curse for a progressive mayor faced with the structural difficulties Matt describes.
Since he wasn't born here, we also don't have to worry about him getting distracted by running for president in a few years, which was a problem we had with De Blasio.
On #3, I think Matt underplays the massive shift in work patterns that has happened since de Blasio’s terms: specifically, that we all now know how easy it is to set up shop somewhere else. Covid and the years since taught the financial industry that, while being at the office remains important, that office does not have to be in NYC anymore. This simply was not true in 2013, or even 2017. Citadel famously left Chicago for Miami. Alliance Bernstein has mostly left NYC for Nashville. JP Morgan Chase, despite the new building, is employing more and more in Texas and other states. Others know they can easily follow.
So the threats of capital flight are indeed more credible now, not because of politics, but because of the pandemic and its lessons.
I would buy this more if it wasn’t for the fact that the NYC office market has actually bounced back strongly in the last year. Office vacancies are plummeting (please see my LinkedIn page. I do this for a living)
Please see Matt’s post “Chicago is doomed”. The reality is if office rents in NYC really do go permanently settle at a price point a bit lower than pre COVID price points, that would still likely mean NYC office market is likely going to be in healthy place. Basically, there is A LOT of room for prices to drop and for their not to be a huge drop in office occupancies. A lot of companies have back office in other locations purely because office rents in other locations are lower. If office rents are even a small degree lower in NYC, a lot of those operations will just be moved to NYC. By the way, similar dynamic with SF (see recent Wall Street journal article about tech wanting move back to SF from Austin).
Honestly, to me this is an example of the power of right wing media speaking in one voice. Even for those of us who detest Fox or Newsmax their talking points have a way of bleeding into what I’ll call more respectable outlets.
There’s office vacancies, and then there’s the tax base. Office rents dropping means that the office buildings themselves pay lower property taxes. By the same token, Ken Griffin personally might have been paying something like .1% of Chicago’s taxes, and now he’s not - the people living in the city to work at those offices being replaced by less wealthy people makes a big difference too.
Lots of tech companies that relocated to Miami in the wake of Covid ended up regretting it. Venture investment was way down in 2024. Anecdotally everything I've heard on this topic is it didn't really work out. Perhaps it's gone better for more established companies from cold weather cities though?
It's amazing how many tech leaders thought moving to Miami was a good idea because the mayor talked about crypto, but never stopped to think about the fact that they were based in SF in the first place because of all of the nearby top tier universities.
It was a while ago but Chicago condos don’t have issues with home invasions resulting in the murder of NFL players. Lurid crime affecting the wealthy is a fact of life in Miami, they’ve made tv shows about it.
I am really stunned that someone would list “crime and public safety” in the “pro” column about Miami.
Boston's big problem was the state's use of non-competes, which California lacked. It is still important for some types of tech, particularly biomedical tech, due to the universities.
Dallas is way ahead of Miami to become the second financial hub. That seems no permanent. Both Goldman and Wells Fargo are building huge campuses there, etc.
While I think that is a good concern to flag, I’d argue the change will be in high end residential stuff. Commercial real is on a tear in NYC, they lead the nation in “office visits” and are the only major city to exceed their 2019 levels. Citadel, for all their bluster about getting out of blue states, is building a $5b tower two blocks north of that new JP Morgan building to house both the hedge fund and the market maker. These are long term bets on New York by large firms.
Yes, Citadel has plans on the block of Park between 51st and 52nd, though this is mostly relocated Chicagoans. (The Chicago office is almost entirely gone, thanks to bad government.). This decision was made during the relatively stable (for business) Adams years. Griffin does not have to go through with it, if he finds his team does not want to be in NYC going forward.
I should also note that I am writing as a distance commuter to NYC (from my hometown in a very red Southern state, where I am happy to be rearing my children). Our small team renewed our lease at a massive discount a few years ago, but we may relocate across the river - or down South - if taxes go up or the quality of life goes down. Everyone has a limit, and thanks to Zoom, our limits are much lower than they used to be.
JP Morgan already employs more people in Texas than New York. I do think New York has some huge advantages, but New Yorkers definitely have a NYC exceptionalism blind spot that could result in some unforced errors.
This guy gets it! The substance of trying to push higher taxes in NYC is insanely more fraught; I’d argue that since we’re now 12 years removed from Occupy Wall Street, the politics are more fraught too.
I know the answer for DC is that there is a huge base of insanely wealthy people funding the city, and this is a new thing.
DC runs “surprising” surpluses because it’s a really inconvenient fact that it’s not even the wealthy gentrifiers that drive revenues but the eyewateringly wealthy.
Exceptional QOL if you want to live in a city, are white, and wealthy. Especially considering the cost compared to NYC (I turned down a job up there because an equivalent house/brownstone cost 10x). If you want walkability and urban amenities, there aren’t a ton of choices. White educated people have the longest life expectancy in the country in DC. It’s basically Europe for a fraction of the price.
In DC, you can get a fabulous condo on the Potomac for under $5 million, a very swank flat for a fraction of that. In NY you can’t stick your chest out with seven figure real estate. Also, DC has a deep bench of highly educated professionals of both sexes if you want to date or make erudite friends.
Plus the weather is better. I have begrudgingly admitted to myself that the Southeast actually has very nice weather and much better than the north (galling, as a committed Yankee and fall enjoyer). You just get a lot more crisp but not cold sweater weather actually, and AC means the summers are not that much worse. The temperature differential is much larger in the cold months than the warm.
NYC funds itself substantially more off of income taxes (including for those who live and work out-of-state but base out of an NYC office) than off of real estate taxes. Given the proportion of taxpayers who are renters versus owners, as well as commuters, this has made sense over the years. But, again, we all now know how much easier it is to meet over Zoom, or in-person anywhere with a good airport, than it was less than a decade ago.
I imagine many of the multimillionaires actively work in finance, so they are probably deriving their income from NY and therefore paying taxes. Multi multi multi millionaires might have an NYC apartment(s) but not spend 181 days in the city for tax purposes.
“When I look back on de Blasio, I see a basically good mayor: stronger than Adams in certain areas, weaker in others”
I guess you might see that, but people really hated DeBlasio at the time and were pining for just about anyone else. From what I remember they thought he was oily and insincere.
One of my favorite Brooklyn Nine-Nine jokes is, after having successfully bugged a car driven by the local crime boss and one of his lieutenants, Jake summarizes the intelligence they gleaned and then says "...and then they hit a pothole and complained about de Blasio for twelve blocks."
I worked for the NYC government during the deBlasio administration. I and most of my colleagues hated him. City Hall operations, at least insofar as they affected my agency (which was a lot), were horrible and his sanctimonious demeanor was obnoxious.
Early in his first term, when the administration was trying to get the housing legislation through the council, he went on a local public radio show to talk about it. Asked about opposition from community boards, he basically blew them off, saying something like “they don’t matter, it’s only an advisory vote.” Which is true, but not something that a mayor trying to build support for ambitious legislation should say! I remember thinking that someone who has only ever worked in politics should do it better than this.
Not smart for the mayor to say but I'm with him. community boards should really be abolished. They literally only serve to act as a veto point but they don't even have a veto.
Oh 100%, they are actively harmful. But you don’t say that on Brian Lehrer when you’re trying to pass legislation! I might be wrong but I think there might have been a better policy outcome (less subsidy required for affordable units) had he handled it better.
It’s amazing how much demeanor matters. The sanctimoniousness you describe is exactly what my county executive gives off. So I loathe him, sometimes I admit, to an irrational degree. Why don’t these guys figure this out?
Seriously! I guess at a certain (not very high, in my experience) level, many public figures attract sycophants and can’t resist getting high on their own supply. One of the things I loved about Obama was that he at least appeared to rise above this. Fake it until you make it, people!
I find your approach to Mamdani curious. It would be easy to celebrate the things Mamdani has said regarding reforming city bureaucracy, and work to focus others on that aspect of his agenda. Likewise, NYC voters approved some key housing reforms that will help tackle the affordability issues that Mamdani centered in his campaign.
Instead, it seems that you're letting factional disputes cloud your perspective of Mamdani, who, to my mind, is much more practical than his fellow DSA members. I agree governing is hard, but he seems better positioned to do it than most.
>When de Blasio won, conservatives raised the specter of mass flight of the wealthy to other more business-friendly jurisdictions. That didn’t happen, and I think it probably won’t happen under Mamdani either.<
The Economist has been fulminating about the dire state of NYC's economy and fiscal situation. And I don't think they're totally wrong. When you look at rents (as you must), wage compression in the Big Apple have been especially lousy this decade. But I think they're overplaying their hand. One factoid they cite is NYC's (or NY State's) share of finance jobs. And that has indeed been dropping relative to...fast-growing states like Florida and Texas. But more people means more bank branches and more investment brokerage offices and thus more workers to fill those roles.
I think NYC will be ok at least with respect to the top jobs. The proximity to other movers and shakers pays for itself: one or two extra deals annually can *easily* pay for your higher tax bill. And you've got access to opera and ballet and theater and high end restaurants and shopping that Fort Lauderdale can't match.
All that said, I believe Mamdani's instincts as to what ails New York City are badly flawed. New Yorkers (and Democrats) will be lucky if he does no worse than Bill de Blasio.
And I'll go there: while Democrats had an absolutely fantastic night—I'll admit to having been worried about New Jersey—and while Mamdani's election in particular feels like a nice middle finger in the air to the MAGAs and Goypers—the optimal outcome for Democrats would probably have been "exact same results across the country except Cuomo pulls an upset." Andrew Cuomo is odious, mind you. And I don't blame New Yorkers one bit (even the ones who know better when it comes to policy) for voting for Mamdani. I would have, myself. But the De Blasio outcome isn't guaranteed, and it's *possible* that elevating a socialist to that role could cost Democrats votes over the next couple of cycles.
But anyway, no one likes a Debbie Downer, so I'll rejoice with everybody else for the time being!
all these races, they did it by double digits. And on everything including the CA gerrymander, which won by 25 points! Georgia utility board hasn’t had a Democratic member since 2007 - pre Obama - and they ousted two long term incumbents. It was a great night and we can only hope a harbinger of what’s to come.
Can I suggest that a lot of Mamdani grossest and most bigoted critics are making a version of the same mistake that “resistance libs” like me made in 2017. Namely, you’re setting the bar to awfulness way too high and when the leader in question can’t reach it, your criticisms that are more valid and more grounded in more reality are going to fall increasingly on deaf ears.
For resistance libs it was the “Russia stuff”. It was like the centerpiece of trump criticism for like two years. And it was sort of the a dud. Now I say this full aware that a) Bill Barr did an amazing job white washing the Mueller report findings and helping shape kind of a bogus narrative going forward that the entire thing was “fake news” and b) I think there is some legitimate questions still about the Trump organizations financial ties to Russia and real questions about why he acts the way he does with Putin. Having said all that, the bar set was he was a literal Russian asset possibly since 1987 and that he was literally taking orders from Putin. When that turned out to be not true I honestly think it undermined other more trenchant criticisms about his anti democratic behavior and maybe most of all his rampant corruption (which has only been ramped up today).
For Mamdani, I can’t emphasize enough that I have met more than one person who thinks he’s going to implement Sharia law or wants to implement Sharia law. Besides the fact that this was clearly a blatant lie spread around, it also has zero percent chance of ever happening. Even if it was secretly the case he wanted to bring Sharia law, the chances he could actually implement this would be zero and anyone suggesting this is a real possibility should be laughed out of the room. Which means that more grounded warnings about other Mamdani initiatives are not going to have the oomph they should (like a 4 year rent freeze. I cannot emphasize enough this is actually his worst proposal and has a real chance to do terrible damage to the city if it is actually implemented).
As is my wont, this is only tangential to the central idea here, but hearing about perpetual leftist denouncing of their own factional candidates makes me think that if you are an anti-pluralist, illiberal type, there are two common pathways to justifying that position:
- "Yes, we are in fact anti-pluralist and illiberal, and this is good because our opponents lack all virtue / are subhuman and should be cast out of the polity, duh" (far-right)
- "How dare you call us anti-pluralist and illiberal! We have an impossible standard for what constitutes "democracy," which happens to be if and only if our exact theory of just governance comes to pass and anyone who disagrees is banished from the polity, but it's fascist to call that illiberal, how dare you" (far-left)
The end of stop and frisk may not have had immediate negative effects, but combined with bail reform it certainly opened the door to the high disorder environment the city developed post George Floyd. Disorder has declined but remains elevated. Does anyone really think a return of stop and frisk wouldn’t help (albeit at the expense of other priorities of libertarians and minority advocacy groups)? If people are willing to concede that point then all I’m saying is the end of stop and frisk should probably be considered a mark against BDB rather than a minor plus.
Maybe US public opinion shift on Israel was predictable in retrospect given that US public opinion previously was a massive outlier globally (which you can see in polls or all those embarrassing lopsided votes at the UN). Could this suggest that people taking “unpopular” left-wing positions should also be concerned with whether such opinions are popular globally (at least compared to other developed countries) as that could be a sign of their chances of influencing public opinion in the US? If so, “defund the police” will probably never work but positions like more gun control, a bigger welfare state even if it means somewhat higher taxes, a nicer foreign policy, even more concern with climate and environment are probably fine.
It seems pretty obvious to me that in 100 years we will have universal health care and a decarbonized electric grid. It also seems pretty obvious to me that in 5 years we will not have those things. And I have no idea how long we will have to wait. Our country is pretty good at clinging to stupid ideas for a very long time.
He's got another important task that hasn't come up for prior mayors, and that's protecting New Yorkers (and not just illegals!) from the Trump regime. Adams and Cuomo signaled that they weren't particularly interested in doing that.
Probably a heavier lift than most mayors will ever have to attempt; we'll see if the kid's got the juice for it.
Both DeBlasio and Mamdani were/will become “accidental mayors”. Christine Quinn would have been but was crushed by anti-Bloomberg sentiment from the Left, Astroturf anti-hansom cab PACs (fronting for real estate interests with eyes on the stables), and the brief Anthony Weiner interlude (which took all the O2 out of her “middle lane”. Hence DeBlasio. Mamdani benefitted from an amazingly weak primary field, his youth, the complete absence of any meaningful record, and Gaza/Trump. That last factor ought not be under emphasized; this election was a proxy election and everyone who felt helpless about Trump’s predations and Israeli overreach (using an intentionally bland term) could vote for ZM, which required no more effort or sacrifice than clicking a like button on a social media post.
I said yesterday that I don’t expect SlowBoring to recommend Democrats adopt the Trumpian tactic of being a lying liar who says contradictory things to different audiences and lets each believe he’s scamming the other. Well I now eat my words!
This article butchers a lot of the details (certain types of crime were creeping up during Bill de Blasio’s tenure; Bloomberg did in fact significantly improve the provision of public services, in education among other places; etc.) but whatever. The main point is correct.
The issue I am most concerned about with Mamdani - namely the rise of antisemitic violence - was a serious unrecognized problem during de Blasio, wherein black kids would find visible ultra-Orthodox Jews and concuss them at random (yes really, look up “knockout games”.) de Blasio avoided scrutiny for it by being your bog-standard NYC politician of the time and leaning hard into being pro-Israel and visibly pro-Semite. That option is very obviously foreclosed to Mamdani, so he will have to respond to antisemitic violence by actually stopping it. Truth is, I’d much much rather have this set of incentives than de Blasio having a get out of jail free card in the form of marching in the Israel Day Parade.
One of my biggest problems with Mamdani is that his central campaign promise — freeze the rent — is a terrible and unworkable idea. I am very concerned about how that specifically will play out.
Good news is that it’s also illegal! I think his odds of getting it through the Rent Guidelines Board and fighting off lawsuits are pretty low, especially for multiple years in a row.
Boy, I have a hard time letting the comment that DeBlasio was "better than Bloomberg on some fronts, worse on others" stand unchallenged... I still reminisce about those Bloomberg years. I lived in NYC with Bloomberg as my mayor and Obama as my president, and all seemed Good and Technocratic with the world.
Bloomberg downzoned huge swaths of the city -- while upzoning certain neighborhoods near the waterfronts -- that resulted in stymying incremental housing development in less dense neighborhoods.
That one TED talk from someone in his administration bragging about not allowing more density around certain transit hubs made me want to slam my head in a drawer.
These downzonings were utterly inconsequential and ridiculously overrated. No, you were never going to get high rise multifamily housing in Midwood or Bayside. Doing those downzonings bought him room to maneuver to unlock tremendous capacity in places like Astoria, Downtown Brooklyn, and LIC. What’s that? The slow boring of hard boards sometimes requires tradeoffs and prioritization? I’ve never heard that before!
I think what we got was an overall loss in housing capacity, because the value of turning single family homes into small apartment buildings in places like Midwood and Bayside wasn't made up for by those big upzonings (where, remember, every project needs to make more to pencil out because larger buildings are more expensive).
Yep, that's what I acknowledged -- "upzoning certain neighborhoods near the waterfronts", e.g., Astoria, Downtown Brooklyn, LIC.
Same. 😢
re: "better than worse than"
Funny, that's how I tend to think of the Biden years. A lot of terminally online people talk as if was the low point in all of US history. But I rather enjoyed 2021-2025. I feel all warm and tingly when I browse my phone photos and look back on, say, the summer of 2023.
Yes, we had inflation. But we also had a return to normalcy as the pandemic lifted. But the monster had not yet returned. A brief, golden age. Hell, there was even talk of how China might not surpass the USA in nominal GDP after all. When's the last time you heard that? (Answer, sometime before January of 2025).
Sure, but DeBlasio also was fine.
Mamdani's best issues are around urbanism. Things like universal daylighting, the end of parking mandates, continuing the previous administration's efforts to get trash off the streets, etc. These would be very noticeable and a mayor could actually help deliver them. I'm no fan of Mamdani, I voted for five other candidates in the primary before begrudgingly voting against the gerontocracy, but it might be nice to have a major who likes living in NYC and wants to improve life for the residents instead of New Jersey commuters. Eric Adams and De Blasio shared the trait of being a little too car brained for a city where most residents don't own one.
This was Cuomo's downfall. He just didn't seem to like or care very much about NYC. I think Mamdani is obviously a charismatic politician, but Mamdani's charisma was also magnified by Cuomo's dourness.
Would be interesting to see if Kathryn Garcia was in this race. I think she would have consolidated the anti-Mamdani vote and then picked off younger progressives who wanted a female mayor.
The inability of moderates to coalesce around a primary candidate who wasn't Cuomo is so stupid.
The candidates in the last two mayoral primaries have been so bad. Just a complete lack of charisma. I don't know why NYC can't find replacement level politicians.
A huge systematic disadvantage of moderation in politics is that there rarely is an obvious reason for moderates to coalesce around one candidate other than electability. It almost is built into the process that you need plausible candidates with a chance to step aside-not a great formula for success with people with egos large enough to run for office.
To LaGuardia's point, though, this isn't a left or right issue, just a getting it done issue. Philadelphia Mayor Parker came to office on the similar issues, and she certainly isn't a Mamdani-style lefty. She wanted to bring in the National Guard to restore order in parts of the city (Shapiro said no). I saw her give a town hall on the city budget at a large Pentecostal church, where the pastor introduced her as a "woman of God", she said, You all believed in me when nobody else did, and everyone held out their hands to her and prayed for her, and then she did her thing. Mamdani might be a fit for NYC, but I think Parker's style of politics has more potential to transfer to other parts of the country, such as the South or elsewhere.
Mamdani at least seems willing to keep Tisch
Which (like progressives winning big-city mayor's races) is the furthest thing from a new phenomenon. At least until very recently, the vast majority of successful black urban politicians were extremely closely connected to the black church. Some of them were literal ministers.
Absolutely I think this is the strongest case for Mamdani for people who actually live in NYC
Apropos of not all that much, it is striking to see how the Mamdani win is dominating national and global coverage of the election. For my money it was at best only the fourth most important contest yesterday:
(1) The California ballot initiative could cost Republicans the House of Representatives. And it's a big personal win that might well help propel Gavin Newsom to the presidency.
(2) Virginia is a large and important state, Democrats flipped the governorship. That's a net pick up for them, and a net loss for Trump's party, right in his own backyard. Spangerger might even have won herself a place on a future national ticket.
(3) NJ looked dicey for Democrats, and the trends in that state for some time had looked worrying for them. Mikie Sherrill didn't just win. She crushed it.
But yeah, I get it. New York City is New York City. And what happens there gets noticed. So it's hardly surprising that that Mamdani's win is getting so much coverage. But still...
Matt didn't exactly help this issue!
Spanberger is a real National candidate. Just closes off so many avenues of attack from the GOP.
If it's one thing I've learned from the last 7 years of American politics, it's that Democrats should recruit every woman who ever worked for the CIA and run them in every state.
It should be disqualifying NOT to own a gun.
Ironically, I voted against a former CIA officer who ran in a primary for a local office in Virginia since he platform was just NIMBYism in a place that needs me housing.
I mean she's a woman though.. I'm not voting for another woman for a long time
I completely agree. Which D victory is more impressive? The one who got 50.4% in a place that hasn't elected a Republican in decades? Or the one who got 57.4% (!!!) and flipped the office from R to D?
I lived in VA in the Warner/Kaine years, so I certainly knew Spanberger would likely win, but a 15 point margin is really very impressive.
I realize the context is different, but that makes Spanberger more impressive by comparison, not less. Mamdani ran against a sore loser and barely broke 50%!
Apparently there was a big shift in Hispanic and South Asian voters in NJ relative to 2024. Maybe Republican's decision to spend to the past year telling minorities that they openly despise them over and over has eroded the gains they made with minorities in 2024.
See how Republicans have kicked out Vivek Ramaswamy. See how JD Vance dehumanizes his wife and children. See how MAGA venerates state violence and criminal violations of people's Constitutional rights over melanin.
I posted this on last night's thread, but it seems apt:
I've been thinking (ok, hoping) that the Hispanic vote has become the classic "show me the deliverables swing vote" — and the elections 2020 and 2024 were simply reflective of that. Trump cannily took up the mantle of "I want to open up the economy so you can get your job back" in 2020. And in 2024 he ran on "Democrats are making food and rent too expensive."
Well, he's had ten months to deal with the cost of living crisis, and Hispanic voters aren't stupid.
It could be! But I'm a little cautious about reading too much into odd-year election results. Maybe turnout in NJ for their gov race was high, but in PA yesterday, at least, my polling place felt deserted.
When it comes to the 2028 election, the low turnout voters who will show up will not be "like" the voters who showed up yesterday, even if they might appear that way on paper.
One pattern I have seen is that Trump voters don't really show up without Trump on the ticket.
NJ looks like it’ll be at about 80% of 2024 Presidential turnout and 125% of the last governor election.
Turnout is driven by heated, competitive races. That's why, bloviating about turnout aside, 2024 totals for Harris worsened compared to Biden: a whole lot of Harris supporters in deep red and deep blue states didn't show up. Anyway, I'm thinking that explains Pennsylvannia?
Democrats also won the PA Supreme Court election in a landslide which will prevent gerrymandering and other election shenanigans in one of the most important swing states.
Spanberger didn't just win (which was expected). She obliterated Earle-Sears, and allowed Democrats to ride her coattails to elect Jones as AG (despite his violent texting scandal) and flip at least 10 (!!) seats in the House of Delegates to give Democrats a governing triumvirate with at least a 61-39 advantage in the House. She outperformed Harris --- i.e., shifted the vote left --- (often significantly) in 89 out of 93 of VA's districts.
Would love to see some more analysis of this and how transferrable it is to the midterms. VA is quirky because of having so many federal employees and contractors that are especially pissed at Trump et al for all the DOGE cuts, so I'm trying to temper my expectations about the transferability of this blue wave. But then again, Sherrill crushed it too without the same quirks, so maybe there's a case for some cautious optimism.
The GOP chose a gender swapped uncle Ruckus. That wasn’t going to work out for them.
Spanberger would have beat a Youngkin level candidate but the GOP didn’t even show up with that.
Yep. I mentioned the other day that I hope Spanberger is at least "on people's lips" for 2028 if she does well.
Well, she's a star!
It's amazing that in order you have 1) a ballot initiative in a large state that is home to much of America's entertainment media, 2) a major state right next to DC where the Pentagon is also located and 3) a major state right next to New York, yet they are all receiving so much less news coverage. All three feature people who are much more likely to be on a national ticket than Mamdani.
Not saying that some media actors don't have other motives, but the main thing is that the media knows what's going to get clicks, and that matters to them a lot more than what's "important".
Is it even that complicated? National news media is concentrated in New York. They're just talking about what they themselves find interesting.
Infinitely more likely!
And even on a local level, the YIMBY NYC charter amendments that passed last night are IMO almost as consequential as the mayoral election, since their potential impact on NYC's housing shortage is considerable. As an ex-New Yorkers, those ballot proposals were what I had my eye on.
It’s headline news on the BBC and Israeli papers. I am confident that there are more important things going on in Israel at the moment than the election of an anti-Israel politician to an office that has literally no influence on the US-Israel relationship. I don’t know much about British affairs, but I’m gonna guess that’s the case there too, given that the US-Israel relationship itself has no influence on British affairs! It’s weird as hell man.
There was never a sliver of doubt that Californians would pass the prop. Anyone who said otherwise is either quite uninformed or a propagandist.
I mean, that was true in the last few weeks, sure. I don't think it was a foregone conclusion when the measure first made it to the ballot. I recall seeing polling several months ago suggesting it was likely to be a close affair. Good on Newsom for having the balls for investing some political capital early on.
I don’t know about governing but he will probably sustain enthusiasm longer than De Baslio just because he seems better at retail politics and media. He seems like a political animal in the way of Gavin Newsom or Bill Clinton in the sense that he seems to like doing the dirty work of politics, even listening to and cajoling the wealthy! He’s very much unlike Bernie and even De Blasio in that respect.
I met him a few times when I did by reporting trip for Zellnor Myrie's campaign (RIP). He definitely had that Bill Clinton-esque ability to make you feel like the most important person in the room.
Not a NYC resident but could see him just happily hyping small ball wins and as long as nothing rocks the boat too hard...could work for him? Work out as in he won't be viscerally disliked.
Yes. Politicking is important even after you win. And the most important part of that is going to be his inevitable clashes with the Trump administration. Symbolic or not, that’s how you be a “progressive hero” in 2025. Mamdani has to walk a fine line between publicly standing up to Trump in a way that feels satisfying to his base while minimizing/managing the material consequences of whatever bullshit Trump may try to throw st NYC … and most importantly, while also delivering on the boring day to day governance stuff. But having Trump as foil is more blessing than curse for a progressive mayor faced with the structural difficulties Matt describes.
Since he wasn't born here, we also don't have to worry about him getting distracted by running for president in a few years, which was a problem we had with De Blasio.
On #3, I think Matt underplays the massive shift in work patterns that has happened since de Blasio’s terms: specifically, that we all now know how easy it is to set up shop somewhere else. Covid and the years since taught the financial industry that, while being at the office remains important, that office does not have to be in NYC anymore. This simply was not true in 2013, or even 2017. Citadel famously left Chicago for Miami. Alliance Bernstein has mostly left NYC for Nashville. JP Morgan Chase, despite the new building, is employing more and more in Texas and other states. Others know they can easily follow.
So the threats of capital flight are indeed more credible now, not because of politics, but because of the pandemic and its lessons.
I would buy this more if it wasn’t for the fact that the NYC office market has actually bounced back strongly in the last year. Office vacancies are plummeting (please see my LinkedIn page. I do this for a living)
Please see Matt’s post “Chicago is doomed”. The reality is if office rents in NYC really do go permanently settle at a price point a bit lower than pre COVID price points, that would still likely mean NYC office market is likely going to be in healthy place. Basically, there is A LOT of room for prices to drop and for their not to be a huge drop in office occupancies. A lot of companies have back office in other locations purely because office rents in other locations are lower. If office rents are even a small degree lower in NYC, a lot of those operations will just be moved to NYC. By the way, similar dynamic with SF (see recent Wall Street journal article about tech wanting move back to SF from Austin).
Honestly, to me this is an example of the power of right wing media speaking in one voice. Even for those of us who detest Fox or Newsmax their talking points have a way of bleeding into what I’ll call more respectable outlets.
There’s office vacancies, and then there’s the tax base. Office rents dropping means that the office buildings themselves pay lower property taxes. By the same token, Ken Griffin personally might have been paying something like .1% of Chicago’s taxes, and now he’s not - the people living in the city to work at those offices being replaced by less wealthy people makes a big difference too.
Lots of tech companies that relocated to Miami in the wake of Covid ended up regretting it. Venture investment was way down in 2024. Anecdotally everything I've heard on this topic is it didn't really work out. Perhaps it's gone better for more established companies from cold weather cities though?
It's amazing how many tech leaders thought moving to Miami was a good idea because the mayor talked about crypto, but never stopped to think about the fact that they were based in SF in the first place because of all of the nearby top tier universities.
Miami has insane governance problems and crime is a real issue, even compared to Chicago.
It's not like crypto would ever be used for crime. Right, right?
It was a while ago but Chicago condos don’t have issues with home invasions resulting in the murder of NFL players. Lurid crime affecting the wealthy is a fact of life in Miami, they’ve made tv shows about it.
I am really stunned that someone would list “crime and public safety” in the “pro” column about Miami.
Sure, but it’s a better place than NYC to commit white collar crime, so it all balances out in the end.
Think it’s the clustering effect more than the universities. Boston would be the tech hub if it was about access to good universities.
Boston's big problem was the state's use of non-competes, which California lacked. It is still important for some types of tech, particularly biomedical tech, due to the universities.
Boston is a huge hub for pharma.
Dallas is way ahead of Miami to become the second financial hub. That seems no permanent. Both Goldman and Wells Fargo are building huge campuses there, etc.
I think actually the opposite effect is true. If you can work from anywhere, why not work from somewhere cool (if you can afford it)
While I think that is a good concern to flag, I’d argue the change will be in high end residential stuff. Commercial real is on a tear in NYC, they lead the nation in “office visits” and are the only major city to exceed their 2019 levels. Citadel, for all their bluster about getting out of blue states, is building a $5b tower two blocks north of that new JP Morgan building to house both the hedge fund and the market maker. These are long term bets on New York by large firms.
Yes, Citadel has plans on the block of Park between 51st and 52nd, though this is mostly relocated Chicagoans. (The Chicago office is almost entirely gone, thanks to bad government.). This decision was made during the relatively stable (for business) Adams years. Griffin does not have to go through with it, if he finds his team does not want to be in NYC going forward.
I should also note that I am writing as a distance commuter to NYC (from my hometown in a very red Southern state, where I am happy to be rearing my children). Our small team renewed our lease at a massive discount a few years ago, but we may relocate across the river - or down South - if taxes go up or the quality of life goes down. Everyone has a limit, and thanks to Zoom, our limits are much lower than they used to be.
JP Morgan already employs more people in Texas than New York. I do think New York has some huge advantages, but New Yorkers definitely have a NYC exceptionalism blind spot that could result in some unforced errors.
This guy gets it! The substance of trying to push higher taxes in NYC is insanely more fraught; I’d argue that since we’re now 12 years removed from Occupy Wall Street, the politics are more fraught too.
To what extent does NYCs tax base depend upon upper middle class employment versus multimillionaires buying condos? I honestly don’t know.
I know the answer for DC is that there is a huge base of insanely wealthy people funding the city, and this is a new thing.
DC runs “surprising” surpluses because it’s a really inconvenient fact that it’s not even the wealthy gentrifiers that drive revenues but the eyewateringly wealthy.
Crazy that someone with that much money would voluntarily choose to live in DC.
Exceptional QOL if you want to live in a city, are white, and wealthy. Especially considering the cost compared to NYC (I turned down a job up there because an equivalent house/brownstone cost 10x). If you want walkability and urban amenities, there aren’t a ton of choices. White educated people have the longest life expectancy in the country in DC. It’s basically Europe for a fraction of the price.
Murder rate 4x South Africa if you’re black.
I recall 10 or 15 years ago Andrew Sullivan doing an experiment where he moved from Adams Morgan to NYC and found it to be a total nightmare.
In DC, you can get a fabulous condo on the Potomac for under $5 million, a very swank flat for a fraction of that. In NY you can’t stick your chest out with seven figure real estate. Also, DC has a deep bench of highly educated professionals of both sexes if you want to date or make erudite friends.
Plus the weather is better. I have begrudgingly admitted to myself that the Southeast actually has very nice weather and much better than the north (galling, as a committed Yankee and fall enjoyer). You just get a lot more crisp but not cold sweater weather actually, and AC means the summers are not that much worse. The temperature differential is much larger in the cold months than the warm.
NYC funds itself substantially more off of income taxes (including for those who live and work out-of-state but base out of an NYC office) than off of real estate taxes. Given the proportion of taxpayers who are renters versus owners, as well as commuters, this has made sense over the years. But, again, we all now know how much easier it is to meet over Zoom, or in-person anywhere with a good airport, than it was less than a decade ago.
I imagine many of the multimillionaires actively work in finance, so they are probably deriving their income from NY and therefore paying taxes. Multi multi multi millionaires might have an NYC apartment(s) but not spend 181 days in the city for tax purposes.
I wonder how big the ultra wealthy committed New Yorker (tm) set is. They definitely exist.
“When I look back on de Blasio, I see a basically good mayor: stronger than Adams in certain areas, weaker in others”
I guess you might see that, but people really hated DeBlasio at the time and were pining for just about anyone else. From what I remember they thought he was oily and insincere.
Remember this Onion article?
https://theonion.com/de-blasio-well-well-well-not-so-easy-to-find-a-may-1847151201/
One of my favorite Brooklyn Nine-Nine jokes is, after having successfully bugged a car driven by the local crime boss and one of his lieutenants, Jake summarizes the intelligence they gleaned and then says "...and then they hit a pothole and complained about de Blasio for twelve blocks."
I worked for the NYC government during the deBlasio administration. I and most of my colleagues hated him. City Hall operations, at least insofar as they affected my agency (which was a lot), were horrible and his sanctimonious demeanor was obnoxious.
Early in his first term, when the administration was trying to get the housing legislation through the council, he went on a local public radio show to talk about it. Asked about opposition from community boards, he basically blew them off, saying something like “they don’t matter, it’s only an advisory vote.” Which is true, but not something that a mayor trying to build support for ambitious legislation should say! I remember thinking that someone who has only ever worked in politics should do it better than this.
Not smart for the mayor to say but I'm with him. community boards should really be abolished. They literally only serve to act as a veto point but they don't even have a veto.
Oh 100%, they are actively harmful. But you don’t say that on Brian Lehrer when you’re trying to pass legislation! I might be wrong but I think there might have been a better policy outcome (less subsidy required for affordable units) had he handled it better.
It’s amazing how much demeanor matters. The sanctimoniousness you describe is exactly what my county executive gives off. So I loathe him, sometimes I admit, to an irrational degree. Why don’t these guys figure this out?
Seriously! I guess at a certain (not very high, in my experience) level, many public figures attract sycophants and can’t resist getting high on their own supply. One of the things I loved about Obama was that he at least appeared to rise above this. Fake it until you make it, people!
also loved the "Blame DeBlasio!" bit on SNL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d7Vk_qaiB8&t=180s
I find your approach to Mamdani curious. It would be easy to celebrate the things Mamdani has said regarding reforming city bureaucracy, and work to focus others on that aspect of his agenda. Likewise, NYC voters approved some key housing reforms that will help tackle the affordability issues that Mamdani centered in his campaign.
Instead, it seems that you're letting factional disputes cloud your perspective of Mamdani, who, to my mind, is much more practical than his fellow DSA members. I agree governing is hard, but he seems better positioned to do it than most.
I mean I think Matt has voiced approval for those and opposition to free buses, etc.
>When de Blasio won, conservatives raised the specter of mass flight of the wealthy to other more business-friendly jurisdictions. That didn’t happen, and I think it probably won’t happen under Mamdani either.<
The Economist has been fulminating about the dire state of NYC's economy and fiscal situation. And I don't think they're totally wrong. When you look at rents (as you must), wage compression in the Big Apple have been especially lousy this decade. But I think they're overplaying their hand. One factoid they cite is NYC's (or NY State's) share of finance jobs. And that has indeed been dropping relative to...fast-growing states like Florida and Texas. But more people means more bank branches and more investment brokerage offices and thus more workers to fill those roles.
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/10/30/as-new-jobs-in-finance-dry-up-new-york-citys-fiscal-model-is-wilting
New York's barely growing, if at all.
I think NYC will be ok at least with respect to the top jobs. The proximity to other movers and shakers pays for itself: one or two extra deals annually can *easily* pay for your higher tax bill. And you've got access to opera and ballet and theater and high end restaurants and shopping that Fort Lauderdale can't match.
All that said, I believe Mamdani's instincts as to what ails New York City are badly flawed. New Yorkers (and Democrats) will be lucky if he does no worse than Bill de Blasio.
And I'll go there: while Democrats had an absolutely fantastic night—I'll admit to having been worried about New Jersey—and while Mamdani's election in particular feels like a nice middle finger in the air to the MAGAs and Goypers—the optimal outcome for Democrats would probably have been "exact same results across the country except Cuomo pulls an upset." Andrew Cuomo is odious, mind you. And I don't blame New Yorkers one bit (even the ones who know better when it comes to policy) for voting for Mamdani. I would have, myself. But the De Blasio outcome isn't guaranteed, and it's *possible* that elevating a socialist to that role could cost Democrats votes over the next couple of cycles.
But anyway, no one likes a Debbie Downer, so I'll rejoice with everybody else for the time being!
Not only did Dems win
all these races, they did it by double digits. And on everything including the CA gerrymander, which won by 25 points! Georgia utility board hasn’t had a Democratic member since 2007 - pre Obama - and they ousted two long term incumbents. It was a great night and we can only hope a harbinger of what’s to come.
The utility price spike needs its own set of articles. Shit is wild
I think the prospect of Hochul losing her seat to Elise Stefanik just got materially more likely. Make of that what you will.
Unless Hochul gets caught on camera murdering a puppy or something, the Dems are not going to lose NY-Gov in a midterm while Trump is President.
Can I suggest that a lot of Mamdani grossest and most bigoted critics are making a version of the same mistake that “resistance libs” like me made in 2017. Namely, you’re setting the bar to awfulness way too high and when the leader in question can’t reach it, your criticisms that are more valid and more grounded in more reality are going to fall increasingly on deaf ears.
For resistance libs it was the “Russia stuff”. It was like the centerpiece of trump criticism for like two years. And it was sort of the a dud. Now I say this full aware that a) Bill Barr did an amazing job white washing the Mueller report findings and helping shape kind of a bogus narrative going forward that the entire thing was “fake news” and b) I think there is some legitimate questions still about the Trump organizations financial ties to Russia and real questions about why he acts the way he does with Putin. Having said all that, the bar set was he was a literal Russian asset possibly since 1987 and that he was literally taking orders from Putin. When that turned out to be not true I honestly think it undermined other more trenchant criticisms about his anti democratic behavior and maybe most of all his rampant corruption (which has only been ramped up today).
For Mamdani, I can’t emphasize enough that I have met more than one person who thinks he’s going to implement Sharia law or wants to implement Sharia law. Besides the fact that this was clearly a blatant lie spread around, it also has zero percent chance of ever happening. Even if it was secretly the case he wanted to bring Sharia law, the chances he could actually implement this would be zero and anyone suggesting this is a real possibility should be laughed out of the room. Which means that more grounded warnings about other Mamdani initiatives are not going to have the oomph they should (like a 4 year rent freeze. I cannot emphasize enough this is actually his worst proposal and has a real chance to do terrible damage to the city if it is actually implemented).
I don't envy you or the other New Yorkers who had to choose between Mamdani, Cuomo or Sliwa. No good options there in my view.
"What is Mamdani's worst proposal" could fill up a book.
My favorite invocation of Sharia law in American politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y83z552NJaw
I can’t even talk about him with Israeli friends. It’s weird.
And I’m pretty pro Israel and their actions in Gaza.
> Even if it was secretly the case he wanted to bring Sharia law, the chances he could actually implement this would be zero
I would suggest instead a thorough indoctrination in the works of Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi. Especially for 8th graders.
The mayor of NYC doesn't have the authority to raise taxes (right?); sharia is gonna be a lot harder than free buses.
As is my wont, this is only tangential to the central idea here, but hearing about perpetual leftist denouncing of their own factional candidates makes me think that if you are an anti-pluralist, illiberal type, there are two common pathways to justifying that position:
- "Yes, we are in fact anti-pluralist and illiberal, and this is good because our opponents lack all virtue / are subhuman and should be cast out of the polity, duh" (far-right)
- "How dare you call us anti-pluralist and illiberal! We have an impossible standard for what constitutes "democracy," which happens to be if and only if our exact theory of just governance comes to pass and anyone who disagrees is banished from the polity, but it's fascist to call that illiberal, how dare you" (far-left)
The two types of NIMBYs…
The end of stop and frisk may not have had immediate negative effects, but combined with bail reform it certainly opened the door to the high disorder environment the city developed post George Floyd. Disorder has declined but remains elevated. Does anyone really think a return of stop and frisk wouldn’t help (albeit at the expense of other priorities of libertarians and minority advocacy groups)? If people are willing to concede that point then all I’m saying is the end of stop and frisk should probably be considered a mark against BDB rather than a minor plus.
This elides the whole court order and discrimination thing a bit, but the program could have been reformed rather than 95% eliminated: https://www.nyclu.org/data/stop-and-frisk-data
Maybe US public opinion shift on Israel was predictable in retrospect given that US public opinion previously was a massive outlier globally (which you can see in polls or all those embarrassing lopsided votes at the UN). Could this suggest that people taking “unpopular” left-wing positions should also be concerned with whether such opinions are popular globally (at least compared to other developed countries) as that could be a sign of their chances of influencing public opinion in the US? If so, “defund the police” will probably never work but positions like more gun control, a bigger welfare state even if it means somewhat higher taxes, a nicer foreign policy, even more concern with climate and environment are probably fine.
It seems pretty obvious to me that in 100 years we will have universal health care and a decarbonized electric grid. It also seems pretty obvious to me that in 5 years we will not have those things. And I have no idea how long we will have to wait. Our country is pretty good at clinging to stupid ideas for a very long time.
He's got another important task that hasn't come up for prior mayors, and that's protecting New Yorkers (and not just illegals!) from the Trump regime. Adams and Cuomo signaled that they weren't particularly interested in doing that.
Probably a heavier lift than most mayors will ever have to attempt; we'll see if the kid's got the juice for it.
Both DeBlasio and Mamdani were/will become “accidental mayors”. Christine Quinn would have been but was crushed by anti-Bloomberg sentiment from the Left, Astroturf anti-hansom cab PACs (fronting for real estate interests with eyes on the stables), and the brief Anthony Weiner interlude (which took all the O2 out of her “middle lane”. Hence DeBlasio. Mamdani benefitted from an amazingly weak primary field, his youth, the complete absence of any meaningful record, and Gaza/Trump. That last factor ought not be under emphasized; this election was a proxy election and everyone who felt helpless about Trump’s predations and Israeli overreach (using an intentionally bland term) could vote for ZM, which required no more effort or sacrifice than clicking a like button on a social media post.
What I walked 6 blocks to a polling place in the rain on a Thursday morning. That was way more effort than a social media like.
Your admirable commitment and self sacrifice will be noted in the upcoming newsletter. ;)
I said yesterday that I don’t expect SlowBoring to recommend Democrats adopt the Trumpian tactic of being a lying liar who says contradictory things to different audiences and lets each believe he’s scamming the other. Well I now eat my words!
This article butchers a lot of the details (certain types of crime were creeping up during Bill de Blasio’s tenure; Bloomberg did in fact significantly improve the provision of public services, in education among other places; etc.) but whatever. The main point is correct.
The issue I am most concerned about with Mamdani - namely the rise of antisemitic violence - was a serious unrecognized problem during de Blasio, wherein black kids would find visible ultra-Orthodox Jews and concuss them at random (yes really, look up “knockout games”.) de Blasio avoided scrutiny for it by being your bog-standard NYC politician of the time and leaning hard into being pro-Israel and visibly pro-Semite. That option is very obviously foreclosed to Mamdani, so he will have to respond to antisemitic violence by actually stopping it. Truth is, I’d much much rather have this set of incentives than de Blasio having a get out of jail free card in the form of marching in the Israel Day Parade.
One of my biggest problems with Mamdani is that his central campaign promise — freeze the rent — is a terrible and unworkable idea. I am very concerned about how that specifically will play out.
Good news is that it’s also illegal! I think his odds of getting it through the Rent Guidelines Board and fighting off lawsuits are pretty low, especially for multiple years in a row.
That doesn’t make me feel better about Mamdani. It was literally the centerpiece of his campaign.