this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
39 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10844 readers
182 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul became the top official in the state to endorse Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani for New York City for mayor on Sunday, marking a shift for a strident defender of Israel as mainstream Democrats grapple with surging public support for Mamdani’s criticism of the Israeli regime over its ongoing genocide in Gaza.

In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Hochul wrote that she and Mamdani shared priorities like making the city more affordable and ensuring strong leadership of the New York Police Department. She also took an oblique shot at Mamdani’s two main competitors: current New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who President Donald Trump’s team has reportedly pushed to drop out of the race, and Andrew Cuomo, who would have a better shot at winning if Adams did so. The former governor lost the Democratic primary by just under 13 percentage pointsto Mamdani in June.

“In light of the abhorrent and destructive policies coming out of Washington every day, I needed to know the next mayor will not be someone who would surrender one inch to President Trump,” Hochul wrote. Trump, apparently displeased with the endorsement, called it “a rather shocking development.”

Hochul’s support for Mamdani followed nearly three months of hand-wringing from the de facto leader of New York’s Democratic Party, who has expressed skepticism of Mamdani’s policy proposals that would require tax hikes on the wealthy and more public spending. Now, Hochul’s endorsement sets her apart from the top two Democrats in Congress — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — who have both declined to weigh in on the most heated race in New York City.

As a result, New York’s Democratic establishment remains split over whether they should rally behind Mamdani, Cuomo, or — seemingly – no one.

Nearly three months after the primary, only four members of the Democratic congressional delegation representing New York City districts have endorsed Mamdani: Reps. Nydia Velázquez, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jerry Nadler, and Adriano Espaillat. Only Velázquez and Ocasio-Cortez backed Mamdani before his primary win.

“We have a Democratic nominee,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters earlier this month. “Are we a party that rallies behind their nominee, or not?”

Many members of New York City’s financial elite, set on edge by Mamdani’s promises of a freeze on stabilized rents and othermeasures to lower the city’s cost of living, have been plotting to keep him from securing the mayor’s seat in November.

Democratic Reps. George Latimer, Ritchie Torres, Gregory Meeks, and Tom Suozzi have endorsed Cuomo. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Reps. Dan Goldman, Grace Meng, and Yvette Clarke have not made endorsements in the race.

Urging her fellow New York Democrats to back Mamdani, Ocasio-Cortez has pointed to her support of President Joe Biden during the 2024 presidential election even though he was not her preferred candidate.

“We use our primaries to settle our differences and once we have a nominee, we rally behind that nominee. I am very concerned by the example that is being set by anybody in our party,” Ocasio-Cortez said earlier this month. “If an individual doesn’t want to support the party’s nominee now, it complicates their ability to ask voters to support any nominee later.”

Outside the city, Rep. Pat Ryan, a Democrat who represents a swing district in the Hudson Valley, endorsed Mamdani last week. Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen, a moderate from Long Island, was the first Democrat to publicly denounce Mamdani’s campaign after his win but has not endorsed a candidate in the race.

Reached for comment, a spokesperson for Jeffries pointed to a statement he made to reporters last week: “I certainly will have more to say about the New York City mayor’s race in short order.”

Offices for Schumer, Gillibrand, Goldman, Meng, and Clarke did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Nadler, who announced this month he will retire at the end of the current congressional session, addressed his change of heart toward Mamdani during an interview with WNYC’s Brian Lehrer on September 5. During the primary, Nadler said he would not back Mamdani because of his criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and what Nadler called Mamdani’s lack of experience. Nadler told Lehrer his decision to endorse Mamdani after he won the primary was a no-brainer.

“First, he was the Democratic nominee,” Nadler said. “Second, what are the alternatives? You have the mayor, who’s a crook, and you had Andrew Cuomo, whom I had said should resign from the governorship because he was a repeat sexual predator.”

Goldman, whose Manhattan district Mamdani won in June, endorsed state Sen. Zellnor Myrie before the primary and has said he has spoken with Mamdani but won’t endorse him without “concrete steps” to assuage fears from Jewish New Yorkers about hate crimes in the city. It’s not clear what further steps Goldman wants to see — Mamdani has repeatedly said he takes concerns about antisemitism seriously and that he would take steps to protect all of his constituents — Jewish and otherwise.

Clarke endorsed New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams before the primary. Meng, who did not make an endorsement prior to the primary, congratulated Mamdani on his win in June and a campaign that she said “built coalitions & mobilized underrepresented New Yorkers!” But she stopped short of endorsing Mamdani.

Gustavo Gordillo, co-chair of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America, which supports Mamdani’s campaign, condemned the party establishment for neglecting to rally behind Mamdani.

“Establishment Democrats have no plan to support the workers targeted by Trump’s agenda,” Gordillo said. “If establishment Democrats refuse to get behind Zohran, they’re not just rejecting the vision of an affordable NYC — they’re rejecting the 500,000 voters and counting who are behind Zohran.”

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

hochul trying to save face for her next election.

[–] Kwakigra@beehaw.org 1 points 4 hours ago

If this is her motivation it's extremely encouraging. So many elected Democrats have demonstrated their cowardice consistently for many years. If the cowardly move is now to yield to voter pressure rather than to donor pressure it can only be a good thing.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social -4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Lemmy: "Let's push the Democrats to the left by refusing to vote for Kamala Harris, basically threaten to end the world unless our demands are met"

Lemmy when Mamdani starts successfully pushing the Democrats left: "I am suddenly motivated to spend a lot of energy whining about how bad the Democrats are"

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 8 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Lemmy when Mamdani starts successfully pushing the Democrats left: "I am suddenly motivated to spend a lot of energy whining about how bad the Democrats are"

I don't remember a time when Lemmy wasn't (rightly) complaining about how bad the Democrats are. This is confirmation bias at work.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

One example I gave up above was one user who spent a ton of time saying that he was helping promote left-wing change in American politics by encouraging people not to vote for Biden because he wasn't good enough, but that same person hasn't (beyond a single one-liner complaining about Democrats) spent any of his thousands of comments doing anything to promote Mamdani. Mamdani who is (so far successfully) promoting left-wing change in American politics. If you want to educate the DNC about how vital it is to let go of Israel and friendships with all the rich people, it seems like making sure Mamdani wins and promoting his candidacy would be like crash priority level 1,000 for that. Right? I would think they would be excited about this guy... I mean I am. That's why I keep posting about him. It's notable to me that, in a lot of cases, these people seem like they are not (at least in their busy posting-about-politics-on-Lemmy schedule) including him or mentioning him. It's weird, right? To me that's weird.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Are they wrong the complain though? Gordillo seems to have some criticisms for them not endorsing Mamdani

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 2 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Not at all wrong, no, I am joining in that complaining. I'm just pointing out the conspicuous lack of much corresponding effort by the same people to talk up Mamdani himself.

It seems kinda weird that making sure Kamala Harris lost the election, to teach the Democrats a lesson about genocide, doesn't come alongside making sure that Mamdani wins the election, to teach the Democrats a lesson about genocide. Right? If they were who they claimed to be then you would think that the people who cared a lot about the first thing and talked about it a lot would also now be talking about the second one a lot, right?

[–] spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

the conspicuous lack of much corresponding effort by the same people to talk up Mamdani himself.

who are "the same people" that you're referring to?

is "people" singular, or plural?

how many people, specifically?

because the last time I asked you for a concrete example to back up a sweeping claim like this, you brought up one guy who was a petty tyrant forum moderator you had a beef with. and you were still salty about the beef like a year later.

making sure Kamala Harris lost the election, to teach the Democrats a lesson about genocide

do you have any concrete evidence (preferably something more substantial than "Lemmy comment from a guy I got into an argument with a year ago") that people not voting for Kamala because of Gaza actually changed the election outcome and caused Harris to lose?

because...ballots are secret, right? you can't actually know who someone voted for. they can tell you, but they're not obligated to tell you the truth, they could lie.

there are exit polls...but by the very nature of exit polls, you can't capture people who stay home and don't vote.

every time I hear this argument about "Democrats who stayed home because of Gaza" it seems like they're Schrodinger's voting bloc: so large that it swung the entire election. but also, so small that Democrats were correct to not try to appeal to them (Umberto Eco has a principle that fascism requires an enemy that is simultaneously strong and weak...but I'm sure that's just a coincidence)

doesn’t come alongside making sure that Mamdani wins the election

I live in Seattle. you're saying I've been slacking off about making sure Mamdani wins? OK, tell me what I should do.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

who are "the same people" that you're referring to?

is "people" singular, or plural?

how many people, specifically?

I gave an example elsewhere in this thread. Are you trying to say that there were not any people on Lemmy loudly saying that they weren't going to vote for Democrats in the last election, because they needed to learn their lesson about supporting genocide? I am noting that I haven't seen any of those people apply any of that vigor, now, to supporting Mamdani. That's weird to me.

because the last time I asked you for a concrete example to back up a sweeping claim like this, you brought up one guy who was a petty tyrant forum moderator you had a beef with. and you were still salty about the beef like a year later.

I gave two concrete examples, one of which involved one guy, and the other of which involved multiple "guys." You asserted that because I'd had semi related beef with one of the people involved, that meant the examples didn't count. Okey dokey.

do you have any concrete evidence (preferably something more substantial than "Lemmy comment from a guy I got into an argument with a year ago") that people not voting for Kamala because of Gaza actually changed the election outcome and caused Harris to lose?

I don't think that happened. I do think that the overall aggregate of people believing a variety of nutty things about reasons not to vote for Kamala Harris ("Trump will fix the economy," "immigration is a huge problem and Biden isn't addressing it," "Kamala Harris is responsible for the genocide in Gaza," stuff like that) had a huge impact on the election. I'm just pushing back against one of those beliefs, but I don't think that belief alone swung the election, no.

I'm not sure you and me talking about this is going to be productive honestly. It seems like you're kind of focused just on yelling at me and it seems a little unlikely that you're going to respond to a detailed factual reply with anything like "Oh yeah I see your point" or anything along those lines.

[–] spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Are you trying to say that there were not any people on Lemmy loudly saying that

...

I haven’t seen any of those people apply any of that vigor

...

I gave two concrete examples, one of which involved one guy, and the other of which involved multiple “guys.”

I think you may be right that our conversations aren't productive. but I think you're wrong about the reason why.

your entire political universe seems to be based around Lemmy comments. and I think that's given you a staggeringly misleading view of the world.

it seems a little unlikely that you’re going to respond to a detailed factual reply with anything like “Oh yeah I see your point”

so when you're talking about a "detailed factual reply" what I think you actually mean is "reply with lots of links to Lemmy comments".

and like, yes, the existence of a Lemmy comment that you disagreed with is a "fact". possibly even multiple Lemmy comments that you disagreed with. wow, look at all those detailed facts.

but you're right that I'm not going to respond "yeah, you have a point" to that, because I fundamentally disagree about the premise of the point you're trying to make. you could link to a million Lemmy comments you disagreed with and I'm not going to be convinced.

because you're making sweeping generalizations about American politics in general, and the behavior of left-wing voters in particular. and when asked for evidence, all you ever have is "look at these Lemmy comments".

you're staring at the world through a paper-towel tube. Lemmy is a very small, non-representative sample of the population as a whole.

doesn’t come alongside making sure that Mamdani wins the election

I live in Seattle. you’re saying I’ve been slacking off about making sure Mamdani wins? OK, tell me what I should do.

do you have an answer to this? you quoted and responded to the rest of my post, but this was a weird omission.

because this sort of tracks with the overall point I'm making. this is a forward-looking question, it can't be answered with "look at this Lemmy post from a year ago".

in particular, whatever you think I should do to help get Mamdani elected - does it revolve around "post on Lemmy about it"?

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 1 points 4 hours ago

your entire political universe seems to be based around Lemmy comments. and I think that's given you a staggeringly misleading view of the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA&t=139s

The whole thesis of what I am saying here is that it's weird that particular Lemmy commenters behaved in certain ways. I was only ever talking about Lemmy. You keep telling me that I believe (for example) that Kamala Harris lost because of Gaza protest voters, and I already explained how that's not what I believe and explained the difference between the two domains in my view.

I actually brought up a couple of examples applying to voters outside of Lemmy who operate on a much more normal wavelength (search for "immigration" to see them), contextualizing the tiny subset of voters on Lemmy within the broader context of the average voter who's very unlike them.

I live in Seattle. you’re saying I’ve been slacking off about making sure Mamdani wins? OK, tell me what I should do.

do you have an answer to this? you quoted and responded to the rest of my post, but this was a weird omission.

I don't think my original point was about you. It was about people posting constantly on Lemmy, about not voting for Democrats, and specifically self-reporting that they were doing it to influence the Democrats to be better about Gaza, and then being quiet about Mamdani. If that's not you, then nothing I was saying would apply to you. I actually agree with you that the overall impact of Lemmy is miniscule, like I said when I already contextualized it up above.

I have no interest in this conversation anymore, that's why I stopped quoting and responding to you in the middle of the reply. That paragraph up above is what I've been saying any number of times repeatedly, and it seems like you're not into absorbing it, so oh well. If you ask me a direct question which you aren't happy that I didn't answer, then sure, I'm happy to, but the overall discussion I do not think can be productive within this format.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

What is there to talk about, though? On a platform as left-leaning as Lemmy, "Mamdani's policies will be good for NYC" is a no-brainer.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 4 points 19 hours ago

Yeah, Lemmy hates repetitive content that doesn't add a lot factually, mostly just promotes and reinforces the viewpoint people already agree with. It's unheard of.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

OP: not media literate enough to understand those are different people and oftentimes not who even they claim to be

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Here's one example:

https://lemmy.world/search?q=push&type=Comments&listingType=All&creatorId=580006&page=1&sort=Controversial

You can see him relentlessly criticizing Biden, ostensibly to "push Biden to fight harder," or "push the Dems to CHANGE." or "holding Biden accountable," and a nonstop stream about how he's super helping when he agitates for people not to vote for Democrats.

Then there's this:

https://lemmy.world/search?q=mamdani&type=Comments&listingType=All&creatorId=580006&page=1&sort=Controversial

This is a person who posts thousands of comments about politics, who cares deeply about leftist causes, and really wants to make leftist progress with the election...

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 5 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

So you don't understand the difference between voters wanting their reps to represent them, and calling them out on it...and those same voters calling out their representatives who are refusing to back the voters' choice?

In both cases it's the representatives not doing their job.

And you want to criticize the voters instead of the politicians. You're the problem

I think you're confused by that users use of the word Dem in that second post. They're referring to politicians, not voters. You're trying to claim hypocrisy here. It's not

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 0 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

And you want to criticize the voters instead of the politicians.

My guy you are posting under an article which I posted, which is criticizing the politicians. Sounds great.

When I am king, anyone who start filling in both sides of the argument by telling the person they're arguing, what it is that that person is arguing, will be sent straight to the Internet Reeducation Camps.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

There are more than two sides to almost all topics. Polarization has led to the death of nuance.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago

Yeah. I talked here about how I think MAGA people all getting together and telling each other how they're the good guys and the liberals are bad, and just kind of agreeing with each other and feeling together, is more about camaraderie and feeling good about "fighting enemies" than it is about factual accuracy. I feel like in the online world, a lot of people on Lemmy do the same thing, where it's just kind of fun to polarize and start yelling about how some other grouping is full of bad people, and propping up additional reasons why they're bad, and yelling at them if you think you found one. It's a lot more fun than listening or engaging.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 0 points 12 hours ago

I want filling in shit. I was calling you out for your misplaced criticism