Mamdani’s victory demonstrated a big shift, that people have embraced the “populist message”, however improbable their implementation may be. Why this is important? The traditional democratic establishment was unwilling to endorse or embrace Mamdani, the union’s have endorsed Cuomo, and cuomo outraised Mamdani by many folds.
So, a new breed of young politicians going to emerge, who understand the tariff’s are bringing inflation, governments irresponsible deficits are driving asset prices so high, working people cannot afford housing (one of Mamdani’s core issues), their groceries are expensive, but if you make $125 K in capital gains, then you don’t have to pay any tax. They are going to see, when it comes to my “benefits” deficits matter, but when it is time for “benefits” to the rich, it doesn’t.
I am not saying tomorrow US politics is going to change. But a seed is planted in the Wall Street, against the current capitalist model. It is going to be interesting to see how much fight is in Mamdani, how many are going to be inspired and will a new “populist movement on left” will start.
This is not a political post, rather how the countries economic policies will be shaped.
I have to wonder if people are reading too much into this win. Mamdani won against three utterly terrible candidates, both in the primary and in the general. And of course, this was a city election and not a state election.
By contrast, NJ and VA were won, by even larger percentages, by more moderate candidates, and those were state-wide races.
NYC has had a strong populist leaning since the Occupy Wall Street movement nearly 20 years ago.
I think more than it being a push for populism, it is a push for affordability - something all three winners campaigned on.
But then again, “Socialism” is slowly becoming as popular as “capitalism” (not that you can’t be a supporting of both).
Mamdani actually ran (or rather walked & talked ENDLESSLY ENERGETICALLY all over town) for the office, and wonder of wonders the electorate voted for someone who listened to them, made proposals that made sense to them, and then charismatically asked for their votes. The other two candidates were decayed relics displaying their disdain for both the people and the process.
This is far less significant than people think as to issues, but a huge alarm bell for the life or death or our politics.
That’s an excellent point. You had the corrupt guy who is quite possibly insane, the serial sexual harasser, and the inexperienced guy who also has questionable mental health. I’ve vote for intercst’s dog before any of those guys.
Still, there was a lot of enthusiasm for Mamdani. He got just over a million votes. For comparison, 1.1 million total votes were cast in 2021.
On Thursday the NY Times published a story explaining just how expensive his plans for the city will be. The largest would be free child care.
The Mamdani campaign estimates that this could cost $6 billion annually… A recent report from the city comptroller found that it would bring 14,000 mothers to the work force, generating $900 million in labor income.
Spending $6 billion annually to generate $0.9 billion doesn’t sound like a fiscally sound policy.
The economic reality today is that both parents must work, because losing a job means losing health insurance and instantly puts a family at risk. No one’s job is guaranteed anymore. If we can’t provide basic security to mothers, we push families into impossible choices about having children.
Already women are marrying later and having children later. Social and economic structures have evolved, but biology hasn’t kept pace. When women delay childbirth beyond their late twenties, the risks to both mother and child increase.
It’s frustrating to watch half the country talk about women’s rights and the other half talk about family values, yet a simple, common-sense support system for mothers remains a political challenge.
A bit more to it. It also frees up the monies that would have been spent on childcare to be spent on other things. It reduces absenteeism. And of course reduces gaps in employment which reduces career advancement/wages which is a burden born mostly by women. That’s a huge cost that has to be accounted for.
So there are non-trivial benefits to both society and individuals. IMO, a primary role of government is making things better for both society and on the individual level.
That said, I’m not a favor of totally free anything (almost). If there isn’t a cost then the recipient doesn’t value it. So there needs to be a copay or some kind of cost sharing.
There is no copay for schools, or police, or fire.
That being stated, I don’t object to a copay but this isn’t a service that is prone to abuse - something that a copay might reduce - and I am absolutely confident that anyone getting free childcare is going to value it.
As might be said of any politician talking about a program that requires funding where the funding is not already in place … which is most of them. That doesn’t preclude him from having a plan of where to get the funding.
Agreed. I don’t think a mayoral race in NYC is some sort of indicator of a national tidal wave. IMO, it’s little more than ripples for the moment.
We had a similar situation in AZ. Sinema won the senate race in part because McSally was such an awful candidate. We’re normally pretty ‘red’, but she was too much. So, when McCain died, our right-wing governor appointed McSally to his senate seat. Next election, she lost it to Mark Kelly. In essence, she was such an awful candidate that she lost BOTH senates seats to Dems in AZ.
Even her war record (squadron commander) couldn’t save her, she was so bad.
Then there’s the economic multiplier. Several studies show that for every $1 invested in universal childcare, there’s up to $7 of increased economic activity.
Mamdani’s victory is very different from other Dem’s victory on the election night. He build a true grassroot campaign, with a word of mouth. You may not agree with his policies, and he may not be able to deliver much on them, but they were bold, different. It spoke to the affordability issues, without the usual political cliques.
Still, the mainstream democratic establishment, unions didn’t endorse him and he won. In other words, he won against democratic party but with democratic values.
The american politicians and most regular voters are too old. Their brand of capitalism is not working for people in general, and certainly for young people. Look at the cable, their viewers mean age is in 70’s.
Mamdani brought young, new voters, voters he gained with word of mouth, who turned up big for him, literally he won with their votes not democratic votes. This mayoral general election saw a stunning 84% increase in voter turnout compared to 2021
More than any other democratic victory, I am seeing Mamdani’s victory could potentially lead to changes in US politics thus policies.
These services are funded by taxpayer dollars and people do pay taxes. The old narrative of shaming individuals who access public benefits (“Welfare Queen”) no longer reflects reality or productive policy discussion. Asking for copay and the recipient will not value are, in my view, some form of shaming individuals for asking for public benefits.
Universal provision of childcare in a society where most mothers and fathers both work or try to work (which they do) makes even more sense than universal education. Long run it is BY FAR the best time to invest money in human capital.
The Seattle mayor election, still too close to call, is an interesting data point. The two leading candidates are Harrell, the current mayor, a mainstream democrat without the baggage of the NY candidates, but not a Mamdani progressive, and Wilson, an upstart progressive challenger.
An article before the election
Seattle is about to find out how progressive it really is as a surprisingly close mayoral election pits the moderate incumbent against a community organizer campaigning to raise taxes on companies and wealthy residents.
The race is shaping up as a West Coast counterpart to New York’s mayoral election.
Latest vote count:
Katie Wilson again gained on Bruce Harrell in the race to be Seattle’s next mayor, a contest that’s still too close to call.
Harrell’s lead is now down to less than 2 percentage points, 50.7% to 48.8%. That’s compared to his 8-point lead the day after the election. The two are separated by 4,300 votes.
