Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

I hope this win signals (to both parties) that voters are receptive and will get engaged when a clear message is presented about cost of living and quality of life issues. Some of which are taken for granted in most other western countries.

I’m no political wonk, and I’m curious what others with more insight might say about his ability to fund and implement his polices.

I’m reminided of Obama and his hopeful message but he was mostly stymied on policy goals. Specifically Obamacare as an example ended up being watered down

You guys have it all wrong. There was only one candidate for the dem party, Here's the list:

1) Cuomo. Sexpest who has been accused by many women of some pretty shitty stuff. Also a member of a multi-generational dynasty, which is not good.

2) Mayor Adams. Federally indicted by the Feds. They have a 99% conviction rate. Not because they're corrupt, but because they only go after people who have dome some really egregious, illegal shit.

3) Mamdani. Millennial candidate. No dirt. Other that some stupid stuff he said while he was young, his policies are relatively common sense and middle of the road, and are aimed at leveling the playing field.

Gee, who should I choose? [[said all of NYC today]]

Mamdani's and by extension, his voters', ignorance about the effects of price controls in markets will be an interesting real-time political experiment. When the inevitable unintended outcomes become to emerge who will be blamed?

https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/apart...

https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform

Quoting Paul Krugman (Nobel prize winner and liberal columnist at the NYT).

"The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' Almost every freshman-level textbook contains a case study on rent control, using its known adverse side effects to illustrate the principles of supply and demand. Sky-high rents on uncontrolled apartments, because desperate renters have nowhere to go -- and the absence of new apartment construction, despite those high rents, because landlords fear that controls will be extended? Predictable. Bitter relations between tenants and landlords, with an arms race between ever-more ingenious strategies to force tenants out -- what yesterday's article oddly described as ''free-market horror stories'' -- and constantly proliferating regulations designed to block those strategies? Predictable."

https://archive.ph/k4h7J#selection-475.0-475.1011

Zohran is exactly the kind of change candidate that the San Francisco machine with Grow SF would actively seek to squash.

But Zohran's not alone, today's election was a massive swing back in almost every single race. School boards, city councils, state houses and senates, all swung radically left.

It should be ringing alarm bells that the SF / YC / startup community that used to champion utilitarian, meritocratic QoL improvements as a mission, is now so deeply forked from the base that sprung today's results. Politicians like Zohran won't be bought off by Palantir money. So, what's Peter Thiel and Gary to do? Where is Marc Benioff going to park his money? Reid Hoffman, Dustin Moskovitz, Michael Moritz, Reed Hastings, Eric Schmidt, Laurene Jobs, Ben Horowitz - all of these people aren't doing the normal pay for play donations, they are interested in shaping the party in their image. Well, Zohran doesn't look like you.

I'm noticing that this election result has made a lot of people I know really hopeful. It's apparent that many people are fed up with the status quo so they're pushing towards more experimental candidates.

If anyone here is well-read on his policies and they have specific opinions I'd love to hear what you think.

Do you think Zohran will be successful with his agenda or will he get blocked by pushback from other political forces? I read some commentary that a few of his policy ideas are unfeasible without support from Albany, and I'm not sure how to evaluate that relationship.

Many online figures have become heavily invested on this mayoral election despite living hundreds or thousands of miles away, and I think that speaks to a real hunger for greater political experimentation.

As an aside, how do you evaluate the lessons that you learn or derive from what others are doing? Generalization sure is a tricky thing.

Nice to see someone young, charismatic, and highly energized breathing life into the decrepit democratic party. Hopefully he can accomplish a ton and repudiate the DNC.

The fact that people in here (who are richer than average) disagree with his policies makes his election more hopeful

Exciting times in New York City, I wish them the best, it probably will become a uphill battle now to do anything without media on every single thing out the wazooo

I’m a big believer that the people elect the government they deserve. Let’s see how this plays out.

I found out his mom directed the movies "Monsoon Wedding" and "Mississipi Masala" with Denzel Washington.

Allegedly she was tapped to direct "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", but her then 14 year old son talked her out of it to do "The Namesake" instead

Voters across the political spectrum feel ignored.

For decades mainstream parties (both centre-left and centre-right) have repeatedly promised change but after getting into power somehow (re-)converged on technocratic, market-friendly "consensus politics".

If you're worried about stagnant wages, job insecurity, crumbling public infrastructure and/or the cost of housing, then you probably don't notice - or care - whether the stock markets are going up.

I’m not a New Yorker or even an American, but it’s interesting just how much coverage this election has gotten in social media.

I think most of his major policies are pretty bad, but I also think the reaction against him has been over the top.

He is going to need cooperation from the state legislature, if he wants to collect the taxes needed to fund his policies, and I’m not sure how successful he will be at that.

A lot of people are rooting both for and against him, so it’s going to be interesting either way.

I love how much Mamdani pisses people off just because he wants to buck the status quo. I don’t think he’ll get everything implemented he wants but I respect the mission.

I'm glad he won, and I hope he succeeds, but there are going to be a lot of powerful forces out to sabotage him any way they can.

Let’s go. What a great team, message, and well deserved win.

Didn't work out well in London. Let's hope NYC does better. Doubt it, but we can always hope.

As a muslim, I hope he doesn't eff this up, Obama style. But the fact that he won, although not the blowout as some were expecting, restored a bit of my hope in the common man. Cuomo's attacks may have swayed some of the vote but ultimately failed.

I hope Mamdani succeeds for the sake of New York (California resident here) and hopefully this win inspires other young people around the country to participate in politics.

Good grief, NBC runs such shitty junk ads on their front page. What a blight on a once-great brand.

I wish our country was like this. A city "president" can speak against the President. A city President has the power to work without the will of the President.

I remember being young and hopeful about elections. Sigh

They're one of the many things tightly controlled by the unseen hands. It's theatre with a crazy advertising budget

I hope this time it's different though, NY

Who would have thought that New Yorkers didn’t appreciate out-of-state billionaires playing “Zohran did 9/11” attack ads over and over on TV for months on end. He was the only candidate with a clear plan for the city, and voters rewarded him for it.

The DSA is finally having a moment - may they grow by the day.

A salient factor in this election is Trump. I've been saying for years that overreach on the right creates space, then oxygen, then agency for the (far) left. This election is the natural and logical consequence of maga overreach (and vanilla skanky stupidity) and reminds economic popularism is not wholly owned by the right.

My fear is the US will cycle dumb right to stupid left, which helps absolutely nobody.

It's too early to eval mandarin... that will come ... but this under current has now got first and second derivative postive.

I'm optimistic that he will actually be a positive force in reforming how the city operates. I think he is pragmatic in that he understands that efficiency in government administration is something that progressives have insufficiently prioritized. His policies are more populist than I'd prefer, but I think not the crazy socialist fever dream that Rs portray it as. The scariest thing for me is the prospect of active sabotage from the federal level, although I don't know how much they have held back.

I predict that NYC will now quickly turn into an absolute shithole of epic proportions to the point that people will have to flee the city. Similar to London.

It's funny how in the US, even mayors get tagged as "conservative" or "democratic socialist." I always figured their job was just to keep the city services running.

Great! Now time to get to work and see how hard it is to enact his policies.

Mamdani offers nothing that will improve affordability. It's the same economic fallacies that have been proven to destroy Affordability over the long run, e.g. rent control.

The actual solution is to repeal the morass of regulatory restrictions on housing that have been put in place since 1960.

Per 1,000 residents, only 2.68 houses were built in San Francisco between 2010 and 2020, compared to 12.66 houses between 1950 and 1960.

For New York, only 2.38 houses were built per 1,000 residents between 2010 and 2020, compared to 8.88 houses between 1950 and 1960.

Regulatory restrictions imposed on housing in San Francisco and New York since 1960:

San Francisco:

- 1960: City Planning Code (Zoning Ordinance) - Established zoning districts with specific regulations on use, density, building types, minimum lot sizes (e.g., 2,500 sq ft for most, 4,000 for R-1-D), and one-for-one parking requirements per dwelling unit, restricting housing types by enforcing low-density controls and increasing development costs through compliance and parking mandates.

- 1970: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - State law requiring environmental impact assessments for projects, significantly lengthening permitting times (often adding years due to reviews and litigation) and increasing costs for housing development through extensive studies and potential mitigations.

- 1978: Comprehensive Rezoning and Adoption of RH (Residential House) and RM (Residential Multi-family) Districts - Reduced zoned capacity for housing on the city's West Side, making thousands of multi-family properties non-conforming, restricting allowable densities and types of housing, which limits supply expansion.

- 1979: San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Rent Ordinance) - Imposed rent controls on multi-family units built before June 1979, limiting annual rent increases (typically 2% or less), which can increase overall housing costs by reducing incentives for new construction and maintenance, indirectly restricting supply.

- 1979: Condominium Conversion Ordinance - Limited annual conversions of rental units to condominiums (initially 1,000, later 200 for 2-6 unit buildings), preserving rentals under rent control but restricting ownership housing options and potentially increasing costs by limiting market flexibility.

- 1981: Residential Hotel Demolition and Conversion Ordinance - Prohibited demolition or conversion of residential hotel units without one-for-one replacement or in-lieu fees to an affordable housing fund, increasing costs and permitting times for redevelopment projects involving such properties.

- 1985: Office Housing Production Program - Required large office developments (25,000+ sq ft) to provide affordable housing, donate land, or pay fees based on new employees, linking commercial to residential mitigation, which raises costs and can lengthen approvals for mixed projects.

- 1986: Proposition M (Office Development Limit) - Capped annual office space approvals and introduced a competitive "Beauty Contest" process prioritizing affordable housing and neighborhood preservation, lengthening permitting times and increasing costs through required community benefits.

- 1992: Inclusionary Housing Policy - Mandated 10% affordable units in planned unit developments or projects needing conditional use permits outside redevelopment areas, increasing development costs by requiring set-asides.

- 2002: Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance (Planning Code §§ 415, 419) - Required 15% on-site or 20% off-site affordable units (or in-lieu fees) for projects of 10+ units, directly raising building costs and potentially restricting project feasibility.

- 2010: Revisions to Inclusionary Housing Policy - Adjusted post-Palmer decision to favor fees over units, increasing costs for developers not building affordable housing on-site, which can deter middle-income projects.

- 2012: Housing Trust Fund (Proposition C) - Captured revenue for affordable housing but reduced inclusionary obligations by ~20% for some projects while capping others, potentially increasing costs for non-qualifying developments.

- 2013: Condominium Conversion Ordinance Amendment - Allowed ~2,200 TIC units to convert with fees up to $20,000 per unit to an affordable fund, but imposed a 10-year moratorium on further conversions, restricting housing type changes and adding costs.

- 2016: Amendment to Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program - Voter-approved increase from 12% to 25% on-site affordable units, deemed economically infeasible by studies, raising development costs and potentially reducing overall housing production.

- 2016: Amendment to Planning Code for Legalization Program - Required Conditional Use Authorization to remove unauthorized units, adding discretionary reviews that lengthen permitting times and increase costs.

- 2017: Executive Directive 17-02 - Mandated additional coordination and deadlines for approvals, which, while aiming to streamline, can extend permitting times for complex projects due to heightened administrative requirements.

New York City:

- 1961: New York City Zoning Resolution - Overhauled zoning to emphasize low-density districts (60% of residential lots in lowest categories, 12% single-family only), imposed parking and open space requirements, and created manufacturing zones prohibiting residences, restricting housing types, increasing costs via parking mandates, and limiting adaptive reuse.

- 1969: Rent Regulation Laws (State and City Rent Stabilization) - Instituted controls on rents and evictions, making it costly and time-consuming to demolish or redevelop regulated buildings (tenants can demand high buyouts), reducing supply and increasing development costs.

- 1974: Amendments to Rent Regulation Laws - Extended protections to post-1974 buildings under certain conditions, further complicating demolitions and renovations, raising costs by making land assemblage infeasible and limiting new housing supply.

- 1975: State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Implemented Locally as City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) in 1976 - Required environmental reviews for discretionary projects, adding extensive analyses, potential litigation, and delays (often years), significantly lengthening permitting times and increasing costs.

- 1977: Ground Floor Use Regulations for High-Density Neighborhoods - Mandated 50% of ground floors on major streets for specific retail/restaurant uses in post-1977 buildings, restricting flexible mixed-use designs and increasing costs for housing in such areas.

- 1980s: Residential Conversion Rules for Obsolete Nonresidential Buildings - Limited conversions to pre-1961 (later extended to 1961-1977) buildings in specific areas, restricting adaptive reuse for housing and adding costs through narrow applicability.

- 1981: Retention of Stricter NYC Building Code (Non-Adoption of State Uniform Code) - Maintained unique, more stringent code requirements, increasing construction costs due to specialized materials and complex enforcement, while potentially delaying permits.

- 1987: Quality Housing Zoning Text Amendments - Imposed contextual requirements in medium/high-density zones (R6-R10), limiting density and design options, making cost-effective projects harder and restricting housing types.

- 1989: Lower Density Contextual Zoning Amendments - Reduced density by nearly 50% in R3-R5 zones, enforcing height, setback, and type limits, decreasing multi-family production and increasing costs in medium-density areas.

- 1989: Attempt to Raise Taxes on Vacant Land - Proposed higher taxes to spur development, but increased holding costs, potentially deterring or raising expenses for housing projects on such land.

- 1991: State Requirement for Residentially-Zoned Vacant Land Tax Classification - Kept lower tax rates for vacant land outside Manhattan, reducing incentives to build and indirectly increasing housing costs through delayed development.

- 1996: Local Law 37 (Third-Party Transfer Law) - Authorized city transfers of tax-delinquent properties, adding complexity to land acquisition for housing, lengthening times and costs especially with condemnation.

- 1999: Sprinkler Requirement Law - Mandated sprinklers in buildings with 4+ units or renovations costing 50%+ of value, directly increasing construction and renovation costs.

- 2002-2013: Bloomberg Administration Neighborhood Rezonings (Including Downzonings and Contextual Rezonings) - Decreased development capacity in some areas and limited potential via contextual rules, restricting types and slowing construction in high-demand neighborhoods.

- 2005: Greenpoint/Williamsburg Rezoning - Retained high retail parking requirements in parts, necessitating large garages in apartment buildings, raising costs and deterring housing.

- 2007: Increase in Minimum Size for 421-a Tax Incentive - Raised threshold from 3 to 4 units for eligibility, making smaller multifamily projects less viable and increasing relative costs.

- 2016: Zoning for Quality and Affordability (ZQA) Update - Modernized provisions but failed to boost density significantly, maintaining restrictions on housing types in low-density zones and adding regulatory complexity that can extend permitting.

- 2018: Special Permit for New Hotels in Light Manufacturing Districts - Required permits with union conditions for hotels, deterring construction and limiting reuse of surplus hotels for housing, increasing conversion costs.

- 2019: Amendments to Rent Stabilization Laws - Applied stabilization to some market-rate units under 421-a if rents fall below thresholds, reducing developer incentives for new rentals and increasing costs in middle-income areas.

Left wing candidate wins in extremely Left wing city, against "Cuomo"[0], to become mayor and people are celebrating this like it's some historical achievement.

Everyday I grow more blackpilled about the balance of powers in the US if this is what the left-wing has going for it.

[0] His name alone should be a synonym for how bad of a candidate he was, there's no single label good enough (like sex offender) to cover how bad he was.

https://www.zinebriboua.com/p/zohran-mamdani-third-worldism-... Zohran Mamdani, Third-Worldism, and the Algerian Revolution

I hope this turns out well for New York, but I am doubtful. Rent control is such a colossally bad idea, a rent freeze is going to be a disaster. This is going to further increase the lottery nature of New York City real estate, and reduce investment. His plans are set to drive finance and businesses out of the city in his goal to give away money to everyone, which will bankrupt the city. Socialism has a bad track record for a reason, there has never been an issue of people trying to escape market economies for socialist ones. The city already has a crime problem, defunding police and making the job unbearable wont help that. Grocery stores already run on razor thin margins, even with the logistics expertise and brutal capitalism of the likes of walmart or aldis, how does the famoisly expensive and incompetent nyc government plan on running a grocery store for cheaper (itll be at a massive loss). This isnt even getting into hos antisemitism “the boot of the nypd on your neck was laced by the idf” should have disqualified him, that kind of antisemetic talk was only on /pol/ like 2 years ago.

Best of luck to the new mayor of NYC!

I left nyc a couple months ago after living there for three years. The city has so many issues and something only someone like Mamdani (with good support) could fix.

It’s been said that it’s impossible for a New York City mayor to be uncorrupt. By the nature of getting the position, you must be a corrupt individual. That’s why you see so many past mayors and potentials having such a shameful history.

Mamdani feels like a break from that tradition. I wish the Bay Area could replicate something similar. We suffer from similar issues as NYC but we are constantly getting conservative leaning officials who refuse to get law enforcement to do their job. Breed was a center politician (right leaning in any other western country), and now we have a center right mayor. I’ve not really noticed much improvement in the bay - even with the current mayor’s constant posting on TikTok. I just see him blocking housing development and congratulating developers on building more empty office space in a city that desperately needs more housing.

Not a surprise if you’ve lived here for a while. The Bay Area is incredibly conservative for all its performative wokeism.

So happy to see this. Nice to see the wins pointing Virginia back to reality coming in, too!

I have some thoughts on this. Mamdani is a very charismatic person, and is in touch with a large segment of modern Democrat voters. It's the sort of stuff that can carry him to the White House as VP. He won more then 50% of the vote with a large turnout. As far as mandates go it's a pretty good one.

Now for the other stuff. He is a pretty extreme socialist. He wants to raise taxes on rich guys, businesses. Make buses free, rent controls, defunding the police, city run stores and more. These are great vote winners and terrible ideas. All of that has been tried and failed many times. As a political belief system socialism is a disaster. Thatcher pointed out that no other political experiment has been run as long and has so completely failed as socialism. I think his ideas represents all of the worst excesses of the Democrat party.

Then there's the man personally. My impression of him is he's basically a spoiled rich kid who's never had to work a day in his life. That doesn't mean he's not allowed to be ambitious, but it does put into question his credentials as a genuine socialist. It's easy to hold popular opinions when they won't affect your lifestyle in any way.

Finally there's the ugly stuff. He has used the term "globalise the intifada". For any of his apologists who will claim that phrase has any peaceful connotations, imagine a populist saying "globalise National Socialism". Would you be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt? NYC is perhaps the most important city in the world. I'm worried for it.

It’s not entirely about this election but it feels like this uptick in right wing extremism might burn out far sooner than the regular 10-20 year political cycle we usually see.

edit: unsure of how to delete this, I commented on the wrong state's election oops.

While I don't 100% agree with his policies, I cannot be more excited for someone completely opposite of the corrupt establishment Republicans and Democrats.

I was sold when he was willing to back down on some of his own views publicly, admitting publicly that he was wrong on some things. That kind of admission and honesty is so refreshing.

Complete opposite of Trump, MAGA, and constant lies. Kudos NYC! Time for a new era.

I'm happy he won. It's symbolic of voter dissatisfaction. Someone's got to take billionaires on and it might as well be a 34 year old mayor of NYC. Why not?

It's honestly staggering how much older Trump is than this guy. 45 years!

Republicans have completely given up on cities and without being able to even field a worthy candidate it’s the sign of a dying party longer term. You simply have to have some influence in cities. But they had none after a 20 year run where they remade NYC after decades of failure. Bloomberg went independent but he got in as a Republican after a successful Giuliani admin (yes he’s tarnished that).

But what happened? Why can’t they field a competitive candidate in cities like NYC or SF or LA or Chicago after failed admin after failed admin? Why have they given up?

You need to control cities to have any future. They need to recommit to fighting for them.

As someone not in the US that doesn't pay a whole heap of attention, is it just me or did he run mostly uncontested? Running against a republican and a disgraced politician?

No clue what mamdani is like, but it seems like NYC had little to no choice...which is a bit disappointing.

New York is always deep blue, so what is the significance of a Democrat winning this time?

What is perhaps more telling is that the Democrats are putting up such a far-left candidate to the extent that even Obama can't endorse Zohran Mamdani's self-described 'democratic socialist' platform.

I’m no political wonk, and I’m curious what others with more insight might say about his ability to fund and implement his polices.

I’m reminided of Obama and his hopeful message but he was mostly stymied on policy goals. Specifically Obamacare as an example ended up being watered down

Only speaking for myself (also not a political wonk): I do not expect Mamdani to be able to enact all of his policies. Not because of money but because of political opposition from the powerful.

I felt the same about Bernie and Medicare for all. We have the money to do it, but the powerful will not let it happen.

However: that doesn’t mean we should elect politicians that won’t even try to make these things happen. It’s important to have a North Star to shoot for, to move the Overton window of what’s worth discussing and to keep an eye on what political machinations block it from happening. I will never vote for a politician who pre-compromises with an imagined opposition, because that tells me they have a different North Star than I do in the first place.

Obama was hated by San Franciscan progressives because he came in with all of these promises and then backtracked on almost all of them. He basically turned into a Bush-lite, and he even maintained every single one of Bush's policies as well as deadlines. For example, he talked a lot about abortion and then immediately said it wasn't a priority for him once he got into office. He never closed Guantanamo and in both elections said he didn't support gay marriage.

ACA is a failure and the only thing it did was make it mandatory and unaffordable at the same time. Income inequality skyrocketed under him as well. Anyone who wasn't rich enough to afford some sort of asset like stocks or real estate was left behind and is now suffering.

I kinda feel Obama is more of a Trojan horse. It was not he tried and failed to get what he campaigned for implemented, it was more like he did a U turn after he got elected. e.g. he called for universal health care but once he was elected he started saying it was "too radical".

I hope the same doesn't happen with Zohran. If he was going to fail after all, I wish that will at least be after he had fought as hard as he can.

Sometimes I think about what we could have had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act

>50% of the TV ad spend in the Virginia governor election was on anti-trans ads, so no, don’t hold your breath.

"I’m curious what others with more insight might say about his ability to fund and implement his polices."

Zohran has the largest, youngest, mandate in NYC in a very long time. The key is thats it's NYC and the place has an energy all it's own, and Zohran has that, and understands that NYC is always broke falling down, rich, and building up. Think about it, this guy just stood up, and Gotham said Hey!, you!, YES! NYC is pumped and ready to out work, out think, and out party, the entrenched, but tired and old, establishment. Lead, follow, or get out of the way(and cheer)

You guys have it all wrong. There was only one candidate for the dem party, Here's the list:

1) Cuomo. Sexpest who has been accused by many women of some pretty shitty stuff. Also a member of a multi-generational dynasty, which is not good.

2) Mayor Adams. Federally indicted by the Feds. They have a 99% conviction rate. Not because they're corrupt, but because they only go after people who have dome some really egregious, illegal shit.

Gee, who should I choose? [[said all of NYC today]]

The fact that I was seeing Sliwa favourably speaks to the candidate quality in this race.

> No dirt. Other that some stupid stuff he said while he was young

Stupid stuff he credibly disavowed.

I’m still blown away that after De Blasio he was the only one, when asked a foreign policy question, who said he’d put city priorities first.

As a Brit who has been exposed to the blanket coverage of this on social media: Mamdani is going to be like Sadiq Khan. Popular with people in the city, while those outside run endless weird fantasy "news" scare stories because he's a Muslim.

From a distance it looks like Cuomo is also a generational talent when it comes to being a lazy, unmotivated campaigner.

Don't forget:

Eric Adams born 1960

Andrew Cuomo born 1957

Curtis Sliwa born 1954

Mamdani born 1991

On policing, on New York's relationship to Israel, on public transit, the so-called 'mainstream' is actually 'the average view of people over 60'.

> his policies are relatively common sense and middle of the road

Free buses and free child care are not remotely common policies in the US. Ditto for govt-run grocery stores. And freezing rent for controlled units.

It's kind of astonishing that they couldn't find a non-terrible establishment candidate, really.

Like, they mightn't have won, but surely a boring establishment candidate would at least have beat Cuomo.

From wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Adams

> In September 2024, a series of investigations into Adams's administration emerged. Adams was indicted on federal charges of bribery, fraud, and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations. Adams pleaded not guilty to the charges. He alleged that the charges were retaliation for opposing the Biden administration's handling of the migrant crisis. In February 2025, the Department of Justice in the Donald Trump administration instructed federal prosecutors to drop charges against Adams. Judge Dale Ho dismissed the case against Adams on April 2, 2025

https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/apart...

https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform

Quoting Paul Krugman (Nobel prize winner and liberal columnist at the NYT).

https://archive.ph/k4h7J#selection-475.0-475.1011

> Mamdani's and by extension, his voters', ignorance about the effects of price controls

Mamdani isn’t pitching widespread price controls, but rent control over a small section of New York housing twinned with abundance-style new development.

“In a 2022 paper, the political scientists Anselm Hager, Hanno Hilbig, and Robert Vief used the introduction of a 2019 rent-control law in Berlin to study how access to rent-controlled apartments influenced local attitudes toward housing development. The fact that the new law included an arbitrary cutoff date (it applied only to buildings constructed before January 1, 2014) allowed the authors to create a natural experiment, comparing otherwise-similar tenants in otherwise-similar buildings.

Heading into the experiment, the authors hypothesized that having access to a rent-controlled apartment would keep tenants in their existing units longer and therefore make them more resistant to neighborhood change. Instead, they found the opposite: Residents who lived in rent-controlled apartments were 37 percent more likely to support new local-housing construction than those living in noncontrolled units” [1].

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/11/mamdani-...

The Atlantic had a good article on this and how it isn't the doom and gloom you lay out above:

https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/11/mamdani-...

As some of the replies note, it has been rather successful and popular in other cities like Berlin.

Also quoting Paul Krugman -

"“The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.”"

So you know, take what he says with a grain of salt, as with all economists, who pretend to be rigorous when in fact they are anything but.

Good points.

All variants of rent control etc. have been tried in Europe and have miserably failed. Quite the opposite, rents have been rising even more, and new construction has been reduced due to new politically induced risks.

Examples: Berlin, Barcelona

But as Barcelona shows, there is a feedback loop benefiting leftist populist politicians:

Higher rents, lower housing supply -> people frustrated -> leftist populists get more votes -> more stupid regulation -> even higher rents, even lower housing supply -> people more frustrated -> ...

This can go on for at least two electoral cycles.

How does he explain Tokyo then ?

If anyone here is well-read on his policies and they have specific opinions I'd love to hear what you think.

As an aside, how do you evaluate the lessons that you learn or derive from what others are doing? Generalization sure is a tricky thing.

I don’t think I like several of his ideas or think he will get most of them passed. In fact I think a few like “freezing the rent” are actively bad

But I’m happy to finally have a politician who lives in and loves New York and is earnestly trying to my the city better. If he tries and fails, it will be better than our other politicians that have stopped trying

I think it’s likely around 75% of his agenda will be blocked. NYC is a big ship to turn. However it will still be better than what Cuomo would have done

> I'm noticing that this election result has made a lot of people I know really hopeful.

Since the 2008, the day after every election of a new president, the coalition that elected them had this sense of hope for a brighter tomorrow. One which disappeared within months.

Except maybe 2016, but the bubble I was in was so preoccupied by shock that maybe I missed it (also, I was deeply engrossed in the work I was doing that fall)

I think I like the universal childcare and free buses. Don’t like the rent control but places like Hong Kong have been very successful doing it.

The biggest takeaway to me is how ridiculous it is that the US considers Mamdani somehow "experimental" or even radical.

His campaign revolves around three policies:

1. Universal Child Care 2. Fast and Free Busses 3. Freezing Rent for certain Rent Controlled Units

In any other context these would be policies that basically every citizen, except for a handful of people making buttloads of money off the privatization of childcare, housing, and transportation would support, yet somehow in the USA this is "radical". Somehow a candidate finally proposing positive policies that directly benefit citizens is a radical socialist who needs to be stopped and we all need to vote for the disgraced former governor who resigned after killing seniors during covid and groping his employees. Even here on HN where people are generally well educated you have people arguing. that Mamdani will somehow be the ruin of new york.

Politics in america is like entering an inverted world in which some weird internal drive actively makes people vote against their own personal interests.

Experiments have already been done. You just need to look at history. Or you can just look at north korea and Kabul .

Nice to see someone young, charismatic, and highly energized breathing life into the decrepit democratic party. Hopefully he can accomplish a ton and repudiate the DNC.

The fact that people in here (who are richer than average) disagree with his policies makes his election more hopeful

The reality, which kinda sucks and is boring, is that generally people with money understand how money works, and why things like rent control, government grocery stores, and free [expensive service], are financially brutal policies.

I love how they always style themselves experts on economics, as if there is one global economic policy that benefits everyone, equally. How cute.

You can both be rich and also want a better quality of life for everyone in society. Not every rich person is a selfish asshole...

Absolutely. I love it.

Agreed. Thank you for pointing that out.

He is also richer then average.

Why is that? I think many of us who are educated in history understand the risks of collectivism. It has never worked out anywhere. I see it as basically a marketing cover for oligarchy. The Western world should aspire to better than China. I'm not even a conservative, just read a lot. Humanity has had some pretty hellish experiences with communism and yet we keep "going there."

I’m a big believer that the people elect the government they deserve. Let’s see how this plays out.

Honest, hardworking people deserve honest, hardworking government.

Who deserves Cuomo, and what did they do to deserve that?

This hoping for a future schadenfreude is kinda nasty. Why wouldn't you want the best for people?

Good grief, NBC runs such shitty junk ads on their front page. What a blight on a once-great brand.

The DSA is finally having a moment - may they grow by the day.

Great! Now time to get to work and see how hard it is to enact his policies.

Only speaking for myself (also not a political wonk): I do not expect Mamdani to be able to enact all of his policies. Not because of money but because of political opposition from the powerful.

I felt the same about Bernie and Medicare for all. We have the money to do it, but the powerful will not let it happen.

Absolutely, elect enough Mamdani’s and the powerful will not be able to stop the changes. It’s the expectation that a single Mamdani or Sanders can fix much that has lead to extreme apathy from much of the electorate.

> political opposition from the powerful

Mamdani is one of the powerful now.

I'll give you one reason, among many, it wasn't a failure. It made it illegal to deny people health insurance coverage based on pre existing conditions. That was a big step forward in a broken system to restore some humanity to the system.

I heard this somewhere and its true of every politician:

you campaign in poetry and govern in prose.

ACA is NOT a failure. It did address some really critical pain points but left others. There is no bill that can address every single pain point in a system that is as complex as the US healthcare.

> Obama was hated by San Franciscan progressives because

Because San Francisco progressivism doesn’t win on a national stage.

“…the only thing it did was make it mandatory and unaffordable at the same time.”

That’s such a fraught statement, because the _opposite_ is claimed by supporters of the ACA after the repeal of the mandatory rule.

I’m old enough to remember the failed attempts for healthcare reforms under President Bill Clinton. The ACA felt like a miracle. It wasn’t what everyone wanted, but it was a start with principles. It has only been legislatively weakened over time, rather than improved.

Whatever alternative, employers should not be where we look for our healthcare. Can’t understand why anyone would trust their employer or expect good outcomes in the post-lifelong employment age.

>ACA is a failure and the only thing it did was make it mandatory and unaffordable at the same time.

Compared to what? Is it really better to just be uninsured and go bankrupt over an ambulance ride?

This point alone makes your entire post suspect, even though parts of it are indeed true (it's a real shame guantanomo was not closed down).

Let's not forget, Edward Kennedy passing away really through a monkey in the political calculus early days for Obama.

I always called him a Bush-lite too, such a disappointment. Did everything I disliked about Bush and nothing about the things he said he'd do. If anything some of the things he did were worse, like executing a US Citizen with a drone without trial or crime to get a man that wasn't even there.

I hope the same doesn't happen with Zohran. If he was going to fail after all, I wish that will at least be after he had fought as hard as he can.

> he called for universal health care but once he was elected he started saying it was "too radical"

ACA was the most radical package that could have passed, and it still cost Democrats the Congress.

This line of argument reminds of the folks who complained about Sinema and Manchin. You know what we’d have with a few more Sinemas and Manchins in the party right now? A majority.

The bill that passes is better than the ideal that doesn’t.

I genuinely can't believe, still, that I have to spell this out for people.

Obama did not do a U-turn. It is the worst naivete to think that what happened was "he had big ideas and he changed his mind." He had to bring up big ideas to get elected, and then he got elected the first Black president and some of you seem entirely too dense to actually grasp what that means. President. Not King.

Subject to all of those checks and balances you hear about and then some.

You people act as if he could wave a wand and just sweep away everyone and everything who was against his big ideas, when the opposite was at play.

Please, grow a better sense of politics.

There was a government option in the original ACA. Dems couldn’t get the votes to overcome the filibuster in the senate to pass it. It had nothing to do Obama u turning. It was an amazing feat to get it passed in congress and get 60 votes in the senate.

The Affordable Care Act wasn't a complete solution - and I don't get the feeling universal health care was necessarily achievable - but it is the reason that I have health care and mental health services today. So I consider it to be a meaningful - if incremental - improvement. I imagine there are quite a few people aside from myself who are happy to have it.

There will be lots of pressure to on Zohran to do the same. But hopefully the cautionary tale that is Obama will be learned from.

I feel Obama was trying to appease the Republicans as well, he appointed many of them who back stabbed him shortly after. Maybe he was trying to no be too radical just because he was black and knew how racist a part of America was and it turned out it was right, Trump mainly got elected because "Democrats" put a black person in the White House. In retrospect, yeah, maybe he should have been more radical.

Sometimes I think about what we could have had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act

And 15 years before that was Hillarycare (1993):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_19...

(Fuck you Bill Kristol.)

There's a long, sad, littered history of attempts at universal care in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_...

>50% of the TV ad spend in the Virginia governor election was on anti-trans ads, so no, don’t hold your breath.

"I’m curious what others with more insight might say about his ability to fund and implement his polices."

I don't know about age breakdown, but in sheer percent of voters, Mamdani has essentially the same mandate Trump had a year ago.

Make of that what you will.

Pretty sure both parties already know this. They both just don't want that to be a topic of conversation to control the window of what can / cannot be discussed in terms of what benefits the parties.

These people are not dumb. They are just very very interested in self-dealing.

People should also remember Democrats won contested Governor ships as well. This wasn't just a Mamdani election/victory night, though the far left want to make it look that way.

I have some confrontational views about this, but in good faith I’d like to invite some discussion with it (not an American).

TLDR: You will see more Mamdanis in other cities. This is a treasure trove for MAGA. Expect at least 12 years of secure nationwide wins for whoever is championing that platform

> I’m reminided of Obama and his hopeful message

This is the gist of the PR campaign, voters fell for. It goes in line with him getting away with being “grassrootsy” when in fact he got tremendous funding from the typical NGOs (Open Society etc) and is a son of a Professor who was/is basically paid to tell American and African Top 5% why white people are bad.

His win also shows the effect migration has on elections. Immigration inherently is a deal where incumbent residents define the terms, and when the other party returns the favor by electing anti-incumbents into office some incumbents will have profound buyer’s remorse.

Fertile soil for the right.

Mamdani’s success also puts a spotlight on foundational problems of the democrats.

After all Mamdani is charismatic, yes, but more importantly he appealed on the issues. His policies will be abysmally failing to resolve the problems he criticized, yes - but that is unimportant to the voter. Important is that he believably criticized them.

How is it, that these well-established circles of the democrats, these well oiled machines, where in states like CA or NY (or most US cities) mayorships, senatorships, congressional seats, and governorships are basically handed out by the DNC, fail to win on those issues? It’s not like making life affordable is not a core branding of the party.

Well, it appears that the DNC gerrymandered itself to death. The dissolution of political contest from the public into internal primaries has stymied the platform’s vitality to a point where it can be easily hijacked by radicals.

Expect many more Mamdani-esque wins locally. Which will mean many wore wins for MAGA nationally.

> Mamdani's and by extension, his voters', ignorance about the effects of price controls

Mamdani isn’t pitching widespread price controls, but rent control over a small section of New York housing twinned with abundance-style new development.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/11/mamdani-...

Mamdani will learn that you need to be friends with the people your voters hate to get things done.

Developers are the single most important players in lowering housing costs, but they are part of the "landlord" contingent in voters minds.

If he doesn't learn that, the city is going to be in bad shape. Impossible to get an apartment unless you want to get an illegal sublet at regular old $4500/mo prices.

My understanding is that he is proposing a 4 year freeze on about 1 million units.

https://www.curbed.com/article/zohran-mamdani-housing-rent-f... archive: https://archive.ph/hnK4Q

"The 34-year-old democratic socialist’s pledge for a four-year pause on any increases on the city’s 1 million or so stabilized units, effectively giving a reprieve to about 2 million stabilized tenants, was at the center of his campaign"

I'm not directly familiar with Berlin. But this story about shortages is the expected outcome:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-must-build-32...

BERLIN, March 20 (Reuters) - Germany, lagging in its building goals to alleviate a housing shortage, needs to construct 320,000 new apartments each year by 2030, a study on Thursday showed.

That article says the main benefit of rent control (besides popularity) is an increase in YIMBY sentiment, but it seems it still has the downsides detractors dislike about it.

It doesn't do much to convince me it isn't a populist campaign promise.

>Mamdani isn’t pitching widespread price controls, but rent control over a small section of New York housing twinned with abundance-style new development

He's not actually pitching any new price controls. He's proposing a temporary rent freeze on rent stabilized (rent control is tiny in comparison and unaffected by this) apartments that are already subject to limits on rent increases.

How do I know this? I live in a a rent stabilized apartment. The rent for which, even though increases are "limited" (usually somewhere around 3-5%) has more than doubled since I moved in.

So no. Mamdani isn't suggesting making any changes to the law as it has existed for at least 50 years, rather he's suggesting stopping rent increases while fast-tracking new housing, which would likely stabilize the housing market.

As an aside, which most folks don't understand, is that the vacancy rate in NYC is ~1.5%. Healthy housing markets have vacancy rates of 4-6%. Like many places in the US (and elsewhere), NYC has a housing shortage. But in NYC, that shortage is much more severe than almost anywhere else in the US.

The Atlantic had a good article on this and how it isn't the doom and gloom you lay out above:

https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/11/mamdani-...

As some of the replies note, it has been rather successful and popular in other cities like Berlin.

Rent control is always initially popular with the people who are already in apartments. But it is longer term effects on supply and quality that are corrosive.

An alternative is Austin:

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/22/austin-texas-rents-f...

"Austin rents have fallen for nearly two years. Here’s why.

Austin rents have tumbled for 19 straight months, data from Zillow show. The typical asking rent in the capital city sat at $1,645 as of December, according to Zillow — above where rents stood prior to the pandemic but below where they peaked amid the region’s red-hot growth.

Surrounding suburbs like Round Rock, Pflugerville and Georgetown, which saw rents grow by double-digit percentages amid the region’s pandemic boom, also have seen declining rents. Rents aren’t falling as quickly as they rose during the pandemic run-up in costs, but there are few places in the Austin region where rents didn’t fall sometime in the last year.

The chief reason behind Austin’s falling rents, real estate experts and housing advocates said, is a massive apartment building boom unmatched by any other major city in Texas or in the rest of the country. Apartment builders in the Austin area kicked into overdrive during the pandemic, resulting in tens of thousands of new apartments hitting the market."

Also quoting Paul Krugman -

So you know, take what he says with a grain of salt, as with all economists, who pretend to be rigorous when in fact they are anything but.

Of course Krugman got that wrong. It is funny.

But economists don't disagree about the effects of price controls. These are easy to observe and model. These concepts are also taught to Economics undergraduates all over the world - often in their first Microeconomics class. They are not controversial.

Here is a Khan Academy video: https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...

Krugman is an idiot - I cant believe people still give a shit what he says

Good points.

Examples: Berlin, Barcelona

But as Barcelona shows, there is a feedback loop benefiting leftist populist politicians:

Higher rents, lower housing supply -> people frustrated -> leftist populists get more votes -> more stupid regulation -> even higher rents, even lower housing supply -> people more frustrated -> ...

This can go on for at least two electoral cycles.

Berlin never really had rent control. It's been a few months before the law was abolished for constitutional technicalities. Everybody knew this was a possibility, so you can't make any conclusions about it. Bringing it up is pure propaganda. Nothing failed economically!

We have a federal law which in theory could slow down price progression, but it is rarely applied. It also doesn't govern newly build apartments, so criticism usually falls short there too...

Stockholm too.

But they always think this time it'll be different I guess.

How does he explain Tokyo then ?

Lax zoning regulations, relatively cheap labor, low cost of materials, and depreciating home values incentivize building new real estate. That is what separates Tokyo from New York City.

Or any of these:

- Vienna, Austria: About 60% of residents live in city-subsidized or cooperatively owned housing

- Berlin, Germany: Rent control has been mixed, varies by neighborhood, but seen as working

- Singapore: Not rent control in the classic sense, but government-built housing

- Montreal, Canada: Rent control applies mainly to existing tenant

Not all perfect. There are others. It can work.

The city with declining population growth, aggressive rezoning to create supply, that still has 30 yr high rents in 2025?

But tariffs across the entire U.S. economy are cool......

Krugman isn't a good source. Textbook economics is wrong because it's made up. The circular logic exists to serve a narrative.

Fascinating, yet rents have increased faster than inflation even as rent control has waned in NYC.

The problem with citing studies from 1992 is that you’re missing the last 25 years of war inflation hidden through various schemes of quantitative easing and capitalization. We’ve made capital so easy to get everything is fungible and inflates as everyone from families to foreign rich people looking to exfiltrate cash from their country pumps dollars into real estate.

My parents recently passed and we sold their house in Queens for a ridiculous sum - representing a 8% CAGR. Most of that increase in value has been since 2000, and that’s driven by a surplus of capital looking for a return.

Do those case studies include the case for expropriating landlords that don’t keep their buildings to code?

Massive building sprees don’t bring prices down, they bring favelisation.

If the effect of this policies is that housing prices tumble, and there’s potentially more housing stock on the market for people to buy (and no incentive for buying to let since rent freezes makes it unprofitable), this seems like a good effect

That quote seems to ignore reality. If we look at San Francisco, where units built before 1980 are not subject to rent control, we find that building new housing has nothing to do with fears that rent control will be extended.

I agree that rents for uncontrolled apartments are high, but if we eliminated rent control for the rest, that wouldn't really fix anything. The formerly-rent-controlled apartments would cost just as much as the post-1979 housing stock.

The only thing that will fix our housing cost problem is a truly radical amount of new construction. Developers would love to build here, but the cost to build here is ridiculously high for policy reasons that have nothing to do with actually building.

If we could build enough housing to satisfy demand, then we might be ok eliminating rent control. Rent control is a response to housing scarcity, not the cause. You'd think economists would understand basic supply and demand.

About the only thing I do agree with is that rent control reduces the quality of available housing. Landlords are less incentivized to fix problems and maintain their buildings when they can't make market rate from their tenants.

The fact that I was seeing Sliwa favourably speaks to the candidate quality in this race.

> No dirt. Other that some stupid stuff he said while he was young

Stupid stuff he credibly disavowed.

I’m still blown away that after De Blasio he was the only one, when asked a foreign policy question, who said he’d put city priorities first.

It was pretty pathetic when, during one of the mayoral debates this year, most of the candidates including Cuomo said the first country they would visit as mayor would be Israel. Thankfully, younger generations aren’t falling for it anymore.

It is unfortunate that, after the Spanish Inquisition, Jewish refugees were welcome in Istanbul, but the current receptivity is so much colder.

This is exactly the point where the historic tolerance of the middle east is most direly needed, but common ground in so many contexts is absent.

I hope that we can put ourselves back together. We've seen the consequences this year of its lack.

GBnews has been unrelenting and it's frankly worked to turn non-Londoners against London and Khan.

It's disgusting they're allowed to vilify him so much without any accountability.

I'm a Londoner who voted for Khan. There's a difference in that contrary to all the scapegoat stuff in the right wing press, Khan has had largely sensible middle of of the road policies. And where he has deviated from the average, on air pollution, it's been stuff I'm in favour of - I have desire to get sick/die from that.

Mamdani seems like a nice guy but some of his policies seem a bit bonkers - state owned retail outlets and the like.

From a distance it looks like Cuomo is also a generational talent when it comes to being a lazy, unmotivated campaigner.

Not to mention raising and spending money campaign money.

Don't forget:

Eric Adams born 1960

Andrew Cuomo born 1957

Curtis Sliwa born 1954

Mamdani born 1991

On policing, on New York's relationship to Israel, on public transit, the so-called 'mainstream' is actually 'the average view of people over 60'.

The median age in New York City is 36.8 years old[0].

[0]: https://popfactfinder.planning.nyc.gov/explorer/cities/NYC?c...

> his policies are relatively common sense and middle of the road

Free buses and free child care are not remotely common policies in the US. Ditto for govt-run grocery stores. And freezing rent for controlled units.

> Free buses and free child care are not remotely common policies in the US. Ditto for govt-run grocery stores.

While not common, free buses do exist throughout the US and Europe.

Free childcare is uncommon. IDK where that actually exists.

Government run stores is actually very common. Many states run the liquor stores. A few cities have government run grocery stores.

Freezing the rent on rent controlled buildings isn't common but rent control itself it quite uncommon. It's probably the easiest for Mamdani to accomplish.

Correct - common sense policies != common policies

Free childcare is an extremely business-friendly proposal (increases the workforce, reduces the need for costly parental leave). I'd say I don't know why it's not more popular with right wing neoliberals, but I know why (they're more anti-government than pro-economy).

Rent control is increasing popular and common in liberal areas (which NYC is)

It's kind of astonishing that they couldn't find a non-terrible establishment candidate, really.

Like, they mightn't have won, but surely a boring establishment candidate would at least have beat Cuomo.

From wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Adams

I disagree with this. I mean, it's as straightforward for me as you wrote it. But,

1. It hasn't worked like this when they elected Trump for the second time. Back then Kamala should have been the only valid candidate, according to this thinking.

2. Mamdani got 1,036,051 votes and Cuomo got 854,995. This is not exactly "all of NYC" as you imply.

I don’t think I like several of his ideas or think he will get most of them passed. In fact I think a few like “freezing the rent” are actively bad

I think it’s likely around 75% of his agenda will be blocked. NYC is a big ship to turn. However it will still be better than what Cuomo would have done

> I'm noticing that this election result has made a lot of people I know really hopeful.

Since the 2008, the day after every election of a new president, the coalition that elected them had this sense of hope for a brighter tomorrow. One which disappeared within months.

Except maybe 2016, but the bubble I was in was so preoccupied by shock that maybe I missed it (also, I was deeply engrossed in the work I was doing that fall)

I think I like the universal childcare and free buses. Don’t like the rent control but places like Hong Kong have been very successful doing it.

The biggest takeaway to me is how ridiculous it is that the US considers Mamdani somehow "experimental" or even radical.

His campaign revolves around three policies:

1. Universal Child Care 2. Fast and Free Busses 3. Freezing Rent for certain Rent Controlled Units

Politics in america is like entering an inverted world in which some weird internal drive actively makes people vote against their own personal interests.

Experiments have already been done. You just need to look at history. Or you can just look at north korea and Kabul .

I love how they always style themselves experts on economics, as if there is one global economic policy that benefits everyone, equally. How cute.

You can both be rich and also want a better quality of life for everyone in society. Not every rich person is a selfish asshole...

Absolutely. I love it.

Agreed. Thank you for pointing that out.

He is also richer then average.

Honest, hardworking people deserve honest, hardworking government.

Who deserves Cuomo, and what did they do to deserve that?

This hoping for a future schadenfreude is kinda nasty. Why wouldn't you want the best for people?

Exciting times in New York City, I wish them the best, it probably will become a uphill battle now to do anything without media on every single thing out the wazooo

It will certainly be a lesson in economics, with hopefully some lasting effect. A decade later some will call it vaccination.

I found out his mom directed the movies "Monsoon Wedding" and "Mississipi Masala" with Denzel Washington.

Allegedly she was tapped to direct "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", but her then 14 year old son talked her out of it to do "The Namesake" instead

Zohran's father is a famous post-colonial scholar. A college professor in my family has had him as part of curriculum for years.

TIL he is Mira Nair's son!. The namesake has a special place in my heart.

Yeah this was a surprise. Monsoon wedding is such a good movie.

I love how much Mamdani pisses people off just because he wants to buck the status quo. I don’t think he’ll get everything implemented he wants but I respect the mission.

>I love how much Mamdani pisses people off just because he wants to buck the status quo. I don’t think he’ll get everything implemented he wants but I respect the mission.

Sounds a lot like the justification many people used to vote for another guy.

What to make of that similarity is yet to be seen.

I’m not a New Yorker or even an American, but it’s interesting just how much coverage this election has gotten in social media.

I think most of his major policies are pretty bad, but I also think the reaction against him has been over the top.

He is going to need cooperation from the state legislature, if he wants to collect the taxes needed to fund his policies, and I’m not sure how successful he will be at that.

A lot of people are rooting both for and against him, so it’s going to be interesting either way.

> He is going to need cooperation from the state legislature, if he wants to collect the taxes needed to fund his policies, and I’m not sure how successful he will be at that.

Why? How much of NYC's budget comes from Albany?

My impression was that NYC had its own budget, paid for by its own taxes.

> think not the crazy socialist fever dream that Rs portray

That's because he's a democratic socialist, not a communist like they want people to think. If people really looked into the policies of the DSA they would support it. There is a reason Einstein, Keller, and more were adamant supporters.

The gov't may try to fuck with NYC using ICE or whatever, but honestly I think the fears about federal funding are overblown.

NYC generates like 2+ trillion GDP all on its own. It is the largest metropolitan economy in the world let alone the United States. I don't know how much NYC actually depends on federal money, but if there's any city that has a chance to figure out how to make it through a government funding squeeze, it's NYC.

Honestly I think the only recourse the fed has to put pressure on NYC is the actual gestapo shit they've already been pulling in Chicago.

It's funny how in the US, even mayors get tagged as "conservative" or "democratic socialist." I always figured their job was just to keep the city services running.

That mayor runs a city that has the GDP of multiple nations. The scale is different even if the title is the same.

Aren’t mayors in all countries politicians? In Denmark all mayors are identified with their party association when talked about in the news.

This mayor represents more people than many state governors

I believe that in California, the political party that mayoral candidates belong to cannot be printed on the ballot next to their names.

There are lots of small towns in the U.S. where mayors and board members' campaigns are not partisan. That is, they don't run as members of a political party. Just candidates who campaign to "keep the city services running." There are no political parties listed on the ballot for these candidates.

LaGuardia was a democratic socialist but had to run as a Republican because of Tammany Hall's undemocratic stranglehold on the Democratic party then. NYC has a history of a lot of really shitty, corrupt mayors and political machinery. Let's hope ZM charts a new course.

You don't make yourself a name by properly managing garbage trucks and street sweeping. It's not just the US either, Australian local councils went headlong into culture wars long ago.

So happy to see this. Nice to see the wins pointing Virginia back to reality coming in, too!

>This isnt even getting into hos antisemitism “the boot of the nypd on your neck was laced by the idf” should have disqualified him, that kind of antisemitic talk was only on /pol/ like 2 years ago.

Is that antisemitic? It's a fact that American cops are routinely trained by a foreign military with a track record of disregarding human rights. It's a fact that the NYPD has a recent history of police brutality. What's next? Mentioning that the US trained deathsquads in LATAM is Gringophobic?

Also I'm not that sure 4chan is worried about police brutality even if it's a excuse to say antisemitic slurs.

Zohran isn't proposing putting any new units under rent control (really rent stabilization), only temporarily halting raises to rents for existing stabilized units. This will make it harder for the city to attract new buildings to join rent stabilization in the future, but will benefit existing habitants. It won't have any effect on the ability to profitably develop market rate units at all.

Mamdani has said basically none of the things you claim here. These are all clearly mischaracterizations of what he's actually said aimed and convincing someone like you to think he's a bad choice. In particular Mamdani has been extremely clear that he has no plans to defund the police in any fashion. In fact, he wants to enable NYPD to get back to solving crimes rather than incidents better handled by mental health professionals (e.g. people tweaking, by themselves, all alone, on the subway platform)

How about watch some actual interviews in which Mamdani states what he wants to do rather than only get your information from third parties who clearly want to emphasize particular angles?

It's unfortunate because all you have to do is talk to landlords to figure out what's happening (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KbGulTc4TY). Lots of people own buildings, but they're legally prevented from renting them out without taking a loss. The result is you can't bring units back onto the market after they empty, and it becomes harder to find housing.

Austin reduced rent prices by ~20% by building more housing even as the overall city population grew. Other small cities have seen rents decrease through active immigration policing. We know how to fix housing pricing there's just no motivation too, people want expensive, exclusive neighborhoods

Crimes in the city is down in the long term and there's been a Covid spike that also happened around the country regardless of the elected officials.

  The city already has a crime problem

The city does not have a crime problem. It exists, but its down, and its lower than most comparable (and smaller cities). NYC is safe.

  Socialism has a bad track record for a reason

Only because people confuse it with "communism", otherwise it has a great track record.

  This isnt even getting into hos antisemitism

Yeah, thats why Brad Landers, the most prominent elected Jewish member of the NYC political scene endorsed him and campaigned with him?

Perhaps you don't know what you are talking about?

let me guess, you are significantly less concerned about the much more blatant rhetoric used to disqualify zohran on his percieved religious association, arent you?

I don't know why people reflexively vote down comments like this one since it is completely reasonable in every way. Just, I guess, leftists who can't accept viewpoints they don't agree with? Like really--read some history books, maybe read up on how bad communism was in Eastern Europe and what led to its total collapse? Let's not go down that road again! There's plenty of examples out there already. I don't even get the hatred for Israel thing particularly, either--WWII was really, really bad for Jews. They deserve a homeland of their own and all these people complaining and calling everyone Nazis need to take a long look in the mirror--the major component of Nazism was ANTISEMITISM! It is morally reprehensible and it's been a struggle since 1948 because that hatred endures.

While I don't 100% agree with his policies, I cannot be more excited for someone completely opposite of the corrupt establishment Republicans and Democrats.

I was sold when he was willing to back down on some of his own views publicly, admitting publicly that he was wrong on some things. That kind of admission and honesty is so refreshing.

Complete opposite of Trump, MAGA, and constant lies. Kudos NYC! Time for a new era.

> I was sold when he was willing to back down ...

Also, he deserves credit for not backing down. A major push calling you a pro-9/11 jihadist? Release an ad speaking Arabic two days before the election.

Hacker Times

Hacker Times

Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

Discussion

Discussion