Democrats Have A Good Election Day

Tonight, the results came in. American voters have spoken.

They firmly supported Democrats. The most notable for me personally is the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York. As of this writing, he has received a bit over 50% of the vote

Cuomo received over 40% while Sliwa received around 7%, including via his Protect Animals line. Mamdani said that Cuomo didn't send the usual complimentary victory message, though Sliwa did. 

Fox News (local NYC channel) referenced that Cuomo couldn't even pronounce Mamdani's name correctly in his concession speech. Sliwa also ran on a "Protect Animals" line. Someone else ran on the Conservative Party line. Perhaps, Mamdani can find an animal-related position, including involving feral cats, one of Sliwa's causes. 

Women played a major role here. The new governors of New Jersey and Virginia (both with convincing wins) will be women. Also, along with the new Muslim mayor of NY:

Ghazala Hashmi wins Virginia lieutenant governor’s race, becoming first Muslim woman elected statewide

Zohran Mamdani voted "Yes" on ballot measures 1-5 that were on the ballot in NYC, and those won. The sixth ballot measure to change off-year elections lost. It would not have been final, anyway, since the state legislature has to do it. I was a bit wary about the housing measures, but that's fine.

Anti-trans messaging failed this time around. It might best be noted that it didn't change other trends. The message appears to be anti-Trump, supporting Democrats, and progressive policies. 

The messaging there was mixed. Mamdani stood out. But it does provide a lesson about enthusiasm. House Minority Leader Jeffries, at the end, endorsed Mamdani (yippe) while Schumer couldn't even do that. He didn't say who he voted for. Sheesh.

Mamdani is not a "literal communist," which is now the framing. He is a self-labeled socialist, which is not horrible. I look forward to seeing how he does and hope net his administration is positive. Eric Adams is not a high bar, even if he has some positive policies.

I worked at the polls, checking in voters. We have ten days of early voting. We still had a respectable turnout in our neighborhood polling place. The whole process continues to impress me and provide some civic pride. Many fulfilled their civic obligations. 

A Texan parental rights amendment passed. The text seems rather benign, though various liberal leaning groups opposed it. For instance, literally, the amendment seems to help parents of trans people. OTOH, trans groups also opposed the amendment.

After 13 years, Mississippi Democrats have broken the Republican Party’s supermajority in the Mississippi Senate. Voters elected Democrats to two seats previously held by Republicans, reducing the number of Republican senators in the upper chamber from 36 to 34—one fewer than necessary to constitute a supermajority.

I will end with this symbolic bit of good news. After all, it is not like the legislature would logically often need to overrule a veto or something. 

Still, supermajorities do have more power, and that might help limit the damage in some cases. For instance, supermajorities make it easier to propose constitutional amendments. Most significantly, it is a message against extremism and the ability of others to have a voice. 

Liberals have victories in places you least expect. For instance, criminal justice reform has occurred throughout the nation. The wins were often in places, though the breadth was particularly significant; you expect Democrats to win (but see Pennsylvania and Trump's wins there), so that's nice too. 

Back to New York City, for the second time in so many election cycles, my city council district switched political parties. I was concerned, I even sent them an email, about the lack of campaign signs in my neighborhood. They were available on Election Day to hand out literature near the polls. The Democrat won, however, perhaps some Mamdani coattails. 

One major issue for the Republican incumbent was opposition to a health program for former prisoners. I was particularly angry about that. Overall, she seemed to do okay, but I'm fine with her losing. Anyway, the already small Republican NYC City Council delegation will now be smaller.  

A couple of final comments. The personal factor played a significant role, in various degrees, in the Democrats' wins. They had impressive life stories. They ran good campaigns. They connected to the voters in ways Republicans often did not.

Finally, can the new Arizona congresswoman be sworn in already, please? 

Trump Odds and Ends

The Trump Justice Department regularly lied to and didn't follow the orders of courts. 

(This should matter, right?) 

Prince (for now) Andrew is having his royal title (basically symbolic) stripped because of his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. 

OTOH, Mike Johnson is keeping the House of Representatives in session and not swearing in a new Democratic representative, partially to prevent a measure from releasing the Epstein papers. 

Even in the friendliest polls, Cuomo has the smallest enthusiastic base of any candidate. Curtis Sliwa has more people excited to vote for him. Cuomo’s only shot is patching together enough voters who fear or despise his opponent enough to accept him by default. He has nothing to offer for the future, just a cynical warning that we cannot trust it to someone else.

But that same need to control has brought him here: stuck in a race he’s unlikely to win, for a job he never really wanted. And that’s because Cuomo can see everyone’s faults but his own. He doesn’t show humility. He rarely apologizes. And if you never admit mistakes, you never learn from them. You never evolve.

Okay. Let's move on from this ugliness.

The Supreme Court has found another possible "this goes too far" bit regarding Trump sending troops into our cities. At least, eventually. 

Don't worry. As a whole, the Supreme Court (6-3 much of the time) has supported Trump while expanding its power, including against the lower courts. 

Time for court reform.

ETA: Some SCOTUS addendum stuff.

A media advisory dropped regarding seating for a Trump firing case, underscoring the expectation it will be a well-watched oral argument. Press seating will be by assignment only. All cases aren't equal.

It could take years to have a bound copy of a term's opinions. Now, they start providing bound pages during the term. The final opinions for the 2024 Term are now available with the page numbers. 

Oral arguments begin again on Monday. 

Zohran Mamdani's Rent Stabilized Apartment

A person (who lived in the city for over fifty years but hasn't for around thirty) is strongly against Zohran Mamdani. They are a Republican. So, no shock.

The person hates Cuomo, partially because they think he killed elderly people during COVID. Says Eric Adams is a crook. Probably has no interest in Curtis Sliwa or thinks he is not a serious candidate. But Mamdani is a socialist, so basically the person endorses Cuomo. 

The latest thing is that Mamdani has a rent-stabilized apartment. This disgusts the person. They are mad that more isn't made of this. Adams and Cuomo, specifically Cuomo, have made it an issue. Cuomo suggested Zohran's Law to mean test rent-stabilized apartments.  

Mamdani's neighbors have had a collective yarn. Cuomo's proposal has been criticized by housing advocates. The numbers overall are not impressive:

Mr. Mamdani has said he was making just $47,000 a year working as a foreclosure counselor when he moved into his current apartment in Astoria years ago. (The median household income for rent-stabilized tenants is around $60,000.) He said he did not know it was rent-stabilized at the time.

Mr. Cuomo said that Mr. Mamdani’s Assembly salary, plus the wealth of his parents, should disqualify the lawmaker from continuing to occupy the unit. Mr. Mamdani has previously told The New York Times that his parents had not supported him financially for years.

The logic, I guess, is that Mamdani should have left the rent-stabilized apartment after he started to make more money and/or became a politician. His critic, speaking totally neutrally (of course), focused on that last part. 

Maybe that would have been the best thing to do symbolically. It's a bit shallow of a concern, but what else is new there? Politics is often about symbolism. The hypocrisy claims are still shallow:

Criticism against socialist candidate for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, over his acquisition of a rent-stabilized apartment as someone who makes close to $150,000 a year, is ramping up after a watchdog issued a complaint to New York's government ethics commission. 

Unless Mamdani supported means testing, which I am not aware of, there is no hypocrisy here. For instance, freezing rents and making sure (to cite one third party) "rent is not too damn high" is your concern, what changes if you have a rent-stabilized apartment? What makes you not a socialist?

One criticism is that someone else would have obtained the rent-stabilized apartment (a big get but still not a unicorn) if Mamdani didn't. Someone else making what he makes? I guess he could have found a suitable candidate to pass it along to. Sorry, the alternative, with many good things going for him, against criminals and so forth, isn't a saint. 

Oh look. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries reportedly argues the criticism is "legitimate." Helping Cuomo to win, huh? Jeffries might not be the best guy to talk about this issue. Can you just endorse the Democrats' choice, please? What a tool.

Overall, if this is the best you can do, it isn't much. 

Jessica Ramos Endorses Cuomo (WTAF)

ETA: Multiple media sources had analyses discussing why Cuomo is now getting support as a "strong" candidate. #MeToo is seen as old news. I discuss how this is a horrible approach here. 

Democrats can include up to five choices on their ballots this month. Republicans, too, but that's not my immediate concern here. There are more than five mayoral candidates. 

Andrew Cuomo, bad for various reasons, someone who had to resign as governor for that reason, is the frontrunner. If he does not receive 50% (lead rank), a form of instant run-off voting occurs. So, rank wisely: rank those likely to have a chance to win, and don't rank Cuomo.

I am okay with any of the candidates running in the Democratic Primary, especially those with any chance, except for Cuomo. I have no excitement level for Brad Lander, for instance, but figure he would make a decent mayor. 

Scott Stringer is a bland progressive choice who faltered last time, partially because of how he handled two old sexual harassment accusations. And because he is boring as dishwater. He is again not getting much traction.  

I would like a woman mayor. Adrienne Adams, speaker of the City Council, seems like the best bet. She knows the city government while not too liberal to avoid people supporting her at least as a back-up choice. 

I think Adams or Lander would be the best chances. Two guys with a first name starting with "Z" are also good -- one as the leftie choice, the other as the sane progressive choice. The leftie choice's main flaws are a lack of experience and less ability to form a coalition. The other has limited support. 

My real decision (other than order) was a fifth choice. Adrienne Adams, the two Zs, Lander, and who else? I figured Jessica Ramos. She's a state legislator, a progressive, and, sure, a woman. And, a strong Cuomo critic, in part calling him a "bully." 

Mike Blake sounds good when I looked him up. Neither honestly has any real chance. 

Ramos is now a "no." She did the right thing, which someone like Stringer should do -- she admits she has no chance. The candidates should realize the problem is defeating Cuomo. 

A few should drop out (yes, their names will be on the ballot) and narrow the field. A person who does not provide much of a difference from other candidates, that much more so.

The candidates need to be serious. The policy of supporting multiple endorsements makes sense given the ranking system. My city council district has led to a clear frontrunner and multiple endorsements of a second candidate (Diaz). This joint endorsement policy is much more important in the mayoral race. 

Ramos, however, decided to endorse Cuomo. She said he had to resign as governor. She flagged sexual abuse allegations against him. She knows he is unfit. 

But now decides to endorse him, allegedly in part since he would be the strongest against Trump. Which is rather doubtful, especially for someone who helped independents control the state senate to protect his own power. He is as likely to compromise. 

Progressives, rightly so, are fleeing her like the plague. Cuomo didn't even endorse her. He said she endorsed me, but I don't endorse her. Any ridicule and scorn she is receiving is well deserved. She is a traitor, hypocrite, and coward. 

We need minimum standards in these times. If Cuomo won the nomination, Ramos still should not support Cuomo if there is a strong alternative. There very well might be a Working Family candidate in that scenario. 

If you have to swallow the bile to avoid a Republican mayor, okay. I can understand that. But the primary is not over yet. There is no good reason for her to support Cuomo now.

People like her should be shunned. These types of decisions helped us get to the current situation, no matter what political stripe they reflect. Republicans cowardly support Trump. Now, Ramos cowardly supports a Trump-like figure.

The saving grace is that she is such a trivial voice now that her endorsement is fairly meaningless. 

Eric Adams Watch

Mayor Eric Adams was indicted on corruption charges.

For fake reasons, the Trump Administration was going to hold up the prosecution until after the election. Some conservative leaning prosecutors very publicly cried foul. It was a pressure campaign to coerce Adams to support Trump’s policies as shown by the Border Czar openly saying so in a joint television appearance.

Judge Dale Ho (aka the “good Judge Ho”) could not force the Trump Administration to prosecution. He did have the power to drop the prosecution with prejudice to deter future wrongdoing. Judge Ho spelled out why he did so in a long opinion.

The best of the bad options. The Trump Administration still has the power to bring new charges. OTOH, now the Adams does not even have the support warranting involvement in the Democratic Primary, hopefully long term that won’t matter.

If they want to prosecute (there are other possible charges) that’s fine. The problem is using the threat as a sword of Damocles to coerce a public official to support federal (immigration) policies. That has ethical problems as well as raised both due process and federalism problems.

For now, we are still stuck with Andrew Cuomo as an option in the Democratic Primary. One asshole down …

Andrew Cuomo: GTFA

We have local elections this year in New York City. 

The first time to regain a Bronx Democratic city council seat (my district). A long time ago, my area had a Republican in the state legislature. As Bronx areas go, we are more conservative. A conservative district office is nearby. Still. This feels wrong. 

More importantly,* a chance to replace Mayor Eric Adams with a better option that is not corrupt and/or a Trump puppet. We are due for a good mayor. There are various good options but no leading option. Mayor Adams is in trouble.

So, in sweeps Andrew fucking Cuomo. My House rep, thanks to a second round of redistricting, is Ritchie Torres. Among other annoyances, he endorsed Cuomo. Torres is a possible challenger to Governor Kathy Hochul, Cuomo's former lieutenant governor. 

Cuomo resigning in disgrace is why we have a somewhat lackluster governor. Torres is not an appealing replacement. He is strongly anti-Trump but has a lot of baggage. Supporting Cuomo doesn't help.

Cuomo resigned in 2021 in the face of multiple scandals. He was accused of mishandling COVID-19 after talking a good game against Trump. His book deal had issues. And, of course:

[He] was accused of sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual contact by multiple women, including state employees. A report by state Attorney General Letitia James found credible claims of harassment from 11 women, and a subsequent report by the Biden Department of Justice found he subjected 13 women who worked for the state to sexual harassment.

Cuomo largely denied any wrongdoing except some bullshit about handling some things badly. A major thing was that he hung around too long and tried to stay on past his sell date. Now, a few years have passed. Will the people accept him again?

He is also talking like a Republican with scare tactics:

"You feel it when you walk down the street and try not to make eye contact with a mentally ill homeless person, or when the anxiety rises up in your chest as you're walking down into the subway,” he said. “You see it in the empty storefronts, the graffiti, the grime, the migrant influx to random violence, the city just feels threatening, out of control and in crisis.

I do not. He also sent a message that he will play nice with Trump:

The former governor also said he was willing to work with President Trump, pointing out he had done so during Trump’s first term, when he was governor, but also said he was willing to push back, both at the president and governor, as well.

The polling is mixed and instant runoff voting helps the concern that opposition will split the anti-Cuomo vote. I fear for the future, though. And, I'm so fucking tired, so fucking tired, of assholes.

I wish they would just go the fuck away. 

===

* I would rather a Democrat hold the seat. 

I also didn't like multiple positions of the incumbent, including a scare tactic regarding a proposed center for former prisoners. And as a Republican, she has positions now that I oppose. 

Republicans have so few seats in the city council, however, that her being there is not too horrible. 

How New York’s highest court has veered right

ETA: Oh well.  "Janet DiFiore, the chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, says she will step down at the end of August."

After the Vermont and Massachusetts supreme court rulings both recognized some degree of marriage equality to same sex couples, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, did not. This around fifteen years ago and was a split decision, but the general lame arguments were cited. 

I guess going by this recent article speaking of a "4-3" conservative leading Court of Appeals, there continues to be some.  The key votes came from two late Cuomo appointees, who progressives were upset received so little pushback in the state senate.  It was part of the aggravating end of the line of the Cuomo years, ending with a failure to impeach or get him much more in way of punishment except for being forced to resign.  

The article points out that not only have these four judges handed down noticeably conservative rulings on various issues, but did so often with limited analysis and effort at compromise.  Sounds a tad too familiar.  It is not supposed these judges are as bad as the Barrett Court.  All the same, as the Supreme Court gets very conservative and we have a more liberal legislature, it is upsetting.  

Judge Shirley Troutman, who joined the court early this year after being nominated by Gov. Kathy Hochul, is the court’s closest thing to a swing vote. Sometimes Troutman sides with the conservative bloc, and sometimes with Judges Jenny Rivera and Rowan Wilson, the court’s two liberals, both Cuomo nominees. But since the four judges in the conservative bloc already form a majority, Troutman’s vote generally doesn’t affect the outcome of cases.

Troutman was in the dissent in the partisan gerrymandering case. She is the second African-American on the court of appeals, and received NAACP support.  Some were upset, however, that she is a former prosecutor. This is a concern, especially with the Cuomo picks.  OTOH, as far as it goes, she seems a decent selection, one reason it was reasonable to vote for Hochul in the primary.  

I have noted from time to time that I do not pay enough attention to local government. I know rather little about the operations of local courts. To be fair, even in regards to the Court of Appeals, the main papers do not provide much coverage of their decisions.  The linked article is from one of online sources that provide important coverage of local government. 

NYC Democratic Primary Update

My perusal of local news is more limited than it should be, but I do keep track of the news reported by the NY Daily News and NYT, follow a few other reporters/watchers of local politics on Twitter (Josefa Velásquez, Rebecca Lewis, Aaron Carr) as well as a few local political officials. Plus, there are various odds and ends (just today, I received a flier from Scott Stringer), including television advertising. More about him below.

And, it is a bit troubling to me that there doesn't seem that much attention being given to an important local NYC primary -- in this city the Democratic Party Primary is generally the election -- including for the mayor.  The primary is late June with early voting starting earlier; so we have basically a month until voting starts. The specter of Andrew f-ng Yang the front-runner for mayor now is scary there.  Mayor De Blasio is term limited.  I will note that for local races, I'm okay with term limits; for national ones, I'd be okay for 12 years for the House and 18 for the Senate, probably.

Not that other races, including one or more district attorney races, lack bite.  The public advocate race is low energy with the incumbent basically a shoe-in.  The comptroller seems to be likely to be won by the current term limited City Council President.  I'm not sure about Bronx borough president, which my own assembly member is running for in a multi-person race.  And, Marjorie Velázquez is trying to fill the soon to be open seat of the city council, now filled by someone whom I opposed last time in part since I thought he should have stayed in his state legislator job.  Aaron Carr (a liberal activist) and others have noted he leaves a lot to be desired in general.  

[He says he is not running for re-election since the political climate makes his "moderate" views too unpopular.  Okay.]

We will have ranked choice voting -- if (knock on wood) I'm back on as a election worker, let's see if that leads to some confusion. NYT had a good explainer recently and I would suppose other places did or will.  Plus, eventually, I should get a voter's guide in the mail.  Those guides tend to be helpful to get a sense of the candidates and whatever ballot measures involved.  The one thing that they don't cover are judicial races, adding to my overall feeling that they are stupid -- if you are not even going to have basic information on these people, what's the point? 

Ranked choice voting is only for city positions and that would not include the district attorney races, which are county.  A recent Queens D.A. race could have used it -- there were two main candidates (left leaning, moderate), a more conservative leaning person and a few also rans.  The net result was a plurality win by the lefty, but a surprising to me ultimate loss since the write-ins significantly went the way of the moderate.  An instant run-off system probably would have avoided that, the 10% or so of the third candidate likely to decide the race via second choices. 

The basic concept isn't that hard -- you rank people 1-5, though you need not fill in all the slots. And, for non-mayor races (even there really) I'm not going to do that.  For instance, for Bronx Borough President, only the two women running interest me at all.  For my local city council race, I will need to think a bit more, but the woman that came in second last time is my strong favorite.  She seems like a good choice, I thought she should have won last time and has experience as an assistant of a previous occupant (Vacca).  But, one or two of the other options might be worth an inclusion.

====

The big race is mayor.  I think Andrew Yang is ahead out of name recognition, something that makes him stand out as a "new" thing that seems different.  But, he's a horrible choice, who comes off as a gimmick candidate while we need a serious choice to lead the city.  De Blasio has gotten some criticism though from my rather isolated location, he seemed okay.  I am ready for a person of color who has some ability to push the city in a good liberal position.  Maya Wiley is where I'm leaning with activist Dianne Morales as my first choice. 

Not a POC, but Scott Stringer was looked to many as the best choice, including his experience in local government.  Eric Adams (black and a Brooklyn borough president) has had some success, perhaps because of his experience and recognition in the populous Brooklyn borough.  He also was a state senator and a former NYPD captain, which some like, some (COP!) do not.  I do respect experience, but was going to put Stringer third since my liberal activist senator (Biaggi) and others whose positions I respect supported him.  Well ....

A former Stringer volunteer accused Stringer of assault, arising from things like twenty years ago, and Biaggi et. al. (including the powerful Working Family Party) pulled their endorsements.  We got some messiness, Stringer lashing back, leading supporters removing endorsements (a sexual violence victim/activist like Sen. Biaggi who enthusiastically supporter him must have been hit hard -- it is likely a factor why she postponed a sexual violence event, her office saying recent events "triggered" her and she couldn't handle the event at the scheduled time).  

[And, we got misleading reports that the accuser supported Yang, when it appears she really supported another Yang who was on a ballot with multiple people along with Andrew Yang.]

Wiley and Morales seem to be the ones who might benefit the most.  Again, since Andrew Yang simply doesn't seem like someone who in the end will get the votes (kill me now if I'm wrong), to me, it would seem to go to Wiley and Adams. The remaining people might include one or more people nice on some level, but come off as also rans.  Kathryn Garcia, e.g., sounds like she did some good work.  If I had to fill out five choices, she might be three now.  But, again, don't see her and others winning.  

This is preliminary but it's hard to see how Scott Stringer can come back from the pulled endorsements from the Working Family Party particularly.  Are they going to say "oops" or something?  Biaggi and a few others, e.g., started with a statement supporting the accuser without even citing Stringer (I retweeting it thinking it was just a Cuomo thing).  Then, first one of her allies in the state government and Biaggi  herself pulled the endorsement.  In a close race, with multiple candidates, how can he recover?

How about the accusation?  First, a strict policy for someone like Biaggi is understandable.  She's an activist and so forth so has personal and professional standards with a high sense of principle to uphold.  It's surely not the same thing, but a few already called her a hypocrite for soft pedaling early on while being such a strong Cuomo opponent.  Of course, Cuomo is the governor and has a lot more problems.  Nuance is hard.

It's easier for me since Stringer was my distant second choice anyway among the top tier candidates.  It's still important in a ranked race to determine who gets those back-up slots.  If I rank Eric Adams, e.g,., fourth in place of Stringer, the low vote getting "favorite daughter" let us say choices will drop out, and it can be a matter of Wiley v. Adams, instead of Wiley v. Stringer.   Nonetheless, it often is matter of a position or candidate and you basically find it easy to not choice another, any decent reason (or half-way decent) will do.  It is not as stressful for me. 

Let's say I was a Stringer supporter.  I would first looked toward the Working Family Party, Biaggi and others who I respect in this situation.  Yes, you should judge things for yourself, but it is appropriate to use trustworthy third parties as proxies.  We are after all a republican form of government.  Second, given the times (including the Cuomo controversies), the whole thing would be a concern.  The person has been vouched for. This isn't the situation with the dubious Biden accuser.  The alternatives are acceptable enough, even if you think Stringer is the best choice.  

Still, on my own, I find an accusation based on actions from 2001 a bit dubious.  I'll grant without further reason to doubt (this isn't a court of law) the allegation (per NYT): "repeatedly groped me, put his hands on my thighs and between my legs and demanded to know why I would not have sex with him.”  It is just that something he did twenty years to me by itself is not disqualifying unless we are talking about something like actual rape.  That might be wrong, but I don't think there is a lifetime ban concept here.  

But, we work within the system, and times, in place. On that level, unless (and it is getting late) some serious damage control occurs, he's in a real tough spot.  Stringer strongly denied it, noting they did have a voluntary relationship.  His campaign not surprisingly struck back hard, including raising the "she's for Andrew Yang" bit that as I noted itself was challenged.  As noted here, this seems risky, and likely to antagonize left leaning (on the scale of NYC Democratic voters) supporters.  

Again, he's not my first choice, so it's easier -- especially if I don't like his response -- for me to write him off.   It also points to the value of POC or women in certain cases, since it helps to avoid #MeToo type situations like this. I think the sane choice with Kavanaugh, e.g., was to pick a conservative woman judge instead.  At the time, I offered Barrett, which appalled  a few, but I was thinking of the choices in context.  Same here. Wiley's involvement with De Blasio, e.g., got her in some trouble, but it isn't as sensitive as some sort of sexual abuse allegation.   

Anyway, it's a big upset in the race.  Now can we get rid of Yang?