Jeffries Challenger Blocked

I understand why Mamdani pragmatically opposed a primary challenge to Jeffries. But it is still bothersome. And, a path to victory is not the only reason you do it. You also do it to help push candidates to your side and to promote your cause.

A Few More NYC Election Tidbits (SCOTUS Watch)

This week's SCOTUS summary is found here.

We had a significant increase in turnout, with as many voters as there were since 1969. The increase is relative, with only around 40% taking part. The Bronx had a paltry 28%. My city council district changed hands. What small fraction decided the result? 

Voting is a civic obligation. Many people think it is pointless to vote, including if they don't like the candidates. Republicans often felt they were wasting their vote, helping someone they strongly opposed in the process.  Others also did not like Mamdani. 

It is still important for people to vote. There were also other races and six ballot measures. The two links provide some voting analysis. For instance, the black vote significantly shifted from Cuomo in the primary to Mamdani in the general. Recall Mayor Eric Adams (black) was not in the primary. 

One analysis argues that Mamdani's leading reform proposals are cheap as a segment of the overall budget. The analysis provides some interesting information, including that free buses seem less extreme when 48% already do not pay for bus fares.

(That seems high, but there was a study comparing riders to fares obtained. I don't take buses too much, but have seen evidence of the overall practice.) 

Meanwhile, NY SNAP funding will continue even in the face of the government shutdown and Trump shenanigans. I expected state funding would help.

[ETA: After last night's SCOTUS order, the SNAP benefits are more up in the air. The linked article was updated since I first posted this.]

==

This entry has links to three online newspapers covering NYC and NY state news, as well as one to an NYT article. The (free) NY-specific online papers have provided helpful local coverage.  

Paywalls are annoying but fair since media providers need to be paid. Archived content can help avoid it. Also, you can fiddle around with the browser, including cookie settings, to avoid some others. 

Early Voting Begins

It is that time of the year again. Early voting has begun. Around five years ago, New York began to provide ten days of early voting. 

We also have "no excuse" vote by mail. I even convinced a voting-hesitant person to use it after years of not voting. She used an option where it is automatically sent to the voter, which is an incentive to vote as compared to those who would have to personally choose to vote each time. 

New York also provides a voting guide, though it does not cover judicial races. I find that dubious. 

I understand the value of convenience. I had to walk a significant way (not too long) the first time. Now, an early voting location is five minutes away. I will man the polls on Election Day.

(There is a race for governor going on in New Jersey. One person I follow on Bluesky is scaring me by warning us that the Democrat is not putting up enough of a fight. This is where we are at. Even NJ is not totally safe regarding not voting for the Trump Party.) 

Civic Duty 

I think in-person voting is an important symbolic act.

So, a little part of me doesn't like mail-in voting. But I understand there is a value there, especially for certain voters. It is best to have various options. 

Some argue Election Day should be a holiday to help some of these voters. It makes some sense, especially given the importance of voting overall to democracy.

But early voting helps to fill in that gap. After all, many people are already off today, Saturday, the first day of early voting. I don't think a whole day off is necessary. Early voting and many voting locations will also cut down wait times and other problems. 

Overall, we have a moral duty to vote. It is our civic duty. Some people are annoyed with that claim. 

How dare you tell me I have a duty to vote! I'm not (though it might work) talking about a penalty for refusing to vote. The state doesn't penalize being mean to mom. Is a minimal thing like voting too much for citizens to manage? Perhaps this helps explain things.

A fraction of the public voting has various problems. One problem is that it encourages very partisan representatives. Low turnout in primary elections is especially problematic when they are likely the "real" election in safe districts. AOC first won her primary with a tiny fraction of the vote. 

New York City Elections 

The two big things in NYC this year are the mayoral race and some ballot measures. 

Mayoral Race 

Zohran Mamdani is favored to win the mayoral race. He is a fitting answer to the times. Put aside the exaggerated, often bullshit criticisms. The main concern is that he is too young and inexperienced. He's more experienced than the Republican choice. 

And, as Mamdani said, Cuomo's "experience" is a big part of the problem. Plus, just what experience does he have to govern New York City well? Mamdani's campaign, including being open to respectfully listening, has shown a basic quality Cuomo lacks. 

It is a good thing that Mamdani and Cuomo (who should have simply dropped out) are not the only options. Mamdani's opposition hates that the anti-Mamdani vote is split. But do we really want Republicans and independents to only have to vote for Cuomo? It's as if Bill Clinton were the alternative to a very liberal presidential option in 1996.  

I'm obviously biased, but I am honest in saying that. My Republican city councilwoman (I have not seen a single campaign sign in the neighborhood of her competition; the Democrat deserves to lose), along with the rest of the small Republican caucus, endorsed Curtis Sliwa. If nothing else, Sliwa is not an asshole, Democratic, and likes cats. 

Sliwa is still not a serious option if you truly thought Republicans had a chance. He ran unopposed in the primary, probably because they felt Cuomo would win. He didn't. Too bad, Republicans. 

Additional candidates have filed to run on other ballot lines in the general election but have not raised significant funds or polled among leading candidates. They include Irene Estrada (Conservative Party) and Joseph Hernandez (Quality of Life Party). Walden and Adams will both still appear on the ballot, despite suspending their campaigns.

Some long-shot candidate (Walden) floated himself as an alternative for a little while. He waited too long to concede he had no shot and remained on the ballot. 

Eric Adams, who wound up endorsing Cuomo, is still on the ballot. Filling out the ballot is the first time I heard of the "quality of life" party. 

The biggest question is probably whether Mamdani receives over 50% of the vote. Cuomo concedes it is a longshot for him to win with Sliwa in the race. 

I am also interested in whether Adams or anyone else will receive a significant amount of the vote. I reckon Adams' loyalists might give him a percentage or two at least. I don't expect miracles with Mamdani.

But I think he gives us a chance to obtain some good things, including a suitably strong counter to Donald Trump. Plus, Adams is so darn crooked. 

Ballot Measures 

Mamdani has played it safe lately, including not stating his opinion on the ballot measures. 

I don't think the reason was the state measure concerning the use of wilderness land for development (more land will be put aside to compensate) or one about new maps. That is, the two I supported. A sixth measure about ending off-year elections (it is not the final step, even if it passed) is challenged here. 

The three housing measures, a "gift" of sorts from Zombie Candidate (he is still on the ballot), Mayor Eric Adams, are particularly touchy since the City Council hates them. It's logical since a major point is to reduce their role, to help speed up the process. 

Affordable housing advocates support the measures, though the League of Women Voters was agnostic about one of them. A "yes" vote seems reasonable, even a good idea. Still, I was hesitant. I decided to vote "no" out of caution. 

I am wary of direct democracy, especially regarding specialty issues and/or things that warrant the balancing of interests. This issue is a reasonable exception since it specifically challenges the City Council's role, and they are self-interested. 

Other Races 

One more thing. New York has a form of instant run-off voting for city races (district attorney is a state race). It is only available during the primary. 

There are other local races. Sometimes, you could vote third party (e.g., Working Families Party) instead of voting Democratic or Republican. For whatever reason, not every candidate runs on two lines.

It helps send a message that you support that cause. Third parties in even years also need significant vote totals to remain on the ballot. That doesn't seem like an issue in 2025. A few voters are confused and want to fill in the ovals for a candidate in both places! 

Sometimes, there is a third option, such as the "Unity" Party, which is meant to be a third "unity" type alternative. Only a few people vote for these candidates. Still, as with the chance to fill in your own candidate, it is helpful to provide other options. 

The comptroller and public advocate (who is the next in line if the mayorality is vacant) are decent Democratic sorts who will win. 

The city council races are generally not in doubt. Maybe there is some upset or two possible somewhere city-wide. I would hope that maybe my city council district (after an upset last time) would go back to being Democratic. But that candidate has basically not shown up. It is annoying.  

Judges 

Two local judicial candidates are also running unopposed in my district. This is common. 

It also underlines the stupidity of judicial races being on the ballot. Some states have more active judicial elections, and there are some ethically dubious things going on. Here, it is largely just something you fill in. 

The average voter knows little or nothing about them. Not that it often matters since (you can write in a name; I usually do), there often is no actual race. 

Final Thoughts 

I continue to find it reassuring that voters have a chance to decide on Election Day. Often, yes, things seem pro forma. The winners and losers are obvious.

Enough times to matter, however, there are actual races. That happened this year, too, especially the mayoral primary race. Either way, the act of voting, our civic duty, is a wondrous thing.

Some people argue that democracy is dead now that Trump is in power. Or, at the very least, it is in suspended animation, somewhat akin to Han Solo in that Star Wars movie. Fuck that. 

I got my sticker. And, voting still matters. It is still going on. Some might want to interfere, but we don't have to let them. Happy voting. 

Tidbits

I discuss the moral argument against Trump. Something to Talk About isn't just a good film. (Her second romance is good as well and has a lot more sex. Maybe too much!)  Yippee. Good luck, Blue Jays.

NYC Ballot Proposals

New York City has six ballot measures this year. 

One is a state measure required by the state constitution that protects wilderness land. Other than Curtis Sliwa ("no" on all), there doesn't seem to be much opposition to it. Some private land is being swapped for wilderness land.

One local measure creates a centralized digital City Map maintained by the Department of City Planning. Again, there doesn't appear to be much opposition to this measure. Sliwa, notwithstanding. 

The most controversial ones, which the City Council hates, involve streamlining the process for affordable housing. Mamdani needs the support of the City Council and other groups who are not fans. 

So, he is taking a while to decide. I realize it is probably a political move as much as or more than him truly being unsure. Still, helps me be wary. 

Affordable housing advocates, from what I can tell, generally support the measures. The League of Women Voters is agnostic about one of the three measures. It is a battle of the City Council (popular control) and concerns of NIMBY-ism. 

I generally favor legislative decision-making over direct democracy. There are times when direct democracy is a valid counterbalance to legislative difficulties. I am guardedly supportive of them. 

Abortion rights in red states come to mind. OTOH, some issues are complicated policy matters that should be left to legislators, who know about such things, and can negotiate the various policy issues.

The final measure involves ending local elections in off-years. A "yes" vote is not final since the state legislature has to be involved. This makes the measure somewhat lower in temperature. 

OTOH, this "no" argument is fairly convincing. 

==

There is a 10-day period of early voting, so the time to vote is rapidly approaching. And, the vote-by-mail ballots (I know someone who has one) have already been sent out. Still, I have a bit of time to decide. 

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.