He is a great candidate and all these points were spot on. I think Lander had a lot of experience and would be a fantastic asset in the administration. Time to build coalitions for a counter vision of the MAGA cruelty show.
As Krugman said: “Cuomo victory would have been deeply depressing. Why? Because it would have been an affirmation of elite impunity and lack of accountability. Cuomo is by all accounts a terrible person, and his bungled response to Covid killed people. For him to make a comeback simply because he’s part of the old boys’ club and had the big money behind him would have said that the rules only apply to the little people.”
Encouraging post Sam, as someone who also ranked Lander and other centrist candidates higher than Zohran it makes me more optimistic for his potential tenure! One major concern you didn’t highlight though is his rent freeze promise, and I’m curious what you think the outcome of this might be.
Of course the mayor doesn’t have direct control over RGB decisions, but there are some levers he can pull and the risk of even promising it in the first place could be disastrous for building maintenance and construction decisions. This may just end in a compromise or dropped policy, but given how prominent it was in his campaigning, I’m not sure we can count on it. Any thoughts here?
“Another signature Mamdani proposal is freezing the rent in rent-stabilized apartments, which in practice would mean instructing his appointees on the Rent Guidelines Board to reject annual increases for some 960,000 apartments. This is hardly new: de Blasio’s appointees did this three times.
If he wants to keep this promise, he should make it part of his broader housing plan. First, take seriously many landlords’ arguments that costs are so high that they can’t afford to maintain rent-stabilized buildings. Real estate is a knife’s edge business in New York City, and there are some responsible small and mid-size landlords who can’t keep up with costs. Mamdani should appoint a task force to dig into the economics of this regulated building stock and then recommend a solution. And make the Rent Guidelines Board process and calculations completely transparent in a way that New Yorkers can understand.
Finally, he should embrace the fact that the solution to the affordability crisis is building many more homes. His housing plan needs far more detail and some recognition of fiscal reality, but it has the benefit of emphasizing supply.”
The Wu comp is interesting because I get the impression that much of her popularity comes on the heels of her being a bit of a squish. The rent control stuff in particular is relevant here - she RAN on rent control and then proceeded to advocate for one of the most “please stop asking me about rent control” policies in the country.
Agree. The more nuanced take about Wu is that she’s basically following the Charlie Baker playbook of reaping political rewards for being generally non-controversial and not actually doing a whole lot.
I have found the Wu arc so interesting in that regard because she has managed to become very popular and not at all nationally relevant. Speaks to a troubling divide where success and national popularity often seem inversely correlated. Like I think you can make a case that if Wu governed like she initially campaigned she'd have a bigger national profile and be at serious risk of losing her job. Just a bizarre thought but totally plausible.
So, in other words, Zohran can be successful to the extent that he actually governs like a centrist technocrat rather than the literally anti-capitalist, Venezuela supporting individual he has been his whole life. Ok, that’s fine. It’s just a bit strange.
Yes I agree with the author if zohran completely changes and disavows every substantive policy idea he has then he could be an effective mayor. I sincerely hope he does. But I don't at all understand why so many have optimism he will do that.
I think this is unfair. He has sponsored YIMBY legislation in the state house and bills to streamline MTA permitting. He talks about how NYC needs to build housing like Jersey City does. My impression is that he’s more focused on outcomes rather than process, which is a good sign and shows willingness to compromise.
I think the idea is that he is smart and open minded and has so far shown an ability to be less dumb about housing when he ventures outside his ideological bubble.
Mamdani is very good at doing the politician thing of smiling and giving the vibe he agrees with everything you're saying (bdb and Bill Clinton were also examples of this). It gives people the hope that he actually secretly agrees with their opinions and they can disregard everything he's actually said. Most people are surprisingly vulnerable to charming sociopaths.
My problem with voting for Mamdani in the general election is basically his dependence on social media. While all politicians use it, Mamdani’s “base” is essentially Instagram and TikTok’s profit maximization algorithm. Mamdani has overwhelming incentive to drive attention ahead of any other deliverable. He cannot politically survive governing with technocrats and getting along well with Hochul. Sure, he can pick fights with Trump but Mamdani has no cards to play. While I think Mamdani is a decent person, I find his political rise and the sane-washing of his “policies” to be such a mirror of Donald Trump’s entry to politics I can’t help but see anything besides destruction and chaos in his leadership. Adams will steal from us, kill rats, and keep quiet. Mamdani needs to produce controversy, no matter his intentions or his good nature, he’s beholden to the devil as much as Adams is.
I feel like this is so not true. Mamdani had a massive ground game, bigger than all the other candidates in the race. He knocked a million doors, and has legitimately built real relationships with communities, e.g. the MicromobilityNYC community.
What controversy did Mamdani coast on in the primaries? He’s run a clean campaign, and has legitimately won a lot of popularity just by being a chill dude.
He has a good message, and basically picked up the basket of popular populist positions and adopted them all. He clearly has deeper policy positions, if you listen to any long form interview.
Instead, you’d rather the most corrupt mayor in forever who has literally abandoned all progress on major city issues, and took a quid pro quo from our authoritarian federal administration.
His “controversy” was the campaign. What relationships, policies or message did he have that Lander, Myrie, or A Adams didn’t? (I can think of one 😉) His own campaign website lists a series of policies all of which are outside the jurisdiction of the city. The “rent freeze” is the only thing he can really do unilaterally and it’s really just a promise to politicize a nominally independent board. The other headline proposals are not only entirely outside NYCs control but mostly duplicate existing programs for no apparent reason other than being anti-institutional and more visible to yuppies. It’s “build a wall and make the Mexicans pay for it” all over again. Symbolic bullshit, but importantly, at a specific groups expense.
As for the ground game… I’ve seen enough of Charlottesville and Jan 6 to be unmoved by the supposed virtue of partisans. Besides, my problem with Mamdani has as much to do with the ease at which people devoted themselves to the ground game as it does with his willingness to call them.
I don’t think he’s a bad man, he’s just whatever Instagram what’s him to be and thinking he “legitimately won a lot of popularity just by being a chill dude” is the product of that
He literally refused to condemn the Holocaust and supported "globalizing the intifada", which is something New York has seen before and didn't go great.
You are delusional. New York residents aren’t going to get what they deserve; they’re going to get what they voted for. And they’re going to get it good and hard.
He is a great candidate and all these points were spot on. I think Lander had a lot of experience and would be a fantastic asset in the administration. Time to build coalitions for a counter vision of the MAGA cruelty show.
As Krugman said: “Cuomo victory would have been deeply depressing. Why? Because it would have been an affirmation of elite impunity and lack of accountability. Cuomo is by all accounts a terrible person, and his bungled response to Covid killed people. For him to make a comeback simply because he’s part of the old boys’ club and had the big money behind him would have said that the rules only apply to the little people.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/paulkrugman/p/mamdani-and-the-moguls-of-madness?r=4xnqn8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Encouraging post Sam, as someone who also ranked Lander and other centrist candidates higher than Zohran it makes me more optimistic for his potential tenure! One major concern you didn’t highlight though is his rent freeze promise, and I’m curious what you think the outcome of this might be.
Of course the mayor doesn’t have direct control over RGB decisions, but there are some levers he can pull and the risk of even promising it in the first place could be disastrous for building maintenance and construction decisions. This may just end in a compromise or dropped policy, but given how prominent it was in his campaigning, I’m not sure we can count on it. Any thoughts here?
I generally agree with this take from Jamie Rubin and Bradley Tusk published in vital city: https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/articles/how-zohran-mamdani-could-succeed-as-mayor
“Another signature Mamdani proposal is freezing the rent in rent-stabilized apartments, which in practice would mean instructing his appointees on the Rent Guidelines Board to reject annual increases for some 960,000 apartments. This is hardly new: de Blasio’s appointees did this three times.
If he wants to keep this promise, he should make it part of his broader housing plan. First, take seriously many landlords’ arguments that costs are so high that they can’t afford to maintain rent-stabilized buildings. Real estate is a knife’s edge business in New York City, and there are some responsible small and mid-size landlords who can’t keep up with costs. Mamdani should appoint a task force to dig into the economics of this regulated building stock and then recommend a solution. And make the Rent Guidelines Board process and calculations completely transparent in a way that New Yorkers can understand.
Finally, he should embrace the fact that the solution to the affordability crisis is building many more homes. His housing plan needs far more detail and some recognition of fiscal reality, but it has the benefit of emphasizing supply.”
The Wu comp is interesting because I get the impression that much of her popularity comes on the heels of her being a bit of a squish. The rent control stuff in particular is relevant here - she RAN on rent control and then proceeded to advocate for one of the most “please stop asking me about rent control” policies in the country.
Agree. The more nuanced take about Wu is that she’s basically following the Charlie Baker playbook of reaping political rewards for being generally non-controversial and not actually doing a whole lot.
I have found the Wu arc so interesting in that regard because she has managed to become very popular and not at all nationally relevant. Speaks to a troubling divide where success and national popularity often seem inversely correlated. Like I think you can make a case that if Wu governed like she initially campaigned she'd have a bigger national profile and be at serious risk of losing her job. Just a bizarre thought but totally plausible.
Great piece!
So, in other words, Zohran can be successful to the extent that he actually governs like a centrist technocrat rather than the literally anti-capitalist, Venezuela supporting individual he has been his whole life. Ok, that’s fine. It’s just a bit strange.
Yes I agree with the author if zohran completely changes and disavows every substantive policy idea he has then he could be an effective mayor. I sincerely hope he does. But I don't at all understand why so many have optimism he will do that.
I think this is unfair. He has sponsored YIMBY legislation in the state house and bills to streamline MTA permitting. He talks about how NYC needs to build housing like Jersey City does. My impression is that he’s more focused on outcomes rather than process, which is a good sign and shows willingness to compromise.
I think the idea is that he is smart and open minded and has so far shown an ability to be less dumb about housing when he ventures outside his ideological bubble.
Mamdani is very good at doing the politician thing of smiling and giving the vibe he agrees with everything you're saying (bdb and Bill Clinton were also examples of this). It gives people the hope that he actually secretly agrees with their opinions and they can disregard everything he's actually said. Most people are surprisingly vulnerable to charming sociopaths.
Sober and thoughtful take on Mamdani's next steps.
Excellent piece!
My problem with voting for Mamdani in the general election is basically his dependence on social media. While all politicians use it, Mamdani’s “base” is essentially Instagram and TikTok’s profit maximization algorithm. Mamdani has overwhelming incentive to drive attention ahead of any other deliverable. He cannot politically survive governing with technocrats and getting along well with Hochul. Sure, he can pick fights with Trump but Mamdani has no cards to play. While I think Mamdani is a decent person, I find his political rise and the sane-washing of his “policies” to be such a mirror of Donald Trump’s entry to politics I can’t help but see anything besides destruction and chaos in his leadership. Adams will steal from us, kill rats, and keep quiet. Mamdani needs to produce controversy, no matter his intentions or his good nature, he’s beholden to the devil as much as Adams is.
I feel like this is so not true. Mamdani had a massive ground game, bigger than all the other candidates in the race. He knocked a million doors, and has legitimately built real relationships with communities, e.g. the MicromobilityNYC community.
What controversy did Mamdani coast on in the primaries? He’s run a clean campaign, and has legitimately won a lot of popularity just by being a chill dude.
He has a good message, and basically picked up the basket of popular populist positions and adopted them all. He clearly has deeper policy positions, if you listen to any long form interview.
Instead, you’d rather the most corrupt mayor in forever who has literally abandoned all progress on major city issues, and took a quid pro quo from our authoritarian federal administration.
His “controversy” was the campaign. What relationships, policies or message did he have that Lander, Myrie, or A Adams didn’t? (I can think of one 😉) His own campaign website lists a series of policies all of which are outside the jurisdiction of the city. The “rent freeze” is the only thing he can really do unilaterally and it’s really just a promise to politicize a nominally independent board. The other headline proposals are not only entirely outside NYCs control but mostly duplicate existing programs for no apparent reason other than being anti-institutional and more visible to yuppies. It’s “build a wall and make the Mexicans pay for it” all over again. Symbolic bullshit, but importantly, at a specific groups expense.
As for the ground game… I’ve seen enough of Charlottesville and Jan 6 to be unmoved by the supposed virtue of partisans. Besides, my problem with Mamdani has as much to do with the ease at which people devoted themselves to the ground game as it does with his willingness to call them.
I don’t think he’s a bad man, he’s just whatever Instagram what’s him to be and thinking he “legitimately won a lot of popularity just by being a chill dude” is the product of that
He literally refused to condemn the Holocaust and supported "globalizing the intifada", which is something New York has seen before and didn't go great.
You are delusional. New York residents aren’t going to get what they deserve; they’re going to get what they voted for. And they’re going to get it good and hard.