Cuomo Comes from Ahead to Lose

There was a fairly lengthy period of time when it looked like the New York City mayoral ballot would offer voters the choice of three different flavors of sleazeball:

Andrew Cuomo, the presumptive Democratic nominee, was found to have sexually harassed 11 women after an investigation by New York state officials, and then spent millions of the state's money defending himself before resigning the governorship.

Eric Adams, the corrupt current mayor, and Democrat-turned-independent, who would be facing federal bribery charges right now but for the good fortune of having someone even more corrupt in the White House.

Curtis Sliwa, the only Republican in the race, who founded a group called the Guardian Angels, which is made up of private citizens who patrol the streets of New York City, trying to combat crime. The propriety of a group that skirts the line between "neighborhood watch" and "vigilantism" is up for discussion, and reasonable minds can disagree. However, there is no question that, to promote the group, Sliwa faked incidents where people were "rescued" from "criminals" by the Guardian Angels. And there is also no question that Sliwa falsely and illegally claimed he was kidnapped by three undercover police officers. He is also, depending on your judgment, either an out-and-out xenophobe or else xenophobia-curious.

One imagines that NYC's bodegas were doing a brisk business in clothespins, as New Yorkers braced themselves and got ready to pinch their noses and vote for which of the three is least odious.

Under these circumstances, it's not too surprising that an alternative choice surged at the end, in the form of state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic socialist who ran an energetic campaign that actually got people excited. As the polls tightened, the establishment tried very hard to rally Democrats behind Cuomo. That includes Bill Clinton, whose days as a Democratic influencer are clearly over. Also Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), who may be able to move the needle in the Palmetto State, but not the Empire State. And Michael Bloomberg, who joins Elon Musk in the "money can't buy elections" club. Perhaps most notable was The New York Times, which gave what can only be described as an anti-endorsement, with the eddi board writing that they would not suggest which candidate New Yorkers should vote for, but they would suggest which candidate New Yorkers should not vote for, namely Mamdani:

Mr. Mamdani is running on an agenda uniquely unsuited to the city's challenges. He is a democratic socialist who too often ignores the unavoidable trade-offs of governance. He favors rent freezes that could restrict housing supply and make it harder for younger New Yorkers and new arrivals to afford housing. He wants the government to operate grocery stores, as if customer service and retail sales were strengths of the public sector. He minimizes the importance of policing.

That's actually only the first paragraph; it goes on for two paragraphs more, finding many different ways to say that Mamdani does not know how to govern.

We wonder what effect all of this had. Maybe voters ignored the old fogeys, as they waved their fists at the clouds. Maybe some New Yorkers had second thoughts about their ballots, and dropped Mamdani down the list (or off entirely). Or maybe, just maybe, the establishment push for Cuomo produced a political version of the Streisand effect, drawing attention to Mamdani and burnishing his bona fides as an outsider who would shake things up.

Whatever the underlying dynamics were, Mamdani surged in polling (and in the betting markets), with the last Emerson poll of the cycle (conducted June 18-20) even predicting a win for the Assemblyman. And Emerson turned out to be right, as Mamdani claimed the Democratic nomination yesterday, pretty easily outpacing Cuomo and the other contenders. Turnout was pretty strong, as roughly a million New York Democrats cast a ballot in their party's mayoral primary (independents do not vote in NYC primaries, while Republicans had nothing to vote for as Sliwa was unchallenged).

Note that Mamdani's victory is not yet official. But with 93% of the vote in, he's got 43.5% of the votes to 36.4% for Cuomo and 11.3% for Brad Lander. Mathematically, that is a hurdle that the former Governor cannot plausibly overcome; as long as about a third of the non-Mamdani/Cuomo ballots have Mamdani ranked above Cuomo, or don't have either candidate ranked at all, then Mamdani will cross the 50% threshold. Consequently, Cuomo conceded last night. He had dreams of assuming leadership of the anti-Trump resistance, and then using that as a springboard for a presidential run in 2028. Now, at the age of 67, with even New York City Democrats not buying what he's selling, his political career may have reached its end.

We do not know how effective Mamdani will be as mayor of New York City. It could be that the Times' concerns are legitimate, and that he's in over his head. On the other hand, the media and the establishment didn't think too highly of people like Fiorello LaGuardia and Michael Bloomberg when they assumed that office, and yet things turned out OK. Truth be told, it is probable that, no matter what Mamdani achieves, voters will be disappointed. He's promised the moon and the stars, and even if he's able to deliver the moon, people will ask "What happened to the stars?" Remember, Joe Biden delivered on a sizable chunk of his (less ambitious) promises, and was rewarded with Herbert-Hoover-during-the-Great-Depression-level approval ratings. Such is the nature of politics these days.

We also do not know whether Mamdani will become a leader of the anti-Trump resistance, though we will guess it will not happen. It might have happened with Cuomo, given his name recognition, vast experience with the media, and presidential ambitions. But Mamdani will probably have his hands pretty full learning his new job (assuming he wins in November). Plus, when was the last time a New York mayor was actually a figure of national importance (beyond the one who just happened to be on the job when the 9/11 attacks happened, and so was handed national importance on a silver platter)? We would say that the last NYC mayor who used that platform to become a national player was Ed Koch, and he left office nearly 40 years ago.

There are two things that we think will happen, however. First up, Mamdani is of Indian descent, was born in Africa, is Muslim, is an outspoken liberal, and is supportive of Palestinian civilians. He was also a featured speaker at the Resist Fascism Rally in New York City, so he's literally Antifa. That checks a lot of boxes on the Republican bugaboo list, and so the GOP is going to try mightily to make him the face of New York Democrats and, ideally, Democrats nationwide. This has already started, in fact. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who has completed her turn to the dark side, sent out a fundraising e-mail last night in which she said that Mamdani's win makes her "sick," and that he's a "terrorist sympathizer." She also implied that he might be an actual terrorist. Charlie Kirk, who has been on the dark side so long he keeps a toothbrush at Emperor Palpatine's house, concurred with Stefanik, sending out an overtly Islamophobic tweet in which he observed: "24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City."

The other thing that will happen, we would guess, is that every establishment Democrat in Congress is going to draw a challenge from someone who is younger, leftier, or younger AND leftier. Mamdani's win was powered substantially by voters under the age of 40. We don't much love political-analysis-by-generation, but it is the case that Millennials (people aged 29-44) are the largest generation in America right now, and what happened yesterday showed they can have the candidates they prefer, if they actually get to the polls and vote. Mamdani (himself a Millennial, at 33 years of age) even provided the playbook by which young insurgents can win. Undoubtedly, his campaign will be studied very carefully, by a lot of people, in the next 6 months. And by the way, for those who did not follow the campaign, Mamdani boiled down his message into a very memorable (and alliterative) soundbite: "Fast and free buses, freeze the rents, free childcare."

Next up for NYC, of course, is the general election, which will be held on November 4. There is one poll so far; the aforementioned Emerson poll also asked about general election preferences, should Mamdani be the Democratic candidate. At the outset, if you believe that poll, Mamdani is the favorite—he's the preferred choice of 35% of respondents, as compared to 16% for Sliwa, 15% for Adams, and 6% for independent Jim Walden. However, there are a couple of wild cards here. First, though Cuomo sounded last night like a man who has seen the writing on the wall, he could make a return as an independent candidate or as a candidate of one of the third parties. Second, 27% of respondents were undecided; if they break strongly for one candidate or another, that could be enough to swing things.

One thing that is NOT a factor is ranked-choice voting. While New York City uses RCV for primaries and special elections, it does not use RCV for general elections. So, even if those Adams voters preferred Sliwa or Walden as their second choice in November, it would not matter, as there is no way to indicate that on the ballot. If Mamdani loses, it will be because some significant chunk of the anti-Mamdani forces united behind one candidate. Should that come to pass, it will probably be Cuomo who pulls it off, assuming he does indeed get back in. If Cuomo makes a big pitch to independents and Republicans, saying not-too-subtly: "Do you really want to be governed by a radical left-wing Pro-Palestinian Muslim?" and to centrist Democrats: "Do you want to risk having Mamdani become the face of the Party?" he might still put together a winning coalition in a four-way field. It would be a sleazeball way to run a campaign, but, well, see what we wrote in the first paragraph.

We wanted to end here with a couple of reports from New York readers, which will hopefully help everyone understand what happened yesterday. So, first up, here is J.R. in New York City (we do not know which borough):

I want to point out that Andrew Cuomo does a good job of running as a progressive and then governing as a Republican.

You have written about the former governor's record a couple of times in the past week or so. What you have left out is: (1) He created the Moreland commission to root out corruption in Albany, but when the commission started investigating those close to Cuomo, he immediately shut it down; (2) He assisted in creating a bloc of Independent Democrats to caucus with the Republicans in the State Senate. When progressive legislation was raised, Cuomo would simply blame the Senate for voting down the legislation; (3) He cut hospital funding in areas that desperately needed it; (4) he signed his book deal after bypassing the Ethics committee; (5) He lied about the deaths in nursing homes and (6) He fired the very capable Andy Byford (a.k.a. "Mr. Subways") because he was too competent and popular for the Governor.

Then, of course, there is the sexual harassment. Cuomo spent the past 4 years suing his accusers, and using public money to do so.

As for Zohran Mamdani, yes, he is young and light on experience. But he is very sharp and a deep thinker. He has big ideas and the city is badly in need of radical change for it to survive. I think if he wins and hires very capable administrators such as Brad Lander, Kathryn Garcia, Adrienne Adams and Janette Sadik-Khan (to name a few), he will do very well. As for the claims about defunding the police, restructuring how police operate is not defunding. And criticism of Israel is most definitely not antisemitic. Many Jews do support Mamdani. And there are plenty of Jews who remember Cuomo singling out Haredi communities for violating the stay-at-home orders during the pandemic, rather than trying to work with these groups who largely live their lives in communal settings.

Based on the results, it looks like New Yorkers are wising up and do not want to suffer through 4 more years misrule by another corrupt bully. We have enough of those in office right now as it is.

And now, D.C. in Manhattan:

You've stated on several occasions that you are all distinctly not New Yorkers; I don't hold that against you. But perhaps an on-the-ground perspective of what happened yesterday would be helpful.

If you're not a New Yorker, you didn't see the dynamic of the primary race play out in the city. Polls had Andrew Cuomo up early, sure. But a few months ago, the city's electorate was disengaged, as we watched the Trump administration start laying waste to the principles we voted for in November. The only engagement pollsters had was clearly name recognition. And mayoral primary races are pretty wonky, and people were only paying attention at that point if they were into local politics.

Zohran Mamdani's sudden rise in the polls—he was a no-name a few months ago—is explained very simply. He ran a terrific campaign. National Democrats would do well to notice the tactics that made his run effective. He mobilized an army of passionate volunteers. My door was knocked on twice. He also very effectively employed social media. A crowning moment, in my opinion, was his appearance on the popular show Subway Takes, which has a 2-minute-long format designed for TikTok and Instagram. His take, of course, was "I should be the mayor." Watch that spot, if you can.

Meanwhile, Cuomo's campaign was nowhere to be found, except for what looked like a desperate scramble in the final 2 weeks. My mailbox was crammed full of flyers sent by all sorts of organizations, full of preposterous claims, fear-mongering—not in support of any candidate, just against Mamdani. I threw it all in the trash and resolved to vote even earlier.

In the end, Cuomo's name recognition advantage was totally undone, because Mamdani ran a campaign people could get excited about. New York Democrats needed someone inspiring, finally, after each of our last several mayors turned out more disappointing than the last. We know a lot of Mamdani's policies are unrealistic, and he's going to encounter some stiff resistance from the deeply entrenched powers of the city government. But we avoided electing a plainly venal politician; we have seen time and again mayors who put their own interests above his voters. Good riddance.

Mamdani demonstrated he could connect with the average New Yorker, one who takes the subway and sees the problems our city has every day. He walked from one end of Manhattan to the other. That's not something I could have ever imagined Cuomo, or members of the Democratic old guard, doing. They just came off as out of touch. They clearly wanted Cuomo, but if they wanted to win, they should have been doing what Mamdani was doing long ago. And they should be recruiting younger candidates who are from my generation (I'm 34), ones who understand 2025's problems and 2025's political outreach.

National Democrats should really study this, hard. Obama did it like this back in '08, too, and that's the campaign that Zohran's reminded me of the most. He was a relative unknown a few months ago, and took out a member of New York's political class who thought he was on his way to a coronation. Sound familiar?

Thanks to both of you! And now, time for a pretty long wait before there's another meaningful election. (Z)

Iran Stuff

"Overpromise and underdeliver" is pretty much the theme of Donald Trump's political career (it's probably also true of other aspects of his life). There was a lot of Iran-related news yesterday, and nearly all of it would seem to be adverse for the President. Here's a rundown of the biggest stories:

Meltdown: Probably the best indication that Donald Trump knows (or suspects) he misplayed his hand is that he was on edge yesterday, and he lost his cool in front of reporters, and cursed out... Israel. Apparently, he believed that when Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire to take effect in 12 hours, they would cease firing immediately, and not in 12 hours. That did not happen and, in particular, Israel used that time to get a few extra volleys in despite Trump telling them not to do it.

Anyhow, as Trump walked to Marine One yesterday morning, he paused for about a minute to deliver a harangue about Iran and Israel, but especially Israel:



It's only a minute, and it's worth watching. But the key part, which got all the attention, was his final, irritated comment: "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing." (Reminder: We don't censor words that were used publicly, on camera/tape).

If Trump did not realize that the two sides would make sure to get some more shots in before the ceasefire kicked in, then he's a fucking idiot (the rubicon has already been crossed, thanks to Trump, so we might as well take advantage). This is what ALWAYS happens when there's a window before a ceasefire. He's clearly embarrassed that Israel did not do as he commanded and that, in fact, they openly defied him after he told them not to drop any more bombs.

Trump may also be developing an awareness that the shooting is not going to stop, for all time, thanks to his diplomacy, and that it was asinine to declare: "I don't believe they will ever be shooting at each other again." Already, both Iran and Israel are accusing each other of violating the terms of the ceasefire agreement. On top of that, Israel has made clear that their end goal is to end the Iranian nuclear program, and that since that has not happened, there WILL be future operations against Iran from the Israeli military.

Intel Dump: In our item yesterday, we ran down the early evidence that the U.S.-Israel attack was not particularly successful, from a strategic standpoint, and that it likely did not do all that much harm to the Iranian nuclear program.

Yesterday, CNN got its hands on the Department of Defense's early assessment, and reported that the DoD has reached that same conclusion. In fact, it would appear the attack set the Iranians back a few months, at most. Later in the day, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other outlets confirmed CNN's reporting.

The DoD says that a big part of the reason the attacks were not successful is that—wait for it—Iran knew they were coming. We wrote yesterday that Trump's erratic behavior, veering wildly from overselling diplomacy to overselling military action, surely must have tipped the Iranians off that an attack was very possible. As it turns out, however, Trump made it even more obvious than that. You see, while there aren't that many people who regularly visit his small-hands social media site, you can bet that the intel services of every nation have at least one person monitoring his feed. And so, the Iranians were surely aware of the message he posted after leaving the G7 early:

Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron, of France, mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit, in Canada, to go back to D.C. to work on a "cease fire" between Israel and Iran. Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong. Stay Tuned!

If it's something big, and it's definitely not a ceasefire, then what else could it be, but a military attack? This is less subtle than the plot of a Hallmark movie. And if Trump were anyone but the president, this might well be enough for him to be prosecuted for leaking military intelligence. Oh, and don't overlook that the reason he shared all of this information was... to thumb his nose at Emmanuel Macron.

Infighting: As we noted in the piece yesterday, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is trying hard to sell the idea that the MAGA base is united behind Trump and that any claims to the contrary are preposterous.

When Cotton made that assertion, we were (once again) reminded of the scene at the end of Animal House that features Kevin Bacon (in his debut performance, incidentally):

Nothing that has happened in the last 24 hours or so has given us reason to rethink our skepticism, as GOP-on-GOP squabbles are breaking out all over the place. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) is finding any opportunity he can to poke Trump in the eye. Steve Bannon (anti-bombing) and Fox entertainer Mark Levin (pro-bombing) keep ripping into each other, with Levin describing Bannon as a "contemptible POS" and Bannon slurring Levin as "Tel Aviv Levin" and "Spokesmodel for a foreign nation." Levin has also slammed Tucker Carlson (anti-bombing), calling him "the happy hooker of politics." Candace Owens (who, it should be noted, is a loony bird) declared that she's "embarrassed" that she told people to vote for Trump. Matt Gaetz (anti-bombing) is sparring publicly with... his mom (pro-bombing).

Democratic Response: Mostly, the Democrats are sitting back and letting events unfold. After all, as the old saying goes, "If your opponent is shooting themselves in the foot... let them." That said, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) is just itching to impeach Trump for... something, and he felt this was his opportunity. So, he filed articles of impeachment, and as a privileged motion, so that a vote had to be held. And the motion was quickly quashed by all the Republicans in the House, plus about ⅔ of the Democrats.

Polling: There has now been enough time to poll the voting public about the bombing in particular, and about Trump in general, and the results are not good for the President. For example, the latest from CNN reveals that 56% of Americans disapprove of the bombing attack, as opposed to 44% who approve. That's very poor, particularly given that military strikes usually trigger a (temporary) rally-round-the-flag effect. The crosstabs are also worrisome for the administration; not only do 88% of Democrats disapprove of the bombings, but so too do 60% of independents. Further, the percentage of Democrats who strongly disapprove (60%) is considerably larger than the number of Republicans who strongly approve (44%), suggesting that any further action in the region will embolden the opposition to Trump while weakening his support.

Trump's overall approval rating has also taken a hit due to the bombings. In the more friendly polls, he's generally underwater by around 5 points. In the less friendly polls, he's generally underwater by around 12 points. Across all polls, he's down 3-4 points in the last week.

Peace Out: Trump continues to obsess over the Nobel Peace Prize, something he thinks he should already have won at least once, if not two or three times. This weekend, he posted yet another lengthy screed, which ended with him whining: "I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!"

Yesterday, he suffered a wee bit of a setback, as Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksandr Merezhko formally (and loudly) withdrew his nomination of Trump for the prize, explaining that he has lost "any sort of faith and belief" in Trump. The MAGA faithful are still lobbying hard for Trump, and one of them, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) made his own nomination of Trump, to replace the one from Merezhko (plus, the Pakistani government has reportedly also made a nomination). So, Trump is technically still in the running, the same way the 18-61 Colorado Rockies are technically still in the running to win the World Series.

And that's the latest from Tuesday. (Z)

When Will Congress Act to Save Social Security?

There is a whole lot of news about Iran right now. There is also a lot of news about the big beautiful budget bill. Not as much as about Iran, but a lot. The problem with the budget news is that while the sausage is being made, a lot of people make bold statements about their "inflexible" demands, in hopes of negotiation-via-media. Almost inevitably, it turns out that "inflexible" actually means "open for discussion." Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the most maverick member of the Senate Republican Caucus, has clarified that when he said he'd never vote for the budget bill, what he actually meant was "I would like to see some changes, but if not, then that's life."

The point is that we don't write about every budget-related news story, because often that information is out of date within a week, and sometimes within a day. That said, the three things that are clear right now are: (1) The rulings from Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough have blown some pretty big holes in the bill passed by the House; (2) Some of those holes mean that math that was already fuzzy and didn't really add up is now really fuzzy and definitely doesn't add up; and (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is going to keep the Senate's nose to the grindstone over the weekend, in hopes of making some sort of progress.

One thing we have not seen anyone connect to the budget bill debate is the status of Social Security. That is always an issue these days, but one that exists only on the periphery. The members know that allowing any harm to come to Social Security would be political suicide, but they also know that any steps taken to shore up the program will require tough and politically problematic choices. So, since insolvency for the trust fund is in "the future," they just keep kicking the can down the road.

The problem is that the end of the road is now officially in sight. Given the rules of the filibuster, some aspects of the budget bill will be designed to last for 10 years. That puts us into the year 2035. And last week, the trustees of the Social Security system released their annual report, in which they said that the trust fund is going to run out of money a year earlier than expected, which means that if no changes are made, then the well will run dry in... 2034. So, Congress is now officially dealing with budget bills that overlap with armageddon.

As we have noted many times before, and as most readers presumably know, Social Security payments will not end if the trust fund is completely used up. The payments will just have to be made entirely from incoming revenues, which in turn would mean a cut in benefits of about 25%. A 25% cut is better than a 100% cut, of course, but even that would still leave many recipients hopping mad. Further, there are millions and millions of people who live solely on their Social Security checks and who barely make ends meet. Obviously, barely making ends meet - 25% = no longer able to make ends meet.

We doubt that this consideration will enter the current discussion. Clearly, if Republicans are willing to slash Medicaid right now, even if millions of people will lose their health insurance, they are not too concerned about what will happen to retirees in 10 years. But the Democrats would be wise to craft a talking point, sooner rather than later; something along these lines: "These tax cuts for millionaires are going to make it even harder to keep Social Security functioning!" We will see if any of them take up that particular banner in the next few weeks or months. (Z)

Never Forget: Cold Warrior

Today's reminiscence comes to us from D.M. in Santa Rosa, CA:

My father Jim helped win the Cold War. He was a civilian, working for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the 1970s and 80s. I knew him as an adventurous, but difficult, father/man afflicted by alcoholism, a "bum" hip and finally a severe brain injury. His colleagues knew him as a genius engineer with little patience for bureaucracy or official limitations on what he could learn and/or make.

My image of his work came from visits to his lab on the docks of the Woods Hole, and maybe a sea story or two from those times he went to sea. But what he was really doing was improving navigation on the ocean. When the military inserted an error into the early Global Positioning System so that they would have an advantage over civilian users, he developed a cheap, easy way to correct for the error, much to the consternation of the brass. After my father's death, his boss sent me a very funny recounting of the meeting in Washington, DC, in which my father explained his solution in terms so simple that even the general understood it. There was much huffing and puffing, but the artificial error was useless and was eventually removed.

His boss also told me about Dad's final project, which he credits with helping to win the Cold War. It was a contract with the U.S. Geological Survey in which my dad created, refined and deployed a way to measure variations in the earth's gravity at sea. That project required a team of scientists and engineers to figure it out. And when they did figure it out, it allowed our submarines to have minute gravitational measurements which were then input to our submarine-based nuclear missiles. If you know all the factors at launch, especially gravity, your missile will be much more accurate at the other end.

That accuracy allowed American submarines and missiles to be smaller and less expensive. The Soviets, lacking the science and engineering that the U.S. had, compensated by making larger and more expensive submarines and missiles. Over the 45 years of the Cold War, these incremental scientific and engineering advances and advantages built up. And eventually the Soviet Union could not keep up. So, the Cold War ended, with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As the bunker-buster bombs fell on Iran and all of them went down two small ventilation shafts, we all knew about the pilots and other people who supported the mission. But I also marveled at the engineers and scientists who made that accuracy possible. They work on projects often far-removed from the final result. But it is their contributions that build up over time to make our military the most effective force in history. I was proud to learn of my father's contributions to that effectiveness, so many years ago. I am only sad that I learned it after he died.

Thanks, D.M. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger