Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

#401

Post by reenorap »

michaelbarton wrote: post #13

I hope this win signals (to both parties) that voters are receptive and will get engaged when a clear message is presented about cost of living and quality of life issues. Some of which are taken for granted in most other western countries. I’m no political wonk, and I’m curious what others with more insight might say about his ability to fund and implement his polices. I’m reminided of Obama and his hopeful message…

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

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

Re: Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

#402

Post by jrm4 »

yesbut wrote: post #376
jrm4 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely can't believe, still, that I have to spell this out for people. Obama did not do a U-turn . It is the worst naivete to think that what happened was "he had big ideas and he changed his mind." He had to bring up big ideas to get elected, and then he got elected the first Black president and some of you seem entirely too dense to actually grasp what that means. President. Not King. Subject to all of those c…

Consider the framing today: "Trump is doing all these terrible things, making all of these drastic changes, exploiting the system to his will." The Dems can no longer use the excuse that the president is handcuffed. Trump 2.0 is showing us what the president can do. The dems consistently use that excuse to prevent popular policies from being enacted. Obama even had a ~6mo super majority where he could have codified a…

It is astoundingly naive to think that the forces in America make it such that "whoever is the president has unlimited power, whether they're an old rich white billionaire or a relatively young black guy on the Dem side."

Again, I implore you all to grow a bit smarter.

Re: Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

#403

Post by kelnos »

Taek wrote: post #137
octaane wrote: post #73

You guys have it all wrong. There was only one candidate for the dem party, Here's the list: 1) Cuomo. Sexpest who has been accused by many women of some pretty shitty stuff. Also a member of a multi-generational dynasty, which is not good. 2) Mayor Adams. Federally indicted by the Feds. They have a 99% conviction rate. Not because they're corrupt, but because they only go after people who have dome some really egreg…

It's not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing? Presumably the kids can learn from the parents, get connected, etc. Also, Mamdani's policies are incredibly controversial, that's why it's such big news. Lots of people predicting that Mamdani's criminal policies, economic policies, and lack of experienced staffers will lead the city to dark days.

> It's not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing?

Because they're undemocratic.

Concentrating political capital within a family means raises barriers to entry. People with new -- possibly better -- ideas don't get a meaningful chance to see those ideas implemented.

These sorts of setups destroy the idea that politics and elections can be a meritocracy, but instead are determined by birthright. You end up with aristocracies populated by the extended family, friends, and business partners of the family in power.

You also get stagnation. You're less likely to see other points of view represented in the political process, and that affects outcomes.

Re: Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

#404

Post by ComplexSystems »

nobody9999 wrote: post #287
Taek wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing? Presumably the kids can learn from the parents, get connected, etc. Also, Mamdani's policies are incredibly controversial, that's why it's such big news. Lots of people predicting that Mamdani's criminal policies, economic policies, and lack of experienced staffers will lead the city to dark days.

>Mamdani's policies are incredibly controversial, that's why it's such big news. Which policies are "incredibly controversial?" And be specific. Here'a a direct link to his platform for your reference" https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform No rush. I'll wait.

I don't feel that you're going to get a lot of engagement with this attitude. It doesn't come off like a good-faith effort to have an honest intellectual conversation, which is what this forum is about.

There are clearly policies on that page that break from the NYC status quo (like freezing the rent). Perhaps you are interested in explaining to us why you think these are economically sound ideas, rather than insisting they aren't controversial?

Re: Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

#405

Post by mkhattab »

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

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

Re: Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

#406

Post by DANmode »

BrenBarn wrote: post #374
Workaccount2 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mamdani will learn that you need to be friends with the people your voters hate to get things done. Developers are the single most important players in lowering housing costs, but they are part of the "landlord" contingent in voters minds. If he doesn't learn that, the city is going to be in bad shape. Impossible to get an apartment unless you want to get an illegal sublet at regular old $4500/mo prices.

This is another example of a little radicalism is a dangerous thing. You don't need to be friends with landlords if you're prepared to simply seize all their property.

I…don’t think he is prepared to do that.

That’s if he wanted to, which I am yet to be convinced.

Further, I don’t think any City government (including NYC) is prepared to do that! - short of an already-occurring collapse.

Re: Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

#407

Post by unethical_ban »

terminalshort wrote: post #347
raincom wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrats want higher wages for workers instead of reducing the cost of living (rent, insurance, etc).

[flagged]

I do not believe illegal immigration is a significant suppressor of wages.

Re: Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

#408

Post by nikanj »

YZF wrote: post #391
afavour wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, current day European social democracies. You can’t help but laugh at the amount of hysteria about Mamdani. No cost childcare? Free buses? Using existing rent control regulations to keep rent affordable? Oh no

There are fundamental differences between Europe and the US. The US is not magically going to become Europe by electing a "left" mayor. Also this is a city- since when does a mayor set economic policies. Last I checked free busses, and no cost childcare, still need someone to pay for them. Rent control, if the rent is low, there won't be any rental property. What's the next step, forcing people to build? The city wil…

The people who lucked into rent-controlled suites will sublet them for a much higher rent https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20160517-this-is-one-ci...

Re: Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

#409

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

gpm wrote: post #58
wodenokoto wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Canada here (Ontario really, probably varies by province) - our mayors and city councilors are politicians but they're explicitly forbidden from running as part of a party. Which I honestly think works so well it should be extended to all levels of politics.

Famously, the US founding fathers warned against the dangers of political parties, only to see them spring up in the US anyways. You really need to design your political system carefully so that there is no incentive to form political parties. I don't know if anyone has ever successfully done this. People should be thinking about it more though.

Specifically, I think a political party happens when two politicians make a bargain that they will each vote for some of the other politician's policies. They don't have to call it "the X party" for it to be a de facto political party.

There are some offices which are designated as nonpartisan here in the US too, I think they are typically offices which don't have a lot of scope for this sort of bargaining. If they did have scope for such bargaining, I wouldn't want to rely on the honor system in the long term. I would want to codify it into law somehow. But how? The best way is probably to reduce the incentive for striking bargains somehow? Again, how? Or maybe bargains are just a distraction, and the real problem lies elsewhere? As I said, people should be thinking more.

Re: Zohran Mamdani wins the New York mayoral race

#410

Post by bradlys »

jaggederest wrote: post #332
nemo44x wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not even the point though. You can always do these things but you still have no cultural power and you’ve yielded the important structures and financial capitals. That’s not a long term strategy. And it’s not that difficult to win these things, especially when you look at how objectively poor the oppositions performance has been in them. Historically they’ve been contested.

They don't behave like a political party any more. It's not just the business of politics as usual and a generational shift, it's something different. I've been trying to coin a term for this internal takeover - I think nihilocracy, or nihilocratic populism, is the best I've come up with. The party as a whole is uninterested in governing beyond seeking revenge and satisfying the charismatic eschatological movement th…

I see the supporter being nihilistic and purely out for revenge. I don’t see that with people in positions of power. They’re looking to line their pockets and they’ll take advantage of a vengeful constituency. True of both major parties. That’s why they focus on social issues and then pass legislation (or lack thereof) that allows them to all get rich.
Post reply on HN