logo
Senate Dems slammed for trying to ‘water down' Gov. Hochul's school smartphone ban: ‘Almost meaningless'

Senate Dems slammed for trying to ‘water down' Gov. Hochul's school smartphone ban: ‘Almost meaningless'

Yahoo12-03-2025

Backers of Gov. Kathy Hochul's proposed 'bell-to-bell' ban on the use of smartphones in schools are calling out Democrats in the state Senate for pushing to 'water down' the proposal.
Hochul's plan would forbid students from using smartphones during the entire school day, but the Senate's proposed budget resolution would only ban cell phone usage during classroom or 'instructional time.'
The Senate's proposal would leave it to school districts to determine whether or not they want to outlaw cell phone usage outside the classroom or during non-instructional periods.
'We are very disappointed by the NY State Senate watering down the Governor's cell phone proposal to make it almost meaningless,' said Phone Free NY founder Raj Goyle.
'The kids of New York desperately need protection from screens to protect their mental health and learning at school. We will work tirelessly to advocate for a bell to bell ban that is the only way to truly help our kids.'
Many schools in the state already have a policy forbidding cell phone use during class time only, according to those who support the more extensive all day school ban.
Supporters of a bell-to-bell ban on mobile phone usage plan to ramp up their advocacy to persuade senators to get on board, sources said.
Hochul, too, said Tuesday she is 'committed to fighting for a bell-to-bell' smartphone ban.
'This is what the experts say, this is what the parents want, this is what the teachers want,' Hochul said during a press event in Albany.
Allowing students to use their phones outside class will cause disruptions in the classroom, the governor said.
'If the student had it banned during the class, then they have it during recess, and then they come back and the next teacher has to be the enforcer. And then the next teacher after gym class has to be the enforcer,' Hochul said.
'It'll be wildly, wildly distracting,' she said, 'even more so for the teachers.'
But Sen. John Liu, who chairs the committee overseeing New York City schools, defended the Senate proposal requiring only a ban for classroom instruction as reasonable and fair.
He noted that some schools have already established their cell phone policy that stops short of a bell-to-ban, and they should have the 'flexibility' to continue it.
Liu said it was 'only fair' to give other school districts the same flexibility on whether to extend the phone ban beyond classroom instruction.
Based on conversations, he anticipates the New York City public school system will impose a broader bell-to-bell ban.
Hochul and state lawmakers are expected to hash out their differences before the state budget is adopted, anticipated by April 1.
There's a real difference of opinion.
State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa recently said she favors local control and advised lawmakers to seek input from parents and students in each district before implementing a ban.
Rosa's opposition to an Albany-dictated phone policy coupled with the Senate resistance shows there's 'a real fight' over the issue, a source who backs a more extensive ban said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Planned PBS, NPR cuts would overwhelmingly hit outlets in states Trump won, report finds
Planned PBS, NPR cuts would overwhelmingly hit outlets in states Trump won, report finds

CBS News

time7 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Planned PBS, NPR cuts would overwhelmingly hit outlets in states Trump won, report finds

The looming federal funding cuts to public television and radio would overwhelmingly gut outlets in states won by President Trump in 2024, according to a new congressional report. Approximately 60% of the hundreds of radio and television stations that could suffer funding cuts are in Trump-won states, according to a congressional report obtained by CBS News from Senate Democrats. The organizations that would be affected include public media outlets in cities as large as Houston and Miami, as well as smaller stations in tiny communities like Douglas, Wyoming, which has a population of 6,000 and hosts the Wyoming State Fair. The widespread cuts to public radio and television are a component of a Republican congressional plan to eliminate $9 billion in funding for programs approved before President Trump's second term began. The proposed rescissions package, which is scheduled for a House vote Thursday, includes $1.1 billion in cuts for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides funding to NPR and PBS. The cuts to public broadcasting are being touted by the Trump administration and Republicans as an effort to slash taxpayer funding for news media outlets they accuse of being "liberal" or politically biased in their content. Advocates for public broadcasting have lambasted the cuts as destructive, needless and harmful to communities that have very limited sources of local broadcast news. They also deny allegations of political bias. The list of hundreds of TV and radio outlets facing funding cuts shows a broad range of impact. Major public television and radio stations in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C., could each lose nearly $1 million in grants in the coming months. An FM community public radio station in Carbondale, Colorado, which touts itself as "Public access radio that connects community members to one another and the world," received $145,000 in federal grant funding last year. At each of the public media outlets, the list shows reductions that are sizable enough to potentially require staffing cuts, programming reductions or news cutbacks that threaten to exacerbate shortages of local news content. CBS News' review of proposed grant cuts shows Alabama, a state with an estimated 215 public media employees, would lose as much as $3 million in funding for its public television outlets in the coming months. In South Dakota, a sparsely populated state that nonetheless receives $3 million in funds for public broadcasting employees, the funding cuts would gut money for at least 20 media outlets, according to the report provided by congressional aides to CBS News. "The path to better public media is achievable only if funding is maintained. Otherwise, a vital lifeline that operates reliable emergency communications, supports early learning, and keeps local communities connected and informed will be cut off with regrettable and lasting consequences," said Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. "Federal funding for the public broadcasting system is irreplaceable," Harrison said. "Public media serves all — families and individuals, in rural and urban communities — free of charge and commercial free." Both PBS and NPR have sued the Trump administration over previous executive orders cutting their funding, with lawyers for both alleging that among other issues, the cuts violate the First Amendment. PBS CEO Paula Kerger previously said on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" that while PBS only receives 15% of its funding from the federal government, some of its smaller stations receive up to 50% of their funding from federal sources and said the risks to the smaller stations are "existential" if the funding is cut. NPR CEO Katherine Maher has said roughly 1% of the organization's budget comes directly from federal dollars. Some of the many impacted public radio and TV stations have posted messages protesting the proposed cuts in funding. The social media account of a Baltimore public radio station leader said, "This isn't hypothetical—it's real, it's happening, and it places the future of local, trusted public media at serious risk. Let me be clear: this is not a symbolic move. If approved, this action could irreparably damage the local public media." Rural communities, often referred to as "news deserts" because of the lack of local news organizations, would suffer the brunt of the pain. According to a joint statement by Rep. Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican, and Rep. Dan Goldman, a New York Democrat, "Rural broadcasters face significant challenges in raising private funds, making them particularly vulnerable if government funding is cut." Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat who is the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement to CBS News, "Trump wants Congress to vote to cut off public radio broadcasts our constituents count on for weather forecasts, emergency alerts, and updates on what's going on in their community—and force layoffs at local TV stations." House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has championed the cuts and sought to rally support ahead of Thursday's vote on the rescissions package. "House Republicans will fulfill our mandate and continue codifying into law a more efficient federal government," Johnson said in a statement. "This is exactly what the American people deserve." In April, the White House released a statement saying taxpayers had funded NPR and PBS "for too long" and said they've "spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.'" The White House Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Liz Warren Says Crypto Bill Creates a ‘Superhighway' for Trump Corruption
Liz Warren Says Crypto Bill Creates a ‘Superhighway' for Trump Corruption

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Liz Warren Says Crypto Bill Creates a ‘Superhighway' for Trump Corruption

The Senate is set to pass the GENIUS Act early next week, a controversial piece of cryptocurrency legislation that critics say will hand an undue amount of financial power to the tech industry. On its face the bill, which has advanced with bipartisan support, purports to offer a regulatory framework for the expansion of 'stablecoins,' a form of crypto pegged to an existing, recognized asset — in many cases the U.S. dollar. In reality, it could enable corruption, screw over taxpayers, and potentially destabilize the economy. The GENIUS Act would allow banks and private companies to issue stablecoins, essentially their own currencies, with light oversight from regulators. It mandates that issuers of stablecoins hold a reserve of the stable asset backing their cryptocurrency at all times, and that firms abide by certain anti-money laundering laws, as well as U.S. sanctions against foreign entities. It sounds like a step in the right direction, but this piece of legislation is working its way through Congress as sitting President Donald Trump and his family build a cryptocurrency empire that steamrolls anti-corruption laws and ethical norms — one they hope will flourish under the industry-friendly policies and laws created by the administration of the Trump patriarch. One of Trump's priorities has been the normalization of these so-called stablecoins — a type of asset that his family is now hawking. Despite the moniker, stablecoins can be extremely unstable. A 2023 study published by the Bank for International Settlements found that of 60 stablecoins analyzed in their review, all of them had become de-pegged from their underlying asset at least once. The 2022 crypto crash was triggered by the failure of Terraform Lab's Terra/Luna 'algorithmic' stablecoin — the collapse of which saw $45 billion erased in the span of a week. The stablecoin bill comes as the government reorients its approach to crypto. Under the Biden administration, crypto kingpins began to feel the sting of consequences for schemes gone wrong. FTX crypto exchange founder Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison after carrying out one of the largest financial scams since Enron. Tether, the largest stablecoin in crypto, settled a lawsuit brought against it by New York Attorney General Letitia James in 2021. Changpeng Zhao, the founder of the global crypto exchange Binance, pleaded guilty to money laundering in 2023. Trump pledged a new, friendlier regulatory environment in Washington — and the crypto industry poured many millions into Super PACs to elect allies throughout Congress. Now, the industry has its moment to push through a public smokescreen of barely-there regulation, while continuing to rake in the cash. No one has been more outspoken on the failings of the GENIUS Act than Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who told Rolling Stone ahead of key votes that the bill would 'create a superhighway for Donald Trump's corruption.' The Trump family's cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial — which is currently being operated by his sons and Zach Witkoff, the son of Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff — recently launched its own stablecoin, designated USD1, which is pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by treasury bonds. The GENIUS Act would allow major tech companies, banks, and other financial institutions to issue their own stablecoins, and many are poised to buy Treasury bonds so they can back the digital currency with real assets, as is required. According to a report issued last week by ARK Invest, the stablecoin market may become one of the largest holders of U.S. debt in the coming years — potentially tying large swaths of U.S. debt to a dubiously regulated and often unstable asset. (For example, if Tether — the largest stablecoins in the market — was a country, it would be the 18th-largest holder of U.S. debt in the world.) The lines grow even murkier when considering Trump's habit of using his position in the White House to enrich himself, as well as to tip market scales. World Liberty Financial already landed a $2 billion transaction deal to help an Abu Dhabi-state backed company purchase a stake in the Binance crypto exchange using the USD1 stablecoin. 'As soon as the players understand that Trump's intervention is a real possibility, then the stablecoin market is no longer about a careful review of whether there are adequate dollars to back up a particular stablecoin, or whether the stable coin issuer has an AAA rating,' Warren says. 'Instead, the whole game becomes one of trying to engage the president to weigh the end and make one set of coins more valuable, and therefore another set of coins less valuable. It's corruption, but it's also a market manipulation that ultimately drains away any development. … It undermines all the markets at that point.' Warren compares the development of the GENIUS Act to efforts to regulate derivatives and the feverish rise of money market mutual funds in the early 2000s, both of which were major factors in the 2008 financial crisis: 'The derivatives industry came to the Congress and said, 'Regulate us,' and they wrote a sample. They wrote the regulation, and Congress — not knowing much about that world — passed it.' The consequence was, in Warren's view, that lay people believed the industry to be effectively regulated, when in reality investors essentially tailored legislation to their own priorities. 'The risk kept building in the system until in 2008 it blew up the entire economy and required a $700 billion bailout from taxpayers,' Warren says. 'So think about why an industry comes to Congress and says, 'Regulate us.' They want the imprimatur, they want the gold seal of the United States government. … They don't actually want the government to oversee the activities of the industry.' Warren is not alone in her concerns, and has found an unexpected ally in Republican Sen. John Hawley of Missouri. Last week, Hawley described the GENIUS Act as a 'huge giveaway to Big Tech' that would effectively allow private tech companies to create their own currencies that compete with the dollar. 'The U.S. dollar is the reserve currency,' Warren says. 'The United States does not gain from creating a competing electronic currency. Getting more people to hold stable coins rather than dollars during their investment transactions, does not serve us interests, but it injects risk into the U.S.' 'Anyone who thinks that when a financial crash hits [the value of stablecoins] will translate one to one into dollars is fooling themselves,' she adds. The ripple effects can be catastrophic when a stablecoin collapses. Existing stablecoins are already buying up billions in Treasury bonds, and in the event of a run on a coin, or any type of collapse within stablecoin, the issuer would sell off their own holdings — in this case Treasury bonds — to pay back their customers. Economists warn that such a scenario could destabilize the underlying treasury securities market that serves as the foundation of the U.S. economy. As Warren and Hawley point out, the risks of economic destabilization increase significantly if legislation like the GENIUS Act passes. PayPal has already launched its own cryptocurrency, and Apple, Facebook, X, and Airbnb have all explored releasing their own stablecoins for customers to conduct on-platform transactions in crypto. If, for example, Elon Musk 'is controlling a significant portion of cash-light money moving through our economy and X gets in trouble, the federal government will face the possibility of bailing out not just the coin, but the underlying business, because they're so deeply intertwined,' Warren explains. 'There's a reason why there has always been a wall between banking and commerce,' Warren says. 'This GENIUS Act, for the first time, destroys that wall.' Nothing is too big to fail. Seemingly secure, lucrative schemes have left the U.S. and global economy in ruins. In a way, the GENIUS Act has already built in a bailout fund for crypto traders should the bubble pop: your deposits. A provision in the bill mandates that financial institutions issuing the coins prioritize reimbursing stablecoin holders over other checking and savings depositors in the event that the bank or financial institution becomes insolvent. Essentially, as Georgetown Law professor Adam Levitin wrote last month, 'Congress is about to put the claims of stablecoin investors ahead of ma and pa's bank deposits.' Because most standard bank deposits are insured under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the result is that depositors' checking and savings would be used to pay off lost crypto holdings and everyone else can file for an insurance claim. 'Which means,' Warren warns, 'the U.S. taxpayer is right in the crosshairs.' More from Rolling Stone 'No Fat Soldiers': Ft. Bragg Troops Were Carefully Screened for Trump's Stunt Visit Katy Perry Supports Migrants Amid ICE Raids: 'Deep Injustice' Los Angeles ICE Raids Are Driving Immigrants - And Citizens - Underground Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence

Zohran Mamdani brings the Bernie Sanders method to New York
Zohran Mamdani brings the Bernie Sanders method to New York

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Zohran Mamdani brings the Bernie Sanders method to New York

NEW YORK — 'It's easy to forget now,' said Zohran Mamdani, 'but four years ago, Eric Adams was hailed as the new face of Democratic Party politics.' Mamdani, a 33-year old state assemblyman and member of Democratic Socialists of America, had just launched a canvass in Harlem with 100 of his campaign's 29,000 volunteers. He was waiting out a summer rainstorm in a coffee shop, laying out his strategy for the June 24 Democratic mayoral primary — briefly interrupted by three young women who saw him, gasped, and called him 'the mayor.' The candidate finished his point: Adams, who quit an unwinnable primary to seek election as an independent, had 'pitted different sets of New Yorkers against each other, so as to evade any actual institutional response' to the city's problems. A new mayor could confront the Trump administration, which Adams decided not to do. He could also prove that progressives, if given the keys to a city, could make life cheaper and safer. To get there, and past former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, he's proposed $10 million in upper-income and corporate tax hikes, for which he'd need improbable sign-off from the state. Four years ago, Democrats saw their future in a tough-talking Black ex-cop who seemed to synthesize calls for racial justice and safer streets. Now, even as its Washington wing frets about finding moderate candidates to remake the party's damaged, elitist image, the biggest city in the country is considering a move in the opposite direction. That would be toward the Bernie Sanders model: A proud socialist and critic of modern Israel who promises huge new taxes and an expansion of city government. 'We've allowed this language of tackling fraud and waste, and prioritizing efficiency, to become the language of the right, when in fact it should be the language of the left,' said Mamdani. 'If you are passionate about public goods and about public service, you have to be just as passionate about public excellence.' Thirteen days out from the primary, the race for Adams's job has evolved into a competition between Mamdani and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, with seven candidates trailing behind. Five are trying to notch enough ranked-choice votes to win the final count; state senator Jessica Ramos and businessman Whitney Tilson are largely running to stop Mamdani. None had built campaigns quite as ready for this moment, as Democratic anger at the Trump presidency boils over. Mamdani did not join other Democrats in renouncing the 'defund the police' movement. He defended his support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, and his opposition to a 'Jewish state' of Israel instead of one that defended 'equal rights' unlinked from religion. Those had been candidate-killing issues in other campaigns. But New York Democrats will vote while the Trump administration is ramping up immigration raids and enforcement in major cities; when Israel's 20-month war in Gaza has infuriated younger voters; and when the cost of housing and groceries has become a bigger issue than crime. In polling conducted by Data for Progress, which found Mamdani only narrowly behind Cuomo in the ranked-choice vote, 28% of voters ranked 'housing' as their top issue, 20% ranked other economic issues, and 18% ranked 'crime and public safety.' Support for Israel didn't rank. 'Trump has shown us that on one side of politics, there's a limitless imagination, and on the other, we are constantly constructing an ever-lowering ceiling,' Mamdani told Semafor. He has promised to freeze rent, make city buses fare-free, open city-run discount groceries, and raise taxes on the richest New Yorkers and businesses to pay for this. Those promises sounded more credible, he said, after Democrats watched the new president demand deeper tax cuts at the same time he wanted to buy Greenland. 'I'm talking about less money than Andrew Cuomo gave to Elon Musk as a corporate tax break.' Mamdani entered the race in October, when conventional wisdom said that a more experienced, less progressive candidate could unseat the scandal-plagued Adams. City Comptroller Brad Lander positioned himself early as that candidate, joining the campaign before Mamdani; Adrienne Adams, the (unrelated) city council speaker, jumped in three months ago, after Adams' deal with the Trump DOJ effectively ended his campaign as a Democrat. Cuomo entered the race weeks later, and neither Lander nor Adams has been able so far to dislodge Mamdani as the ex-governor's biggest threat. The ranked-choice voting system complicates any other candidate's strategy. Voters up to five candidates on their ballots, and tabulators count their preferences until one candidate gets a majority. In 2021, the first year under the new system, city sanitation commissioner Kathryn Garcia was the first choice of only 20% of primary voters, but nearly won the primary, because so many Democrats marked her as an alternative, lower on their ballots. 'The state of politics for New York right now for the Democratic Party is really an amazing litmus test for the Democratic Party across the nation,' Adrienne Adams told the New York Editorial Board, in one of its candidate interviews. Progressive groups and leaders, like the Working Families Party and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., have urged voters to leave Cuomo off their ballots and rank only the candidates they align with most. For the WFP, that was Mamdani in first place, followed by Lander, followed by Adams, followed by state senator Zellnor Myrie; for Ocasio-Cortez, it was Mamdani, Adams, Lander, former Comptroller Scott Stringer, and Myrie. The non-Cuomo alternative candidates have sometimes portrayed Mamdani as green and unrealistic. But they've been busier introducing themselves as the responsible alternatives to Cuomo, appealing to the 50% of likely primary voters who view him unfavorably. 'If I'm running against someone, I'm running against Andrew Cuomo. He's who's leading in the polls,' Lander said in an interview after a forum for Jewish voters in the Upper West Side. 'I'm running against a corrupt, abusive, self-serving politician who's only running to rehearse his own grievances.' Mamdani's buoyant, omnipresent social media campaign has been hard for Lander and the rest of the field to compete with. When the spotlight has fallen on him, he has kept it by proposing simpler, bigger, and more aggressive ideas, like free childcare and a graduated rise to a $30 minimum wage. Justin Brannan, a city council member running for comptroller with Mamdani's support, said that he would not support him on BDS. But Adams, he said, had helped create the conditions for an electorate that craved an anti-austerity agenda, and didn't want to be told it was impossible. 'New York City used to be the place for big ideas, and somewhere along the way, we just stopped doing them,' said Brannan. 'De Blasio with universal pre-K was, like, the last time we did something big. The past almost four years with Eric Adams, we've been like, 'Oh, if we can keep the libraries open six days a week, that's a huge victory.'' At the Upper West Side 'New York Jewish Agenda' forum, Stringer proposed a $1 billion 'very, very rainy day' fund to protect the city from Trump administration attacks on grants or programs. Lander suggested putting 'less than $100 million' of the city's Medicaid funding into an independent authority 'so we can provide reproductive and gender affirming care' without Trump interference. Three days later, Mamdani summoned reporters to the Financial District for his plan to 'Trump-proof' New York: The taxes that would raise $10 billion, and total resistance to his deportations. Asked if he agreed with Mayor Adams that the NYPD should arrest protesters who interfered with ICE enforcement, Mamdani rejected the premise. 'It's ironic to hear that from a mayor who literally drove on the sidewalk in the final days of the previous mayoral election,' he said. 'This is an indication of their willingness to be accomplices to what is going on and what ICE agents are inflicting upon New Yorkers.' Six months ago, that answer might have been a problem for Mamdani. But most Democrats assumed, at that time, he had a lower ceiling — that the positions he'd taken would hold him down. After Mamdani's 'Trump-proof' press conference, an X account that clips news interviews shared one of the candidate sticking to his position that ICE should be abolished altogether. 'A lawless president does not mean we abolish entire agencies and our laws,' Adrienne Adams wrote on top of the video. 'People elect us as leaders to solve problems, not pledge allegiance to rigid ideologies.' One day later, she deleted that response, which had been torn apart by pro-Mamdani commenters. It was not, according to her campaign, what she really wanted to say. The decline of Eric Adams, since he wrapped himself around the president's finger, was the catalyst for Mamdani's rise. He presided over falling crime, which lowered the salience of that issue; he suggested that the forced busing of migrants from Texas, to take advantage of the city's generous sheltering laws, was forcing austerity on the city. As Adams receded, with Trump in office, the agenda changed. Mamdani's campaigning changed it too. His early ad campaign, put together by the team that made ads for Bernie Sanders and John Fetterman, got him into the conversation with candidates (Lander et al) who were taken more seriously as potential mayors. He leapt over them as Cuomo's closest competitor — and then put him into the cohort of potential mayors. This involved a lot of risks, taken in attention-getting ways, like his visit to the courthouse where a grad student leader of Gaza protests was being arraigned. Following the candidates, I heard many times that Trump had given Democrats envy of enormous plans that were crisp and memorable and not green-eyeshaded to death; Mamdani was the only contender doing that. Two years ago, some of the same dynamics here played out in Chicago — which has an all-party runoff system, not a Democratic primary then a general election. Voters forced a choice between Brandon Johnson, an anti-austerity progressive, and Paul Vallas, a conservative Democrat who, unfortunately for his campaign, was on tape attacking Barack Obama. If Mamdani wins this primary, I'd expect the specter of Johnson, who is tremendously unpopular now, to hover over New York. Adams is already running as an independent; Cuomo has the ability to. Tilson's campaign, after Cuomo's, is the most oriented around stopping Mamdani. At a weekend stop at a Ukrainian festival, after he gave a short speech while wearing a patch-covered jacket from his trips to bring aid to that country, he warned of a city that would be threatening to Jewish New Yorkers and far more poor, if Mamdani were able to win. 'We are the wealthiest city in the world,' said Tilson. 'I think he and the DSA people he surrounds himself with would create a hostile business environment that would drive away businesses and hurt economic growth.' For In These Times, the socialist writer and editor Bhaskar Sunkara asks whether Mamdani can become the millennial generation's Bernie Sanders. 'Mamdani has shown that it's possible to build a campaign that is simultaneously insurgent and competent.' In the New York Times, Nicholas Fandos studies Mandani's biography, which Cuomo is attacking as scarily unfit for a serious mayor. 'There are candidates in the field with exciting ideas and no track record of delivering on them,' said Lander. In The Free Press, Olivia Reingold why the current trend in the primary is a 'nightmare scenario' for Cuomo, and for New Yorkers who might have supported Adams again. For the Manhattan Institute, Liena Zagare why most of the non-Cuomo candidates are not using their sharpest knives on Mamdani, even as he soars.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store