logo
5 takeaways from the chaotic first NYC mayor's debate

5 takeaways from the chaotic first NYC mayor's debate

Yahooa day ago

Candidates running for the Democratic nomination for mayor of New York City faced off for the first time on the debate stage just ahead of the start of early voting next week.
Nine candidates answered questions during a chaotic two-hour debate in which they often took aim at each other, particularly the front-runner, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The candidates often dodged direct answers to moderators' questions and instead jostled with each other.
Here are five takeaways from the night:
From the first question of the night, candidates took shots at Cuomo, who has been the clear leader in the race since before he even entered in March.
Attacks on Cuomo most commonly came from state Assembly member Zohran Mamdani, who has risen over the past several weeks to become the top opponent to Cuomo, and city Comptroller Brad Lander, who has been part of the higher tier of candidates.
Both candidates took an opportunity to go after Cuomo in the first response about actions they would take to increase affordability. Lander tied together embattled Mayor Eric Adams and Cuomo, arguing that he's the only candidate who can 'sweep away the corruption.'
Mamdani accused Cuomo of caring more about billionaires and corporations than New Yorkers, also later reiterating past attacks he's made accusing Cuomo of being funded by donors to President Trump. Some of the donors to a super PAC backing Cuomo have also donated to Trump.
Cuomo was in the hot seat on several other occasions, such as when City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams accused him of cutting Medicaid and former state Assembly member Michael Blake went after him over the allegations of sexual harassment that have been made against him.
Cuomo rejected their accusations, noting that Medicaid spending increased while he was governor and that the district attorneys in the city ultimately declined to pursue any charges against him over the sexual harassment allegations.
The former governor generally maintained his composure as he parried the attacks, even as he took more hits than any other candidate on stage.
Nine people were packed onto the stage Wednesday night — and every one of them tried to get a word in as much as possible.
New York City election regulations lay out two primary debates for the race, the second of which will take place next week. While the stage for the second debate will be limited to only 'leading contenders,' the first debate allowed any candidate on the ballot who has both spent and raised at least $198,300.
Some of the candidates on the stage have received 1 percent or less in the polls. Yet no one candidate was given more than 30 seconds or a minute to respond to questions, and they were often interrupted by other candidates seeking to interject.
On multiple occasions, several candidates were attempting to respond to a question or comment and spoke over each other, leaving what they were saying unintelligible.
During a discussion on education, several candidates, including Cuomo and Mamdani, spoke over each other while discussing Obama.
In another instance, Blake accused Cuomo of supporting 'defund the police,' which Cuomo denied. The two of them, along with state Sen. Jessica Ramos, spoke simultaneously as the moderators attempted to gain control of the conversation.
'Kids, it's grown-up time,' former city Comptroller Scott Stringer said when it was his turn to talk.
One contentious moment between Cuomo and Mamdani, the top two candidates in the race, came toward the end of the debate during a question about what country would be the first they visited if elected mayor.
A few off the candidates, including Cuomo, said Israel. Mamdani, meanwhile, said he wouldn't travel and would focus on serving the city. A moderator followed up to ask specifically if he would visit Israel, and Mamdani responded that he would stand up for Jewish New Yorkers no matter where they are.
The moderator then pressed Mamdani, who has faced some attacks over his views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if he supports a Jewish state of Israel. Mamdani responded that Israel has a right to exist 'as a state with equal rights,' but avoided saying as a Jewish state.
'His answer was no. He won't visit Israel,' Cuomo jumped in.
The exchange came after an interview that Mamdani did with CNN in which he reportedly was asked if he believes Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state but stuck to saying it has a right to exist 'with equal rights.'
President Trump cast a shadow over much of the debate, with his actions being part of the premise of several questions from the moderators.
The election is taking place amid the controversy surrounding Mayor Adams, whose bribery charges were dropped by the Justice Department under the Trump administration in what critics have alleged was a 'quid pro quo.'
Candidates were unified in slamming many of Trump's actions as an example of politically motivated overreach.
They agreed that the next mayor needs to be prepared to stand up to Trump but differed on who was best positioned to do it.
Cuomo and Stringer, who served as comptroller during Trump's first term, both leaned on their experience serving with Trump in the White House, arguing it shows their ability to protect their constituents. Cuomo argued that the Justice Department's reported investigation into him shows that he's the candidate that Trump doesn't want and took aim at Mamdani, arguing his lack of experience means he's not up for the job.
Mamdani has served in the state Assembly for only a few years and faced questions over a relatively small number of bills he's been able to get passed.
'I don't think there's any question that there's any mayor here that will be free from being attacked by Donald Trump,' Mamdani said.
'What's more important, however, is that we have a mayor who will actually fight back,' he continued. 'That's what I will do. I am Donald Trump's worst nightmare as a progressive, Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in.'
Wednesday's event marked the first time in the Democratic primary that the candidates all faced off on the same stage, including Cuomo, who has skipped past candidate forums.
While several candidates sought to seize control of the debate, no one seemed to dominate the night. The candidates generally avoided any major blunders, outlined some of their policy proposals and got in a few solid attacks on their opponents.
The debate could be an opportunity for voters who haven't paid close attention to the race to form opinions of some of the candidates. Polls have shown a declining percentage of voters undecided, but those who remain could be critical in which candidate ultimately prevails.
But the night didn't reveal much information that wasn't already publicly available. The next debate, in which the top-performing candidates face off, may prove to be more decisive.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool
Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool

Federal authorities are moving to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, confirmed it has begun notifying potential claimants of its intention to drop the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: The law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center, filed a motion Thursday to intervene and pursue its own class action lawsuit on behalf of one of the potential claimants. What is disparate impact? The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. What does Trump's executive order say? The April 23 order declared that it is "the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects longstanding conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the order reverses 'a trend of bad law and bad policy in prior administrations.' She said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases," which she said are "more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. What is happening with the Sheetz case? The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. Both Republican EEOC commissioners at the time voted against bringing the lawsuit, while the three Democrats voted in favor. In an email to The Associated Press, an EEOC spokesperson confirmed the agency has began notifying potential claimants that it would file a motion to dismiss the case but declined to comment further. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. Miller, a Black man, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified. Christopher McNerney, an Outten & Golden attorney who is representing Miller, said the number is likely in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operate at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. What other cases have leveraged disparate impact liability? The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a pre-employment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. What's the potential fallout of scrapping disparate impact? The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases, meaning that worker complaints such as the original two that triggered the Sheetz lawsuit are unlikely to be investigated. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law, and to expect private practices to redouble efforts to bring disparate impact claims. "Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law," wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Alexandra Olson And Claire Savage, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

US military cutting 7 of 8 military bases in Syria, top Trump official says
US military cutting 7 of 8 military bases in Syria, top Trump official says

American Military News

time34 minutes ago

  • American Military News

US military cutting 7 of 8 military bases in Syria, top Trump official says

U.S. Special Envoy Thomas Barrack indicated on Monday that the U.S. military is planning to reduce its presence in Syria from eight bases to one base and that President Donald Trump's administration plans to significantly change its policy with the country. According to Reuters, Barrack was appointed as the special envoy to Syria last month after Trump removed U.S. sanctions against Syria. Following the removal of Syria's former President Bashar al-Assad from power in December, the United States and other countries throughout the world are engaging with the new government under transitional Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, according to the outlet. Reuters reported that the U.S. military currently has roughly 2,000 troops deployed in Syria, with the majority of the U.S. troops located in the northeastern region of the country. The outlet noted that the U.S. military forces in Syria remain deployed as part of an effort to prevent the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) from retaking the land that the terrorist organization captured in Syria and Iraq in 2014. READ MORE: US military urges African allies to increase 'burden sharing' According to Reuters, when asked on Monday about the Trump administration's policy plans with regard to Syria and whether the U.S. military is considering a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country, Barrack told Turkish broadcaster NTV, 'What I can assure you is that our current Syria policy will not be close to the Syria policy of the last 100 years, because none of these have worked.' During Monday's interview, Barrack explained that the Trump administration's change in policy with regard to Syria includes a reduction of U.S. military bases in the country, according to an interview transcript obtained by Reuters. Barrack indicated that the United States is planning to reduce its presence from eight bases in Syria to one base. Reuters reported that two security sources previously told Reuters in April that the U.S. military had relocated vehicles and equipment from the Deir el-Zor in eastern Syria to Hasakah in northeastern Syria. One of the anonymous security sources told Reuters that the U.S. military's plan to consolidate resources in the Hasakah region of Syria included removing U.S. troops deployed in the Deir el-Zor region. According to Reuters, an anonymous U.S. State Department official also claimed that the U.S. military's presence in Syria would be reduced 'if and when appropriate' based on various conditions.

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