Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez endorses Zohran Mamdani in NYC mayoral race
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a key progressive member of the House whose district covers swaths of the Bronx and Queens, endorsed New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani on Thursday for the city's upcoming Democratic mayoral primary -- one day after the candidate clashed with front-runner former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other candidates on the debate stage.
"Assemblymember Mamdani has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack. In the final stretch of the race, we need to get very real about that," Ocasio-Cortez told the New York Times in an interview published on Thursday.
MORE: Cuomo, Mamdani vie for top spot in NYC Democratic mayoral primary
"In 2018, A.O.C. shocked the world and changed our politics for the better with her historic victory. On June 24, we will do the same," Mamdani told the Times in a statement.
Mamdani, a state assemblymember and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has been steadily inching upward in the polls and fundraising. He is running on a progressive platform that includes a rent freeze for rent-stabilized apartments, eliminating fares for New York City buses and opening city-owned grocery stores. Mamdani envisions the latter two being funded by higher taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals; some have cautioned that he would need support from state government for those taxes.
Her announcement came the day after a chaotic two-hour debate punctuated by candidates shouting over an increasingly exasperated slate of moderators.
Nine Democrats who wish to be New York City's next mayor sparred over how they'd interact with President Donald Trump, public safety, affordability and other topics.
Out of those who were onstage, Cuomo leads the pack in polling while Mamdani is slowly closing the gap in second place. The rest of the candidates have struggled to break through.
MORE: 'CRAZY': Trump and Musk feud erupts on social media
Each candidate was asked how they would work with -- or charge against -- Trump if elected mayor. Cuomo vowed that he is an adversary that Trump could not best.
"He can be beaten. But he has to know that he's up against an adversary who can actually beat him. I am the last person on this stage that Mr. Trump wants to see as mayor, and that is why I should be the first choice for the people of the city to have as mayor," Cuomo said.
Mamdani, answering the question, said, "I am Donald Trump's worst nightmare, as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in, and the difference between myself and Andrew Cuomo is that my campaign is not funded by the very billionaires who put Donald Trump in D.C. ... I have to pick up the phone for the more than 20,000 New Yorkers who contributed an average donation of about $80 to break fundraising records and put our campaign in second place."
Cuomo did not directly respond to Mamdani's attack on the debate stage.
Some billionaires who have previously supported Trump, such as prominent hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and Home Depot founder Ken Langone, have donated to an independent group, the super PAC Fix the City, that supports Cuomo. Cuomo's campaign is not allowed to coordinate with the group. In response to reporting on Cuomo's wealthy supporters, Fix the City spokesperson Liz Benjamin told the New York Times that "donors have supported Fix the City because they know that Andrew Cuomo has the right experience and the right plans for New York City."
Multiple controversies surrounding Cuomo -- including accusations against him of sexual harassment, which he denies -- came up during the debate.
Former state assemblymember Michael Blake, while answering a question on public safety, brought up the sexual harassment allegations against Cuomo: "The people who don't feel safe are young women, mothers and grandmothers around Andrew Cuomo, that's the greatest threat to public safety in New York City."
Cuomo, later asked about the allegations -- and if he would do anything differently given investigations that alleged his leadership fostered a toxic work environment -- told the moderators, "Let's just make sure we have the facts. A report was done four years ago making certain allegations. I said at the time that it was political and it was false."
He added that five district attorneys found "nothing" and he was dropped from one case.
"I said at the time that if I offended anyone, it was unintentional, but I apologize, and I say that today."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
42 minutes ago
- Politico
California shifts from Musk glee to Trump dread
The dissolution of the Donald Trump-Elon Musk marriage was enough, for a brief moment, to lift beleaguered California Democrats' spirits. But within 24 hours, the gleeful mood in this heavily Democratic state darkened amid sweeping immigration raids and reports the Trump administration was planning to yank funding from California. The swift reversal was a reminder that, for all the delight Democrats took in a public feud between the president and the world's richest man, a war of words on X is far less consequential than a hostile White House. Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders on Friday quickly returned to a familiar defensive crouch, condemning the White House's reported plan and escalating the standoff by threatening to withhold the money California sends to Washington. 'We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back,' Newsom said in a post on X. 'Maybe it's time to cut that off, @realDonaldTrump.' It was unclear on Friday what money the White House might rescind. A spokesperson said no decision had been made. Many Democrats had spent the previous day reveling in the extraordinary break between Trump and his former patron Musk, piling on in a cascade of snarky tweets, triumphant news hits and floor speeches. The joy was especially palpable in California, where Democrats watched Musk transform from a source of pride to a conservative nemesis eager to attack the state that helped make him. The dunking contest seemed to open new political possibilities, as Musk amplified Democrats' case against tariffs and the GOP 'megabill' being debated in Congress — two central features of the president's agenda. But the respite from unforgiving news cycles proved short-lived. And it vindicated warnings from some Democrats that the Trump-Musk feud was distracting from the more serious threats emanating from Washington. For Rep. Dave Min, who is preparing to defend a frontline Orange County seat that could help determine control of the House, Thursday was all about Musk: He excoriated the Tesla executive in a preplanned floor speech, and joined the mockery on X. On Friday, Min was scrambling to confront what he called a 'blatantly lawless' push to claw back funds. 'These cuts appear to be clearly and on their face illegal and motivated by vengeance and political retribution aimed at our state,' Min wrote in a letter to the White House. Rep. Jimmy Gomez went from tweaking Trump with a Taylor Swift meme to sounding the alarm about immigration arrests throughout Los Angeles, a resolutely Democratic county, that followed Trump's vow to target 'sanctuary' jurisdictions that limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities. Union officials said SEIU California President David Huerta was detained and injured during a protest of immigration raids, drawing condemnations from a broad swathe of elected officials (ICE did not respond to a request for comment). Californians were simultaneously rallying in San Francisco against federal plans to rename a naval ship named after the late gay-rights icon Harvey Milk. Against the backdrop of that multifront defensive, the feuding between Trump and Musk became a secondary concern, at best. Newsom passed on a chance to swipe at Musk, with whom he has a long and complicated relationship, telling reporters during an unrelated news conference on Thursday that he hoped people mesmerized by 'what Elon Musk tweeted today and what Trump said tomorrow can focus on what matters' — although Newsom's press office still used a Trump-Musk breakup reference to tease the news conference, Similarly, Rep. Laura Friedman called the Trump-Musk meltdown a distraction from the White House's agenda to remake the federal government. 'They are cutting health care from Americans, they are destroying people's ability to go to the doctor and get health care coverage, they are making life more expensive for everyday people through tariffs,' Friedman said. 'I hope people see through the entertainment value of this — it is funny, but this is harmful to our country in so many ways.' Few were laughing by Friday afternoon. Instead, leading California Democrats were once again girding for battle with an administration that has made a habit of threatening to block money for areas like wildfire recovery, education and law enforcement if California does not change its policies. 'We must look at every option, including withholding federal taxes,' Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said in a BlueSky post.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
153 NCAA rules had to be eliminated to clear the way for the House settlement. Here are numbers to know.
The groundbreaking case leading to the transformation of college sports in the United States comes nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House and Oregon basketball player Sedona Prince filed a complaint against the NCAA and the five most powerful conferences alleging they were unfairly being denied of pay for use of their name, image and likeness. The settlement approved Friday by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken resolved three antitrust cases — House vs. NCAA, Carter vs. NCAA and Hubbard vs. NCAA — that became known collectively as the 'House case.' The class-action lawsuits contended the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC violated antitrust law by not providing benefits and compensation to athletes and restraining athletes' ability to make money for endorsements and sponsorships. Incremental gains won by athletes in previous lawsuits against the NCAA set the stage for the House settlement and the all-out professionalization of college sports. Here's a look at key numbers associated with the case. Athletes who played an NCAA sport between 2016-24 and could be eligible for back payments Class members who submitted a claim form or updated their payment information, which represents approximately 26.2% of the 389,700. Athletes who opted out of the settlement and could pursue their own remedies. Back damages to be paid to current and former college athletes who were denied the opportunity to profit from the use of their NIL rights. The amount will be paid in $280 million installments over 10 years. The NCAA will use reserves and insurance to cover about 40% of the payments. The rest will be covered by the NCAA reducing its annual distributions to Division I schools. Estimated amount of the $2.8 billion that will be paid in back damages to football and men's and women's basketball players in power conferences. The 2025-26 pool of money each Division I school can distribute in direct payments to athletes beginning July 1. The amount represents 22% of the average revenue generated by each school from the five defendant conferences and Notre Dame. NCAA rules that had to be eliminated to allow schools to provide additional benefits to athletes under the settlement. All Division I athletes will be required to report to their schools and the Deloitte clearinghouse any and all third-party NIL contracts with a total value of $600 or more, if payment occurs after July 1, 2025. The clearinghouse will determine whether the amount is commensurate with the athlete's fair market value. The widely accepted estimate by University of San Francisco sports economist Daniel Rascher of additional direct compensation athletes will receive over the next 10 years. The estimated amount of damages faced by the NCAA and the five conferences if they avoided a settlement and lost at trial. Plaintiffs attorneys' request for legal fees. The figure is based on attorneys receiving 20% of the NIL settlement fund and 10% of the additional compensation settlement fund as well as an injunction relief award of $20 million paid by the defendants. That does not included about $9 million in expenses attorney.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Granderson: Voters who don't vote? This is one way democracy can die, by 20 million cuts
During China's imperial age, those deemed guilty of the worst offenses were sometimes sentenced to death in a public square by a brutal form of execution known as lingchi. Soldiers — using sharp blades — would slice away pieces of flesh from the accused until they died. Translated, lingchi means 'death by a thousand cuts.' Maybe democracy does die in darkness, as journalist Bob Woodward often suggests. Or maybe democracy's demise comes in the light of day, in a public forum, where everyone can bear witness. Sometimes those holding the knives are the oligarchs or elected officials drenched in corruption. And sometimes there's blood on the hands of the people. On Saturday, voters in San Antonio — the seventh-largest city in the country — are headed to the polls to decide the first open mayoral race since President Obama's first term. Or at least some voters will be. In November 2024, nearly 60% of the 1.3 million registered voters in the county cast a ballot in the general election. However, in the local election held last month, barely 10% showed up to the polls. Before anyone starts throwing shade at San Antonio, in Dallas the turnout was even lower. Lackluster participation in an 'off year' election is not new. However, the mayoral race in San Antonio has increased national interest because the outcome is being viewed as a litmus test for both the strength of the Democrats' resistance and the public's appetite for the White House's policies. Like other big blue cities nestled in legislatively red states, San Antonio's progressive policies have been under constant assault from the governor's mansion. And with neither the progressive candidate, Gina Ortiz Jones, or her MAGA-leaning opponent, Rolando Pablos, eclipsing 50% of the vote in May, the runoff has drawn more than $1 million in campaign spending from outside conservative groups looking to flip the traditionally blue stronghold. The outcome could provide a possible glimpse into the 2026 mayoral race in Los Angeles, should the formerly Republican Rick Caruso decide to run against Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat. When the two faced off in 2022, around 44% of the city's registered voters went to the polls. Caruso lost by less than 90,000 votes in a city with 2.1 million registered voters — most of whom didn't submit a ballot. It is rather astonishing how little we actually participate in democracy, given the amount of tax dollars we have spent trying to convince other nations that our government system is the best on the planet. Capitulating to President Trump's unsubstantiated claims of mass voter fraud, many local conservative elected officials have tried to ram through a litany of 'voter integrity' policies under the guise of protecting democracy. However, democracy is not a delicate flower in need of protection. It's a muscle in need of exercise. 'Some people find voting to be a chore,' Michele Carew, the elections administrator for Bexar County — which includes San Antonio — told me. 'We need to make voting easier and quite frankly, fun. And we need to get those who don't feel like their vote counts to see that it does. That means getting out and talking to people in our neighborhood, in our churches, in our grocery stores … about when elections are coming up and what's at stake locally.' Carew said that the added outside interest in the city's election has driven up early voting a tick and that she expects to see roughly a 15% turnout, which is an increase over previous years. It could be worse. The city once elected a mayor with 7% turnout back in 2013. Carew also expressed concern about outside influence on local governing. 'One of the first times I saw these nonpartisan races become more political was in 2020, and so as time goes by it's gotten even more so. I would like to think once the candidate is elected mayor they remain nonpartisan and do what's best for the city and not their party.' In 2024, a presidential election year when you'd expect the highest turnout, 1 in 3 registered voters across this country — roughly 20 million people — took a look around and said, 'Nah, I'm good.' Or something like that. The highest turnout was in Washington, D.C., where nearly 80% showed up. Too bad it's not a state. Among the lowest turnout rates? Texas — which has the second-greatest number of voters, behind only California. And therein lies the problem with trying to extrapolate national trends from local elections. Maybe Ortiz Jones will win in San Antonio this weekend. Maybe Caruso will win in L.A. next year. None of this tells us how the vast majority of Americans are really feeling. Sure, it's good fodder to debate around the table or on cable news shows, but ultimately the sample size of a mayoral election belies any claims about a result's meaning. Turnout during an off year is just too low. One thing we know for certain is most voters in America exercise their right to vote only once every four years. Oligarchs and corrupt officials are not great, but it's hard for democracy to stay healthy and strong if that's all the exercise it's getting. @LZGranderson If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
