Cuomo Doesn't Blame Himself for Losing the Primary. Others Do.
For Andrew M. Cuomo, the rally rolling out a $20-an-hour minimum wage proposal was supposed to be a high point of his comeback campaign for mayor of New York City.
It did not go particularly well. On the stage of a claustrophobic conference room in Midtown, the former governor flubbed two key lines, at one point promising to 'combat affordability.' Many of the laborers paid by their unions to attend appeared uninterested, chatting in the back throughout the speech.
And when it was over, Mr. Cuomo bee-lined to his waiting Dodge Charger, punched the gas past waiting reporters and made an illegal right-on-red turn.
He made no further public appearances that day last month, even with Primary Day weeks away.
Mr. Cuomo, who dominated New York for a decade as governor, entered the crowded field of Democrats back in March with the force of a steamroller and a dominant lead in the polls. He wore down the Democratic establishment until it lined up behind him, strong-armed unions and seeded a record-shattering super PAC that would eventually spend $25 million.
But even some of his allies said that up close, the campaign sometimes looked more like an listing ship, steered by an aging candidate who never really seemed to want to be there and showed little interest in reacquainting himself with the city he hoped to lead.
New Yorkers took note. And on Tuesday, a campaign that Mr. Cuomo, 67, had hoped would deliver retribution four years after his humiliating resignation as governor ended in another thumping rebuke instead. Voters preferred Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old state lawmaker whom Mr. Cuomo dismissed a woefully unqualified, by a comfortable margin.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court limits power of judges to block Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of their injunctions and specified that Trump's order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties.
Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
Nearly 200 House Dems reject resolution condemning violent anti-ICE riots in LA
Nearly 200 House Democrats voted against a resolution condemning the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles earlier this month. 215 voted in favor, with all Republicans that voted backing the resolution. The resolution was led by Rep. Young Kim, R-Calif., and the rest of the Golden State's Republican congressional delegation. "Peaceful protests are a constitutional right, but vandalism, looting, violence, and other crimes are not. Protecting public safety shouldn't be controversial, which is why I am leading the California Republican delegation in a resolution to support law and order as we continue to see unrest," Kim stated when introducing the resolution. "I hope Governor Newsom can come together with President Trump to stop the riots, lower the temperature, and keep our communities safe," she added. "Let's be clear: the riots escalated before the National Guard was sent in and were enabled by California's soft-on-crime policies – peddled for years by Governor Newsom, Sacramento, and local prosecutors – that have allowed for lawlessness and endangered public safety of hardworking Californians," Kim continued. It was introduced on June 17, and it acknowledges that peaceful protests should be welcomed in the United States, but calls out the criminal elements that unfolded in the area earlier this month. "These protests quickly escalated into violent riots across Los Angeles, where acts of arson, widespread looting, property destruction, and vandalism were committed, blocking streets and highways, lighting streets on fire, throwing rocks at law enforcement vehicles, and assaulting Federal and local peace officers," the resolution states. Earlier this month, Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman said that the protest was an excuse for bad actors to commit crimes, such as stealing from businesses, committing property damage and assaulting law enforcement. "This group wanted to commit crimes," Hochman said at the time. "They looked at the protest as a cover, an opportunity to go ahead and ply their illegal trade and commit a whole variety of crimes that, in many ways, has done a huge disservice to the legitimate protesters out there." Some Democrats criticized the resolution, as a legal battle ensured whether President Donald Trump was able to send in the National Guard as the civil unrest went on. Many Republicans have argued it was necessary, while many California Democratic Leaders like Gov. Gavin Newsom said troop deployment was an instigator. "This resolution ignores those facts to score political points," Rep. Nanette Díaz Barragán, D-Calif., said on the House floor in opposition to the resolution, saying troop deployment "only escalated tensions and further unrest" while adding that Democrats have called for prosecutions of those who have acted violently. "Your daily reminder that Trump still has 4,946 troops sitting around LA doing nothing. Meanwhile, he has weakened our border safety operations -- slashing the National Guard's fentanyl and drug interdiction force by 32 PERCENT. He is actively endangering our communities by keeping these troops in LA," Newsom posted to X on June 25. Meanwhile, debate ensues about the ICE operations and deportation efforts nationwide, as ICE agents face a 500% increase in assaults, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
CNBC
22 minutes ago
- CNBC
Zohran Mamdani ran for VP of his high school and lost—now he's winning the Democratic primary for NYC mayor
New York State assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, the probable Democratic nominee for New York City's upcoming mayoral election, is only 33 years old — but his political career spans back to at least 2009. That's when, as a student, he ran for vice president of The Bronx High School of Science. It was "ultimately an unsuccessful run," Mamdani said on a 2017 episode of the "AirGo" podcast, noting the other vice-presidential candidate "whooped my ass in that election." A social studies teacher later told him that his rap campaign video cost him the election, Mamdani added. Mamdani currently serves in the New York State Assembly as a representative of the 36th district, based in Queens. He likely secured the Democratic nomination for the city's mayoral race in November during primary voting on Tuesday, running a campaign that has so far has focused on lowering New York's cost of living. His policy proposals include free buses and a freeze on the city's 960,600 rent-stabilized apartments, for example. If elected in November, he'll be New York's youngest mayor since political platform has predictably evolved since his high school campaign, when he promised his constituents fresh juice and gym credits for attending school-sanctioned sporting events, he said on the podcast. In some ways, though, the candidate himself remains the same, says Daniel Ahmadizadeh — the winner of that year's Bronx Science presidential election, and Mamdani's former classmate. Ahmadizadeh, who now works at a Brooklyn, New York-based artificial intelligence startup, says he's watched Mamdani's campaign on TV and seen the same "genuine, kind, and driven person" he knew growing up. "He's carried the same spirit into public service [with] that same smile," Ahmadizadeh tells CNBC Make It. "In a world that rewards shortcuts and billionaires, he's taken a principled path and really given me hope." "I don't think we were ready for him in high school," he adds. Mamdani's estimated net worth is roughly $200,000, according to Forbes. His parents' net worth is "likely more significant," the publication noted on Tuesday — Mamdani's mother Mira Nair is an award-winning filmmaker, and his father Mahmood Mamdani is a chaired professor of government at Columbia University. The presumptive Democratic nominee plans to raise tax rates on corporations and the wealthiest 1% of New Yorkers to pay for his policy proposals, according to his campaign's website. Perhaps unsurprisingly, some of those wealthy New Yorkers reacted negatively to Mamdani's primary victory: Many Wall Street investors, for example, were "alarmed" and "depressed" by the outcome, CNBC reported on Wednesday. Mamdani graduated from Bowdoin College in 2014, and started working as foreclosure prevention housing counselor in New York. He reportedly volunteered for an unsuccessful New York city council campaign in 2015, according to the Washington Post, before running for — and winning — his Assembly seat in 2020. The Mamdani campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but voters in the city's Democratic primary turned out in force for him. The race's other top candidate, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, conceded less than three hours after polls closed. "We have won because New Yorkers have stood up for a city they can afford," Mamdani said in a victory speech on Tuesday. "A city where they can do more than just struggle. One where those who toil in the night can enjoy the fruits of their labor in the day."
