Socialist candidate for mayor makes waves in the City of Lakes
Mamdani, the 33-year-old Ugandan-born state assemblyman from New York City, stunned the nation's political world a month ago by coming from behind to convincingly win the Democratic Party mayoral nomination in the nation's most populous city.
And with his victory over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and nine other candidates, Mamdani took a big step toward becoming New York City's first Muslim and first millennial mayor.
Fateh, like Mamdani, is a democratic socialist and a Muslim. And at age 35, he's also a member of Generation Y.
And similar to Mamdani, he topped an establishment Democrat to earn a crucial endorsement as he bids for Minneapolis mayor.
"From NYC to Minneapolis — change is coming!" the Twin Cities chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America touted a week and a half ago after Fateh landed the endorsement of the Minneapolis chapter of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, which is the name of the Democratic Party in Minnesota.
Fateh landed the endorsement over incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey, who is running for a third term. But Frey, who has repeatedly faced off during his tenure with a left-leaning city council in the heavily blue city, remains on the ballot, and will face off with Fateh in November's election.
And similar to New York City, Minneapolis will use ranked choice voting to determine its next mayor.
"This endorsement is a message that Minneapolis residents are done with broken promises, vetoes, and politics as usual. It's a mandate to build a city that works for all of us," Fateh said, in a jab at Frey.
But Frey highlighted that "this election should be decided by our entire city, not by a handful of delegates. I look forward to a full debate with Sen. Fateh about our records and visions for our Minneapolis's future. Onward to November!"
Fateh, similar to Mamdani, is offering voters what can be characterized as a far-left agenda.
In New York City, Mamdani is pushing proposals to eliminate fares to ride New York City's vast bus system, making CUNY (City University of New York) "tuition-free," freezing rents on municipal housing, offering "free childcare" for children up to age 5 and setting up government-run grocery stores.
Fateh, the son of immigrant parents from Somalia who five years ago became the first Somali-American elected to the Minnesota Senate, pledges if elected mayor to raise the city's minimum wage, increase the supply of affordable housing, and combat what he calls police violence. Similar to Mamdani, Fateh calls for replacing some of the police department's duties with community-led alternatives. He also wants to issue legal IDs to undocumented immigrants.
Larry Jacobs, a public affairs professor at the University of Minnesota, pointed to the numerous parallels between Mamdani and Fateh.
But he noted that "the big difference is in Minneapolis you have a two-term mayor who's probably still the favorite to win."
Jacobs highlighted that the Democratic Party is going through "post election blues." He pointed to a "genuine division on the direction of the party and that division in part is between a younger socialist element… and a more moderate version of the party that has relations with business and pulls back on change that's disruptive."
Republicans have been relentless in taking aim at Mamdani and his far-left proposals. They are repeatedly trying to make him the face of the Democratic Party while also attempting to anchor him to vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in next year's midterms.
While not grabbing the kind of media frenzy that surrounds Mamdani, Republicans and conservatives have started targeting Fateh.
Among them is Charlie Kirk—the conservative host and MAGA-world rockstar who leads the influential Turning Point USA political youth organization. Kirk recently took aim at Fateh over his Muslim identity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
17 minutes ago
- USA Today
Moscow urges everyone, including Trump, to be 'very, very cautious' with nuclear rhetoric
Moscow downplayed President Trump's announcement that he'd ordered two nuclear submarines to "the appropriate regions" after doomsday Russian rhetoric. Moscow broke its silence on President Donald Trump's comments ordering two nuclear submarines to "the appropriate regions" in response to "provocative" remarks by a former Russian president. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told Russian state media on Aug. 4 that the country was "very attentive" to the topic of nuclear non-proliferation and believed "everyone should be very, very cautious with nuclear rhetoric." Peskov also played down the significance of Trump's comments, saying it was clear to Russia that U.S. submarines were already on combat duty. He said Russia had no appetite for getting into a prolonged argument with Trump. Still, Trump's deployment of the nuclear submarines appears to be the first time social media rhetoric has led an American president to apparently reposition parts of the United States' nuclear arsenal. (Trump did not specify whether he was referring to nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines.) Trump said the move was in response to statements from Dmitry Medvedev, who was the Russian president from 2008 to 2012 and prime minister from 2012 to 2020. He is now the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council. Medvedev, who in recent years has taken to social media to post spiky, rabble-rousing comments aimed at the United States, said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that Trump's recent threats to sanction Russia, including a tariffs ultimatum, were "a step towards war." Seeking a ceasefire Since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin himself has frequently resorted to nuclear threats. The Kremlin has repeatedly suggested that Moscow could use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances. The latest spat follows Trump's trip to Scotland, where he said he was reducing his 50-day deadline for Russia to make moves toward trying to end its war with Ukraine – down to a new deadline of 10 or 12 days. That deadline is Aug. 8. Trump warned of "very severe" sanctions on Russia if it does not commit to a ceasefire. Ahead of the deadline, Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff, a real estate mogul and cryptocurrency trader who has turned into Trump's de facto roaming emissary, is expected to visit Russia on Aug. 6. Peskov said Russia views Witkoff's visit as "important, substantial and helpful," and he raised the possibility that Witkoff might see President Vladimir Putin for talks. Witkoff has made multiple trips to Moscow at Trump's behest. After one of his trips, he returned with a portrait of Trump gifted by Putin. During another visit, Witkoff, who does not speak Russian, arrived without a translator and relied on one supplied by the Kremlin. His last trip was in April. Trump told reporters that if his Aug. 8 deadline arrives and Russia has not agreed to a Ukraine ceasefire, "there'll be sanctions. But they seem to be pretty good at avoiding sanctions," he added. "You know, they're wily characters. … So we'll see what happens."
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
The BOOTS Act is protectionism masquerading as patriotism
The Better Outfitting Our Troops or BOOTS Act has a noble-sounding name, but it is the exact opposite in practice. Introduced earlier this year, the proposed legislation would prohibit U.S. servicemembers in uniform from wearing any 'optional boot' — that is, boots not formally issued but still permitted — unless the footwear is manufactured entirely in the U.S. Supporters claim the measure promotes quality and readiness, but it's really just a protectionist giveaway to domestic bootmakers that will limit soldiers' choices, increase their costs, and put their well-being at risk. At the BOOTS Act's core is an age-old protectionist formula: It would restrict the market under the guise of patriotism and funnel profits to politically connected industries. In this case, the primary beneficiaries are U.S. boot manufacturers who, unsurprisingly, are lobbying hard for the bill's passage. They stand to gain handsomely by locking out foreign competitors and forcing tens of thousands of American troops to buy from a narrow set of approved vendors. Although protectionism as a general proposition is contemptible, this is far worse. You can't get much lower than trying to make a buck off servicemembers at the expense of their health and performance, which is exactly what restrictions on their footwear options will do. Claims by the bill's supporters that the measure ensures 'high-quality footwear' or that it's 'good for the troops' are laughable when confronted with basic facts. Reducing the range of available boots makes it less likely that soldiers will find the best fit for their unique needs — no small matter when spending long hours in rugged terrain or combat environments. Indeed, the Marine Corps' own combat support systems office recently disclosed that a review of U.S.-made boots yielded a startling 25 percent failure rate. That's not just embarrassing — it's a red flag. The bill's congressional sponsors surely wouldn't spend their own money on footwear of such questionable quality, so why would they force U.S. servicemembers to do so? And this bizarre insistence that fewer choices will ensure more reliable and durable footwear isn't even the most absurd claim they make. One lobbying group behind the BOOTS Act, the U.S. Footwear Manufacturers Association, even argues that eliminating foreign-made options will 'reduce confusion among servicemembers.' Apparently, American troops who operate advanced weapons systems and execute complex battlefield maneuvers are baffled by an excess of footwear choices. The notion is as insulting as it is ridiculous. The bill's backers do, however, raise one superficially plausible argument: A reliance on foreign-made boots 'erodes the supply chain' needed to meet wartime demands. But skepticism is warranted here, too. Marine Corps Colonel Paul Gillikin, the current program manager for Marine combat support systems, argues that having multiple supply sources is vital — particularly in a future conflict where contested environments could make traditional supply lines untenable. The veteran infantry and special operations officer says he wants to see 'all options' kept on the table. Consider a hypothetical conflict in East Asia. In such a scenario, boots manufactured in Southeast Asia might be easier to procure and deliver to frontline forces than those shipped from the continental U.S. A rigid U.S.-only policy could leave troops struggling with insufficient gear. Capacity constraints add to concerns about boot protectionism. In a 2023 wargame exploring vulnerabilities in the defense clothing supply chain, industry representatives revealed they could produce no more than 525,000 pairs of boots per year. Asked whether they could add another 456,000 pairs annually — hardly a far-fetched scenario in a major conflict — they admitted it would only be feasible with advance investment. That's a polite way of saying: 'We're not ready.' So what happens if we close off foreign sources and a surge in demand occurs unexpectedly? We either send troops into the field with inadequate footwear or scramble to rebuild a diversified supply chain we will have intentionally dismantled by passing this bill. Relying solely on domestic suppliers puts all our eggs in one basket — a risky and short-sighted move when it comes to national defense. After surveying the evidence, the more cynically minded might suspect the BOOTS Act is more about bolstering profits than readiness. Each of the six members of Congress who introduced the bill represents a district or state home to (or in close proximity of) members of the American Combat Boot Alliance, an industry coalition that supports the legislation and stands to reap the rewards. The appearance of self-interest is hard to ignore, and the incentives are clear: limit competition, boost profits and wrap it all in the flag. Import restrictions are a well-documented economic loser that force Americans to pay more and get less. But as the BOOTS Act shows, their harm can extend to national security as well. In this case, they endanger troop readiness, reduce operational flexibility, and weaken our ability to respond to future threats. Supporting American industry is a worthy goal, but doing so by shackling our servicemembers to potentially subpar products and higher costs — all while hollowing out our strategic options — is not the way to do it. Our troops deserve the best boots available — wherever they're made. The BOOTS Act ensures they won't get them.
Miami Herald
17 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Who do tariffs help? What Americans say in poll as Trump unveils new levies
A greater share of Americans would like to see President Donald Trump's tariffs scaled back than expanded, according to a new Economist/YouGov poll. And most Americans believe his tariffs will drive up prices and put a heavier burden on U.S. consumers. The survey comes after Trump signed an executive order on July 31 imposing sweeping new levies — between 10% and 41% — on imports from about 70 countries. These are set to go into effect on Aug. 7, providing a short window for negotiations. Trump, who previously issued a 10% baseline tariff on all imports in April, in addition to sector-specific levies, has said the unprecedented measures are necessary to counter unfair trade practices. 'Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,' the president said in a post on Truth Social. 'They were successfully used against the USA for decades. … Now the tide has completely turned, and America has successfully countered this onslaught of Tariffs used against it.' Many economists, meanwhile, are wary of widespread tariffs, arguing they will boost inflation, raise prices and result in job losses. The poll also comes after the Labor Department's latest jobs report, released on Aug. 1, found weaker-than-expected employment growth in July. As a result, Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, claiming the report was 'rigged.' Here is a breakdown of the results from the poll. A much larger share of Americans want U.S. tariff rates to be decreased rather than increased, according to the poll, which sampled 1,777 U.S. adults July 25-28. A plurality, 41%, said rates should be lowered, while 18% said they should be raised. An additional 23% said they should be kept the same. The poll — which has a margin of error of about 3.5 percentage points — also asked respondents, 'who is is most helped and hurt by tariff increases?' A majority, 54%, said American consumers are hurt the most, while far fewer said foreign manufacturers (22%), foreign consumers (4%) and U.S. manufacturers (3%). Meanwhile, a plurality, 28%, said American manufacturers are helped the most by tariff increases. Smaller shares said U.S. consumers (11%), foreign manufacturers (6%) and foreign consumers (1%). Additionally, the vast majority of respondents, 71%, said they believe Trump's tariffs will lead to higher prices, with 43% saying prices will increase 'a lot' and 28% saying they will rise 'a little.' Just 9% said they expect tariffs will lead to lower prices. Most Democrats and Republicans — 87% and 55%, respectively — agreed that levies will result in higher prices.
