
NYC Democratic mayoral candidates Cuomo, Mamdani and Lander go on the offensive as race's homestretch begins
With the New York City Democratic mayoral primary race entering the homestretch, several candidates took advantage of the Juneteenth holiday to cast ballots and step up attacks on their opponents.
This is an election that has energized New Yorkers, with nearly 169,000 cast ballots in the first five days of early voting. That is nearly double the total of four years ago.
Election Day is on Tuesday.
The candidates are in the process of making their final arguments to New Yorkers, including who would be the best foil for President Trump, whose campaign donations should be questioned, and who's not a supporter of the Jewish community.
Voters heard it all Thursday, especially from the two frontrunners, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani.
Cuomo appeals to minority communities, attacks Trump
Cuomo made a star-studded entry into a Juneteenth celebration at Co-Op City, and if he had a nickel for every person who wanted to pose for a picture with him, he might not have to accept campaign donations. It took a while for the crowd to settle down.
"Listen everybody, calm yourself," Bronx Assemblyman Michael Benedetto said.
Read more: NYC Democratic mayoral candidates jump on debate opportunity to question Andrew Cuomo
For Cuomo, who is facing a tightening race with Mamdani, it was a two-fer -- an opportunity to show case his support in the minority community and to play up his calling card -- his ability to stand up to Mr. Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic.
"Remember his advice: Drink Clorox. Drink Clorox and COVID won't kill you. The Clorox will kill you," Cuomo said.
Afterwards, Cuomo slammed Mamdani for past statements about Israel and Black leaders.
"We're celebrating Juneteenth. Mr. Mamdani said President Obama is evil. He said President Obama is a liar," Cuomo said. "This is all ugly, divisive rhetoric and actions, and it is repugnant to who we are as New Yorkers."
Mamdani and Lander take aim at Cuomo's integrity
Mamdani, who cast his ballot in Astoria, tried to hit Cuomo on what he believes is his Achilles' heel -- his superPAC that is raking in the dough and, Mamdani said, "is funded by the very Republican billionaire donors that put Donald Trump back in the White House."
"They now are trying to put Andrew Cuomo into City Hall, and, ultimately, what we're seeing is, can billionaires and corporations buy another election," Mamdani added.
Read more: Zohran Mamdani gets emotional while talking about being a Muslim running for NYC mayor
City Comptroller Brad Lander, who also cast his ballot Thursday, tried to get another bite of the political apple by speaking once again about his arrest by U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents earlier in the week.
And since he and Mamdani cross-endorsed each other, their goal was to attack Cuomo.
"Andrew Cuomo does not have decency and integrity and should not be allowed at City Hall. I believe that Zohran Mamdani is a person of decency and integrity, and I am therefore encouraging people to rank him number two," Lander said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.


CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
How Tucker Carlson went from war hawk to skeptic
CNN's Donie O'Sullivan explores the transformation of Tucker Carlson, from one-time CNN host advocating for the Iraq War to his current status as an influential MAGA podcaster criticizing possible US involvement in Israel's conflict with Iran.


Fox News
34 minutes ago
- Fox News
There should be ‘no doubt' Trump could turn Iran's facilities into nuclear dust, says Army Special Forces veteran
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Former President Biden attends Juneteenth event at Reedy Chapel Church in Texas