Jessica Ramos Will Endorse Andrew Cuomo for New York City Mayor
Ms. Ramos, a state senator from Queens, is a progressive Democrat who has been one of the harshest campaign critics of Mr. Cuomo, the former New York governor who resigned in 2021 after a sexual harassment scandal.
She said in April that Mr. Cuomo's 'mental acuity is in decline' and that New Yorkers could not afford a 'Joe Biden moment' at City Hall, in reference to the former president's age and health concerns.
But on Friday, Ms. Ramos will appear at a campaign event with Mr. Cuomo to announce her endorsement, just two days after the two were among nine Democrats sparring on a debate stage.
Ms. Ramos said she was 'staying in the race' and would remain on the ballot, but her endorsement of Mr. Cuomo is effectively an acknowledgment that she cannot win. She said she was supporting Mr. Cuomo because 'he's the one best positioned right now to protect this city.'
'With Trump threatening to bulldoze New York and take us backward, we need someone in City Hall who knows how to hold the line and deliver under pressure,' she said.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Says Decision on Marijuana Classification Coming in Weeks
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump said Monday he is considering whether to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug and would decide in 'the next few weeks.' Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Three Deaths Reported as NYC Legionnaires' Outbreak Spreads Chicago Schools' Bond Penalty Widens as $734 Million Gap Looms To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' Trump told reporters that he had discussed the issue with many people and found deep divisions, with some proponents of changing the drug's status stressing its medical benefits while opponents said the move posed a risk to children. 'I've heard great things having to do with medical, and I've had bad things having to do with just about everything else but medical,' Trump said. 'And, you know, for pain and various things, I've heard some pretty good things, but for other things, I've heard some pretty bad things.' Trump told attendees at a fundraiser in New Jersey earlier this month that he was considering the change, the Wall Street Journal reported. The federal government currently classifies marijuana under Schedule I, which is for drugs with no medical use and a high potential for abuse. Reclassifying the drug could make it easier to buy and sell cannabis. Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist The Game Starts at 8. The Robbery Starts at 8:01 Klarna Cashed In on 'Buy Now, Pay Later.' Now It Wants to Be a Bank The Pizza Oven Startup With a Plan to Own Every Piece of the Pie It's Only a Matter of Time Until Americans Pay for Trump's Tariffs ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mar-a-Lago member offers free pierogi for life to Alan Dershowitz after Martha's Vineyard rebuff
With a Martha's Vineyard vendor refusing to cede to Alan Dershowitz's pierogi demands, a South Florida restaurant owner -- who happens to be a member of Donald Trump's private Mar-a-lago resort -- has stepped up and offered free dumplings for life to the former Jeffrey Epstein lawyer. In the latest of Dershowitz's social sufferings at the exclusive summer playground for the ultra-wealthy, the one-time Trump attorney threatened to file a discrimination lawsuit after he was denied pierogi at a farmer's market in July. Dershowitz claimed that the owner of Good Pierogi refused to serve him 'for political reasons' and his support of Zionist causes, suggesting the vendor was antisemitic. After railing against the 'bigoted vendor' online, claiming Good Pierogi's food was 'tainted with the poison of antisemitism' and urging others to boycott the stand, Dershowitz returned to the market last week to once again try to buy some of the doughy treats. Instead, owner Krem Miskevich – who has cited Dershowitz's defense of Epstein as the reason to refuse him service – again turned him away. Good Pierogi supporters chanted 'time to go' at the famed lawyer. After Dershowitz ran to MAGA-supporting media to complain about the ongoing ordeal of his pierogi-less existence on the island, a sympathetic restaurateur came to the rescue to fill all of the 86-year-old Harvard Law emeritus' Eastern European dumpling needs. 'Pierogi should bring people together — not divide them,' Peter Nowocien, owner of PierogiOne restaurant, told the New York Post this week. Nowocien, who is a member of Mar-a-Lago and recently hosted an event at the president's South Florida club, said that no one should ever be denied pierogi before declaring that he'd send Dershowitz and his family free food for life. The restaurant owner, a Polish immigrant who moved to the United States six years ago, told the Post that 'Dershowitz's disturbing experience did not sit right' with him because of his experience growing up in the shadow of Poland's communist regime. 'As a Polish immigrant, I hate to hear about discrimination in the US because of people's political views. That shouldn't happen here,' the Trump-supporting Nowocien said, adding that his father fought against communism. 'Discrimination breeds injustice.' Nowocien also noted that while Dershowitz, who is Jewish, may not be willing to sample his restaurant's Philly cheesesteak, spicy beef, or bacon and cheddar pierogi options, the lawyer could choose the classic cheese and potato variety. Meanwhile, it would appear that – at least for the time being – Dershowitz is going to stop trying to force Good Pierogi to serve him. Following last week's spectacle that saw him shouted out of the market, Semafor's Max Tani asked Dershowitz whether he would return over the weekend to try again. 'Heading to Israel, where they will sell me better pierogi,' the lawyer, who is a fervent supporter of pro-Israeli causes, replied. The Independent has contacted Dershowitz for comment. Dershowitz's war on the West Tisbury pierogi stand began in earnest at the end of last month, when he made a huge public stink after Miskevich refused to sell to him, prompting him to upload a 30-minute video about the 'bigoted vendor' while threatening a lawsuit against Good Pierogi and the local farmer's market. While noting that Miskevich brought up his past defense of deceased sex offender Epstein when refusing him service, Dershowitz has since alleged that the vendor – who is Jewish – turned him away because they are antisemitic. (Miskevinc uses they/them pronouns.) 'As I correctly suspected, the bigot who refused to sell me perogi [sic] — Krem Miskevich — is a notorious anti-semite who is part of an anti-semitic organization that protests Jewish — not only Israeli— cultural events and doesn't believe in Israel's right to exist or to respond to what these haters regard as the 'justified' massacres of Oct 7,' Dershowitz tweeted last week, adding: 'Don't patronize anti-semites who refuse to sell to Jewish Zionists.' Miskevich responded to Dershowitz's accusations by noting that they 'experienced a surge of emotion' when the lawyer appeared at the stand last month because he's represented and befriended 'several sexual predators and abusers including Jeffrey Epstein,' adding that they know many people who have been sexual assault victims. Miskevich also said Dershowitz 'began to harass us, misgender me, and film us without our consent.' Additionally, they pointed out that not only are they Jewish, but they have immediate family members in Israel and friends on the island sometimes refer to them as 'Rabbi Klem.' Despite Dershowitz's vow to boycott Good Pierogi, the celebrity attorney turned up Wednesday to join the long line of customers – most of whom were there to show support for Good Pierogi – looking to purchase the vendor's dumplings. 'I'm here in an effort to try to restore community and to ask you to sell me pierogi in the interest of keeping the island together so we don't have to have two pierogi stands: one for anti-Zionists and one for people who will sell to anybody,' Dershowitz said. 'So I'd ask you to please just sell me any one of your products to show that you're prepared to sell to anybody and not allow your anti-Zionism to decide which people you'll sell to.' Miskevich did not budge, telling Dershowitz that they were 'very surprised that you're here because of the things that you've been saying about us and the business online,' while others rejected Dershowitz's blanket accusations of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Good Pierogi later posted on social media to thank customers for 'showing up for us in such a visible and powerful way,' adding that they are 'saddened by the lengths to which a disgruntled person will go' and that they 'will not give them any more air.' As for Dershowitz's threats to sue the farmer's market and Good Pierogi for discrimination, legal experts have said that he would likely lose on the merits of the case if he decided to go to court. 'If he tried to claim that he was denied service based on his politics or the clients he has served, it would seem no,' powerhouse law firm Kelley Drye noted. 'Neither Massachusetts state law nor federal law recognize a claim for discrimination on the basis of political beliefs, affiliations, or activities in public accommodations. In fact, almost all jurisdictions, including New York, do not protect political beliefs or political associations under the applicable public accommodation laws.' Dershowitz's past representation of Epstein has attracted renewed interest in recent weeks amid uproar over the Trump administration's handling of the disgraced financier's case. The lawyer helped negotiate a plea deal in 2008 that granted Epstein immunity from federal charges related to sexual abuse of minors, allowing the disgraced financier to plead guilty to state charges of procuring prostitution of an underage girl, in which he served just a 13-month sentence.
UPI
18 minutes ago
- UPI
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
