Rove: Trump benefits from Mamdani campaign
'Trump is looking at it in a national picture and saying, 'If New York has a democratic socialist mayor, and if you add one in Minneapolis, for example, we can run against them in the 2026 midterms,'' Rove said on Fox News's 'America's Newsroom,' referencing Omar Fateh, a democratic socialist mayoral candidate who won the endorsement of Minnesota's Democratic Farmer Labor Party. 'Say, 'Look, here's what the new Democratic Party is all about. It's about free everything, democratic socialists, blah, blah, blah, blah.''
Mamdani embarked on a five-borough tour this week campaigning against the president, attempting to link him to former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), who is running in the mayor's race as an independent after losing handily to Mamdani in the Democratic primary. Rove noted the anti-Trump crusade could benefit Mamdani.
'Look, it works for him because he is the front-runner, and this allows him to eat up time,' Rove said. 'It leaves his opponents trying to catch up with him.'
Rove added Cuomo and other Democrats opposing Mamdani needed to find a way to shake up the race.
'The way to shake it up is to find a way to say, 'I'm the normal Democrat who can actually run this place, and that guy over there is extreme,'' he said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The rich already know how private equity mints money — and it's not from a 401(k)
The ultrawealthy are envied for many reasons. For instance, we wish we could access the same private-market investments that they favor. Now, after the White House issued an executive order on Aug. 7, you may be able to invest like the billionaires do. Homeowners rush to refinance as mortgage-rate plunge opens window of opportunity My wife and I are in our 50s and have $11 million. We're not leaving it to our kids. Is that wrong? You could receive up to $7,500 from the AT&T settlement. Here's how class-action suits work. But would you want to? The executive order allows ordinary retirement savers to invest in private assets and cryptocurrency. This will expand investment options for anyone with a 401(k) or similar tax-advantaged retirement plan. It is a big deal — opening part of America's $12.4 trillion defined-contribution market to private-asset managers. The largest private-equity firms and other asset managers are salivating at the opportunity to pitch this untapped market of retirement savers. Private assets encompass a range of investments that do not trade on a public exchange. Examples include hedge funds, private equity, private credit and infrastructure. The case for private assets is they can provide a buffer against inflation — plus steady returns. The downsides include high fees, illiquidity and complexity. The nation's biggest asset managers welcome the executive order. They want to develop funds that make private assets easier for people to buy, and argue that the added diversification serves savers' best interests. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock BLK, says retirement savers should replace the traditional 60% stocks/40% bonds asset-allocation model with a 50/30/20 split: 50% stocks, 30% bonds and 20% private assets. Read: Larry Fink proposes an alternative to the 60/40 portfolio. It means more fees. Should you be excited about this widening menu of investment choices? It depends on whom you ask. Some investment professionals like the idea of making private assets more available to more people. 'Historically, a number of private-market strategies have produced higher performance and additional diversification in defined-benefit pensions,' says Peter von Lehe, head of investment solutions and strategy at Neuberger Berman. 'It's appropriate that a broader range of investors have access to private assets in their defined-contribution plans because of the potential for return and diversification that these long-term investments can provide.' However, von Lehe cautions that these investments are illiquid and 'have a higher degree of complexity.' He says his 'most appropriate use case' for private-market investments is through professionally managed target-date funds or other funds that allocate a percentage of defined-contribution money to these complex but potentially more lucrative alternatives. Read: Here's something the rich know about managing investment risk that can help you, too Financial advisers have differing views on the role of private assets in client portfolios. Steven Roge, a certified financial planner in Bohemia, N.Y., says private markets are not for everyone. 'It's for people in the wealth-accumulation phase, say 40 to 50 years old, who have a long time horizon and a high risk tolerance,' Roge says. 'And they have to be sophisticated enough to understand it. We know if they don't understand it, they may not stick with it.' Of the firm's 300 clients, he says that 'only about a dozen' fit the bill for adding private-market assets to their retirement accounts. Even with the expanded investment options that may result from the White House's action, Roge remains a fan of passive strategies for most investors. 'Indexing is how they will win over the long run,' he says. 'But some clients want something that's special and different' as they seek market-beating returns. Given the illiquidity of private assets, Roge anticipates setting expectations for those clients who tend to monitor their portfolio daily — and who engage in frequent trading. 'These private investments may only price four times a year,' Roge says. 'That's not enough action for certain clients who track their portfolio like a hawk.' In his personal portfolio, Roge uses private markets — especially private equity — to diversify his holdings. He says he allocates about 25% to alternative assets. 'It helps me sleep at night knowing my portfolio isn't being pushed around by the volatility of public markets,' he says. Roge adds that he is not concerned about the current high valuations of private-equity funds. 'The valuations [of private-equity funds] are more realistic than the erratic valuations we see in public markets on a daily basis,' he says. Other advisers are more skeptical of the White House executive order. 'It's less being done out of interest for the general public and more for private industry lobbying the [Trump] administration,' says Alex Ruda, an adviser in Silver Spring, Md. The executive order undoubtedly pleases asset managers and private-equity firms. For years, they've wanted to attract retirement savers' money. These savers bear primary responsibility for managing their 401(k) compared with today's older retirees, many of whom receive employer-funded defined-benefit pensions. While some younger savers enjoy picking their investments, others dread it. 'The average American worker isn't equipped to navigate these complex [private-market] investments,' Ruda says. 'And they may fall prey to a little performance chasing given where we are in the market cycle' — as private markets have outperformed publicly traded stocks since 2000. Ruda feels so strongly about not incorporating private assets into client portfolios that he's willing to forgo newcomers who express such interest. 'If I wanted to broaden my client base, I'd have to play to what they want,' he says. 'But I don't have to do that. So I'd say to them, 'I'm not the best fit.'' Read next: Here's what it's like to invest in private equity — and why you don't want it in your 401(k) More: As private equity enters retirement plans, is it too dangerous for average investors to jump in? I'm a senior who barely survives on $1,300 a month. No way could I live on $1,000. 'I am a senior citizen': My car needs $3,500 for repairs, but only has a trade-in value of $6,000. Do I bother fixing it?
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘South Park' mocks Trump all the way to the bank
President Trump's newest high-profile foil is 'South Park,' the long-running animated show that has been packing episode after episode with raunchy and sometimes violent jokes about the president and members of his Cabinet. The mockery has been no-holds-barred and has included depictions of Trump in bed with Satan, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem shooting cute cartoon dogs, and Dora the Explorer giving a massage at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's resort Florida. It has not gone unnoticed. The Trump administration, seemingly in no joking mood, has issued angry statements attacking the show's creators and dismissing 'South Park' as irrelevant and out of touch. Entertainment business and political observers, however, say the fight may be breathing new life into the politically incorrect satire program and providing the comedians behind it with more fodder for their weekly shows than ever. 'This in some ways feels like two rival TV shows fighting with one another,' said Matt Sienkiewicz, chair of the Boston College Communication Department and an expert on pop culture and comedy. ''South Park' is trying to do their old school style of critique of the government, and this government has gotten so cartoonish, the back-and-forth is what makes this so significant.' The attacks on Trump also appear to have been good for ratings. The show's Season 27 premiere in late July earned Comedy Central its highest-rated episode since the late 1990s while social media platforms have been filled with clips from Season 27 in recent weeks. The White House this week declined to comment on the show's sustained attacks, but a West Wing official sought to dismiss the show's relevance after its season premiere late last month mocked Trump. 'The Left's hypocrisy truly has no end — for years they have come after 'South Park' for what they labeled as 'offense' content, but suddenly they are praising the show,' a White House spokesperson told Variety at the time. 'Just like the creators of 'South Park,' the Left has no authentic or original content, which is why their popularity continues to hit record lows.' Last week, Noem tore into the show after it portrayed her face melting off due to heavy makeup. 'It's so lazy to just constantly make fun of women for how they look. Only the liberals and the extremists do that,' Noem said. The show's creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, responded this week by publishing an alternate ending to last week's episode on social media, showing Noem walking into a pet store and killing dogs inside with a gun. Noem received criticism last year after she revealed in a book she put a family pet down after a hunting trip. Jim Mendrinos, a comedy writer and a producer at Gotham Writers Workshop in New York, suggested the Trump administration, by responding so forcefully, is handing Parker and Stone a gift. 'This administration has no sense of humor,' Mendrinos said. 'And any good comic knows if you're under somebody's skin, you're gonna burrow in. That's the essence of roast comedy and that's what they're doing here.' To be certain, 'South Park,' has a long history of mocking prominent politicians and figures on the left, from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to former President Obama. The program has sparked controversy and backlash from progressives on multiple occasions during its more than two-decade history on the air for its satirical representations of religious figures, extensive use of racist language and ribbing of climate change activists. But the recent tension with the president and leading MAGA figures comes at a unique moment both in national politics and the business of entertainment. Earlier this year, Parker and Stone signed a five-year streaming deal with Hollywood giant Paramount, which owns Comedy Central, worth more than $1 billion. Paramount is facing increased scrutiny over its relationship with the president's administration after promising to change CBS's editorial direction and canceling 'Late Night,' the show hosted by Stephen Colbert, a frequent Trump critic. With its season premiere last month, 'South Park' called out Paramount over a $16 million payment the company made to the president's foundation to settle a lawsuit against CBS News, a deal that was seen by many as a capitulation to the administration made in order to secure its recent merger with Skydance. 'Matt and Trey are incredibly talented,' Paramount's newly appointed CEO David Ellison told CNN after the episode mocking his company aired. 'They are equal opportunity offenders and always have been.' Ellison's tolerance for Stone and Parker's attacks on Trump and even his own company could have something to do with the show's newfound popularity. Longtime observers of 'South Park' noted the program has always carried a modest but dedicated following, fading from the public discourse during President Biden's administration. Some attribute this to a decline in linear cable viewership, the creation of more animated comedy shows on other networks and what some regard as a slower churn of political news over the last four years. But with Trump's return to the White House, 'South Park' has seen a ratings boom. 'This whole thing has brought the spotlight back to 'South Park' in a way it hasn't enjoyed in a really long time,' Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock, a researcher and editor who authored a book on the show's impact on American pop culture. 'It seems there is a lot of dissatisfaction on the left with some institutions, including the news media, sort of soft-balling Trump and here's 'South Park' taking off the gloves.' How long the fight between 'South Park' and Trump World lasts remains to be seen, but in the short term most observers agree Parker and Stone's mission to take aim at the president is paying off in a big way. ''South Park' has always been able to do things its own way by being light on its feet and the way they've worked their contracts,' Sienkiewicz said. 'There's a lot of freedom in the financial success they've had, and they seem to pick and choose their battles carefully. There are very few others in the entertainment space that can operate like they have.'
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Do Cuomo and Adams secretly want Mamdani to win?
I have worked with a number of very successful candidates and politicians. The one really invaluable skill they all had in common was that they understood basic math. They knew that two plus two often leads to victory, and that two minus one — or three — usually leads to defeat. Addition, subtraction, division. Simple. Unless, to paraphrase a line from 'Top Gun,' 'Your ego is writing checks your body can't cash.' There is no doubt that many New York City residents — as well as countless people around the country and world who now fear for that iconic city's future — have been shaken by a recent Siena College poll showing that far-left socialist Zohran Mamdani leads the race to become the next mayor by 19 points over his next-closest opponent, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Behind them are Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa with 12 percent and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams with 7 percent. Mamdani has the gift of basic math working massively in his favor. In this particular case, division. Without doing a thing, the cliché 'divide and conquer' has been the most important campaign strategy in his quiver. Other than offering the socialist panacea of 'a chicken in every pot' — free stuff to constituents who really know nothing about him — it is the one factor that may make him the next mayor of New York. Mamdani doesn't have to pay for it, focus-group it or expend any political capital. He simply has to sit back and prepare as the respective egos of Cuomo and Adams hand him the keys to Gracie Mansion — and the four years he will need to bring New York City to its knees. Why? Because Cuomo and Adams are now engaged in an ego-fueled blinking contest to see who might exit the race first. That, or they secretly want Mamdani to win. Either way, it's Mamdani with the Cheshire Cat-like smile. This is proving to be an interesting election in that the winning candidate will be the one least despised by the voters. Each of the four major candidates have high negatives and elicit harsh criticism from various blocks of voters. Sadly, forgotten in this high-profile contest between dueling egos are the millions of people in the city who are either barely getting by or suffering in the throes of dysfunction and despair — ironically enough, often caused by the failed policies of previous ego-driven mayors. Many of the residents of New York City who are struggling daily with poverty, crime and lack of education for their children are Black or minority. Ah, but we are seemingly not allowed to talk about that. Many on the left — with a huge assist from Democratic leadership, the media, academia and teachers unions — have gamed it so if you even try to point out the failings of a major American city such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington or Baltimore and who is running it, you risk being labeled a racist, bigot or a misogynist. I don't care what a mayor looks like or how they identify sexually. The only thing I care about is the suffering of millions of constituents. Life for those people is beyond brutal in many cases — an irrefutable fact you almost never hear about, because that would run counter to the various narratives of the left's noise machine. For example, let's look at another major American city that is a poster child for failure, massive dysfunction and turning its back on those most in need: Chicago. A city in which, as I have pointed out in the past, more than 40,000 men, women and children — almost all minority and from the inner city — have been murdered over the last six decades. Extrapolate that number across multiple American inner cities and you have our nation's greatest failing … ever. Except, 'shhhh,' once again, you are not supposed to talk about it. New York City is Chicago on steroids. It has multiple — fixable — problems and life-crushing emergencies across the five boroughs. Unfortunately for those most at-risk inhabitants, many of the people who can help them are entitled elites who exist in bubbles of luxury and safety floating far above the 'unwashed masses' of the city. Two of those elites are Cuomo and Adams. To them, it seems as if the title of 'mayor' is yet one more trophy they can amass, serving either as a potential stepping stone to higher office or to private sector appointments and riches once the last term is complete. In the meantime, those millions of desperately hurting New Yorkers ignored by the elites had better prepare themselves. If (when) Mamdani wins, things will get much worse. 'Free stuff' is the false promise to grab the vote of those New Yorkers. Once Mamdani secures that vote, it will only be about what is best for him and his socialist movement going forward. Those at-risk residents won't even be a fleeting memory.
