Mamdani says his platform would be successful with candidates outside of NYC
'Do you think that is a platform that would work for other candidates running in other parts of the country?' MSNBC's Jen Psaki asked Mamdani in an interview on 'The Briefing.'
'Absolutely. I think ultimately, this is a campaign about inequality, and you don't have to live in the most expensive city in the country to have experienced that inequality, because it's a national issue,' Mamdani responded.
'And what Americans coast to coast are looking for are people who will fight for them, not just believe in the things that resonate with their lives, but actually fight and deliver on those very things,' he added.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist, shocked American political observers Tuesday as he seemed to be on the path to winning the Democratic nomination for the Big Apple's mayoral race over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. He immigrated to the U.S. from Uganda as a child and has spent most of his life in the nation's biggest city.
If Mamdani clinches New York City's top job, he would be its first Muslim and Asian mayor. The results will be final by July 1.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a recent interview that former Vice President Harris would be president if she had used the same campaign playbook as Mamdani.
'Look, he ran a brilliant campaign. And it wasn't just him. What he understood and understands — campaign's not over — is that to run a brilliant campaign, you have to run a grassroots campaign,' Sanders told Politico Magazine in a piece published Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Democrat: Trump ‘militarization' of cities ‘violates everything that we believe in'
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday denounced President Trump's 'militarization' of cities such as Los Angeles and Washington, claiming it 'violates everything that we believe in.' MSNBC's Alicia Menendez asked Goldman if GOP lawmakers are as 'unanimously in favor' of Trump's federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) as the president seemingly believes. 'I would really, really hope not, because the militarization of our cities and our domestic law enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus law and violates everything that we believe in [as] Americans,' Goldman responded. 'But just as I thought there would be Republicans who would stand up for their constituents and prevent them from losing health care, prevent them from losing food benefits, prevent million — billions of dollars of offshore wind investment in their own districts, I thought they would stand up for their own districts, and they didn't,' the New York Democrat told 'The Weeknight' host, referring to provisions included in the massive spending and tax bill signed into law last month. Trump earlier this week deployed National Guard troops to the nation's capital and declared a crime emergency in the district, giving the administration temporary authority to take control over the local police force under the city's Home Rule Act. The president on Wednesday told reporters that he will seek 'long-term extensions' from Congress to lengthen the initiative. Democrats, from local officials to members of the House and Senate, have decried the move as 'unnecessary' and ' unlawful,' as data shows the crime rate shrinking. He also ordered National Guard troops and some U.S. Marines to go to Los Angeles earlier this year when protests spread throughout the city — and beyond — in opposition to the White House's robust immigration agenda, including an uptick in detainments and deportations by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump meets Putin: Will Alaska be our Yalta?
President Trump, hostile to law at home or abroad, hopes to win a Nobel Peace Prize by giving parts of Ukraine to Russia to end the war there. He would arrange this by meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, on American soil, flouting the finding of the International Criminal Court that Putin is a war criminal and must be arrested wherever he sets foot. Unlike the 125 countries that accept the ICC's jurisdiction, the U.S. does not recognize the court and has even tried to punish its officials for indicting Trump's friend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Another Republican president, Herbert Hoover, faced a problem similar to that posed by Russia's war on Ukraine. In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria, officially part of China but coveted by Japan for its resources. The U.S. was not prepared to intervene militarily, but Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson announced in 1932 that the government would not recognize any political or territorial change accomplished by force. Hoover's U.S. did not belong to the League of Nations, but most League members endorsed what became known as the Stimson Doctrine. Japan, however, denounced these happenings and withdrew from the League in 1933. The Stimson Doctrine did not stop the invasion of China, but it helped build broad recognition of Imperial Japan's threat to global order. The doctrine shaped U.S. and European refusal to recognize the Soviet takeover of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the 1940s. When the three small Baltic nations finally broke free of Soviet rule in 1991, the U.S. and its partners immediately recognized their independent statehoods. The United Nations Charter, signed by Russia as well as the U.S., also bans trans-border aggression, prohibiting the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. In 1994, Russia, the U.S. and the United Kingdom signed the ' Budapest Decl a ration,' which banned them from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, 'except in self-defense' or otherwise in accordance with the U.N. Charter. As a result of this declaration and other agreements between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their Soviet legacy nuclear weapons. When Russia violated that commitment by invading Ukraine in 2014, the U.S., U.K. and France provided Ukraine with financial and military assistance and imposed economic sanctions against Russia but ruled out direct intervention with their own forces. Trump now follows the calamitous 'might makes right' precedents set at Munich in September 1938 and Yalta in February 1945. At Munich, leaders of the U.K., France and Italy authorized Adolf Hitler to seize a key region of Czechoslovakia in order to achieve 'peace in our time' — only to open the door to Nazi aggression soon after. At Yalta, a dying Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill consigned Eastern Europe to the USSR in return for Stalin's empty promises of free elections and democracy. As David E. Sanger and Luke Broadwater recently put it in the New York Times, Yalta symbolizes what can go wrong when great powers carve up the world: 'smaller powers suffer the consequences and free people find themselves cast under authoritarian rule.' It is noteworthy that although FDR valued his alliance with Moscow, the U.S. stood by the Stimson Doctrine in the Baltic region. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky bristles at both the suggestion of ceding territory and the prospect of talks being held without Ukraine. 'Any decisions made against us, any decisions made without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace,' he said. They will never work — Zelensky said that Ukraine 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done.' For Trump, however, what counts are facts on the ground. Brought up to date by his emissary Steve Witkoff — a dilettante with zero knowledge of Russia — Trump believes that Putin still holds the cards. Some experts, to the contrary, believe that the only way Putin does not eventually fold is if he is rescued by Trump. Trump is an unreliable partner for Ukraine and potential plaything for Putin to flatter and manipulate. Walter Clemens is an associate at the Harvard Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and professor emeritus of political science at Boston University. He is the author of 'Blood Debts: What Putin and Xi Owe Their Victims' (2023) and 'The Republican War on America: Dangers of Trump and Trumpism' (2023).
Boston Globe
3 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Social Security has existed for 90 years. Why it may be more threatened than ever.
Just as it has for decades, Social Security faces a looming shortfall in money to pay full benefits. Since President Trump took office the program has faced more tumult. Agency staffing has been slashed. Unions and advocacy groups concerned about sharing sensitive information have sued. Trump administration officials including the president for months falsely claimed millions of dead people were receiving Social Security benefits. Former top adviser Elon Musk called the program a potential 'Ponzi scheme.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump and other Republicans have said they will not cut Social Security benefits. Yet the program remains far from the sound economic system that FDR envisioned 90 years ago, due to changes made — and not made — under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Advertisement Here's a look at past and current challenges to Social Security, the proposed solutions and what it could take to shore up the program. The go-broke date has been moved up The so-called go-broke date — or the date at which Social Security will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — has been moved up to 2034, instead of last year's estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits, according to an annual report released in June. The earlier date came as new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, the report concluded. Advertisement The Social Security Fairness Act, signed into law by former President Joe Biden and enacted in January, had an impact. It repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions, increasing Social Security benefit levels for former public workers. Republicans' new tax legislation signed into law in July will accelerate the insolvency of Social Security, said Brendan Duke at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'They haven't laid out an idea to fix it yet,' he said. The privatization conversation has been revived The notion of privatizing Social Security surfaced most recently when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month said new tax-deferred investment accounts dubbed " Trump accounts " may serve as a " backdoor to privatization," though Treasury has walked back those comments. The public has been widely against the idea of privatizing Social Security since former President George W. Bush embarked on a campaign to pitch privatization of the program in 2005, through voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan was not well-received by the public. Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University professor and top economist in Bush's White House, told The Associated Press that Social Security needs to be reduced in size in order to maintain benefits for generations to come. He supports limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. 'We will have to make a choice,' Hubbard said. 'If you want Social Security benefits to look like they are today, we're going to have to raise everyone's taxes a lot. And if that's what people want, that's a menu, and you pay the high price and you move on.' Advertisement Another option would be to increase minimum benefits and slow down benefit growth for everyone else, which Hubbard said would right the ship without requiring big tax increases, if it's done over time. 'It's really a political choice,' he said, adding 'Neither one of those is pain free.' Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the preservation of Social Security benefits, is more worried that the administration of benefits could be privatized under Trump, rather than a move toward privatized accounts. The agency cut more than 7,000 from its workforce this year as part of the Department of Government Efficiency's effort to reduce the size of the government. Martin O'Malley, who was Social Security agency commissioner under Biden, said he thinks the problems go deeper. 'There is no openness and there is no transparency' at the agency, he said. 'And we hear about field offices teetering on the brink of collapse.' A Social Security Administration representative didn't respond to a request for comment. Concerns persist An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in April found that an increasing share of older Americans — particularly Democrats — support the program but aren't confident the benefit will be available to them when they retire. 'So much of what we hear is that its running out of money,' said Becky Boober, 70, from Rockport, Maine, who recently retired after decades in public service. She relies on Social Security to keep her finances afloat, is grateful for the program and thinks it should be expanded. 'In my mind there are several easy fixes that are not a political stretch,' she said. They include raising the income tax cap on high-income earners and possibly raising the retirement age, which is currently 67 for people born after 1960, though she is less inclined to support that change. Advertisement Some call for shrinking the program Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the Project 2025 blueprint for Trump's second term. It called for an increase in the retirement age. Greszler says Social Security no longer serves its intended purpose of being a social safety net for low-income seniors and is far too large. She supports pursuing privatization, which includes allowing retirees to put their Social Security taxes into a personal investment account. She also argues for shrinking the program to a point where every retiree would receive the same Social Security benefit so long as they worked the same number of years, which she argues would increase benefits for the bottom one-third of earners. How this would impact middle-class earners is unclear. 'When talking about needing to reform the system, we need to reform it so that we don't have indiscriminate 23% across the board cuts for everybody,' Greszler said. 'We need to reform the system in a more thoughtful way, so that we are protecting those who are most vulnerable and reliant on Social Security.'
