This is not an apologetic, just a discussion. If you get in the comments acting like I'm in direct support of Mamdani you'll look like a fool cause you are responding to the headline and not the post
Just a couple days after offering governor Hochul an endorsement with seemingly no concessions, and [rightfully] receiving criticism from his left flank, it seems he has cornered the liberals.
There is a legal mandate for NYC to have a balanced budget (as well as a practical one, as they do jot issue their own currency. In order to cover the multi-billion dollar shortfall, a tax must be raised. Mamdani has presented two options: either goc rnor Hochul can raise a tax on the wealthiest 33,000 new yorkers, or Mamdani will be forced to raise property taxes, which will affect everybody.
Needless to say, the property tax is dramatically unpopular. Between Mamdani's endorsement, and the opportunity to make a popular decision instead of an unpopular one, Hochul has a lot to gain by taking the easy road here. She also has a lot to lose if she doesn't.
- was this mamdani's 4-D chess all along?
- will Hochul be follow through with mild wealth redistribution because shes a bit cornered?
- can Mamdani extract other concessions this year by threatening to revoke his endorsement? In a way that would be bigger news, right?
If he holds his endorsement back in exchange for concessions, liberals will push "he isn't a real democrat, he is a useless radical socialist who is going to ruin everything!"
Instead he is a team player and has taken the early high ground. Now it is up to the establishment to step up to his level and support his popular agenda. Mamdani can withdraw his endorsement and torch them later on if they don't offer anything.
Also, the NYC local news has been gross. "Mamdani proposes raising property taxes to balance the budget" with no further context, of course.
It's a bad one if it is, straight from the failed liberal playbook. Liberals are our enemies and are even the enemies of socdems. Even if you try to place nice with them, they are fundamentally opposed to us and our agenda. They will take what we give and do whatever they wanted to anyways. I have engaged in many liberal political spaces and they are full of people who think the best way to engage with politicians is to give them shit and then expect (almost always incorrectly) a more fruitful relationship and tangible results. Most of them are true believers that just choose to ignore the complete lack of results from this strategy. The key leaders are cynical and see this through the lens of their own advancement orbiting the Democratic Party.
In reality, leverage is all that matters. What you describe is leverage that Hochul has: the ability to provide funding to NYC. If the only leverage Mamdani has is "I can endorse you or not", he is fucked. Any realistic analysis requires that his administration begin building public consciousness about how these things work, where they money comes from and goes, and organizing to have, say, NYC keep more of its own funding and get more funding from it being the primary financial center of the planet.
Largely agree, it's just been a couple months so I'm interested to see what the next play is going to be. Mildly hopeful that there is a greater strategy that I/we aren't aware of yet, but I'm definitely not going to bank on it or anything. It was never going to be easy to navigate the electoralism sphere. It actually very much sucks ass (which is why so many of us on here give it a cold shoulder ofc).