Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 75 Shares149 Views

    in Elections

    If Zohran Mamdani Wins, Then What?

    Zohran Mamdani’s remarkable, decisive defeat of Andrew Cuomo in the New York Democratic primary for mayor opens a potential new path for progressive governance — one that will be a challenging, if thrilling, test for the American left.Mr. Mamdani, the 33-year-old state assemblyman and proud democratic socialist, is the heavy favorite to win the general election in November, even in a field that includes the beleaguered incumbent, Eric Adams, running as an independent. If he prevails, he will be, without a doubt, the most powerful unabashedly left-wing politician in America.That’s direct power: over America’s largest police force, its largest education department and a municipal budget that has soared past $110 billion. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are famous and influential leftists, but they do not oversee the machinery of government in the way mayors do. And governing, unlike legislating, cannot simply default to activism.Mr. Mamdani would become the leftist others look to, either as a savior or as a villain.New York City has a larger population than most states; it is racially, ethnically and politically diverse. The deep-blue hue of its electorate belies a tremendous complexity that has deviled many a mayor. How to govern for progressive A.O.C. supporters and conservative Orthodox Jews? What about churchgoing African Americans, Muslim Middle Easterners and Sikhs? This is a city that less than a year ago saw a significant swing toward Donald Trump.Mr. Mamdani would face numerous tests. (A disclosure: In 2018, when I ran for state senator in New York City, Mr. Mamdani was my campaign manager.) With the city, the nation and even the world watching him, he would be tasked with fulfilling campaign promises that were widely popular. As mayor, he could freeze rent on rent-stabilized apartments, since the mayor appoints the members of the board that makes this decision. He could fund, through the municipal budget, the five city-run grocery stores in his campaign proposal, perhaps partnering with existing chains and subsidizing them to lower the cost of items there.But at least some of his proposals would not be immediately deliverable. He would need to barter with the state-run Metropolitan Transportation Authority — and by extension, Kathy Hochul, the moderate Democratic governor — for his proposal to make buses free, even if the overall cost (it would mean forgoing an estimated $800 million a year in fare revenue) is not terribly expensive, in the grand scheme of the city and state budgets, which total north of $100 billion and $200 billion, respectively.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares99 Views

    in Elections

    Should New York City Ditch Its Party Primaries in Favor of Open Races?

    A panel created by Mayor Eric Adams wants to consider using an “open primary” system for elections in New York City. Here’s how the plan would work.For the last century, New York City has typically elected its mayor the same way. Democrats choose a candidate in their party primary, Republicans choose a candidate in their primary, and the twain meet in November.That may soon change.A special panel appointed by Mayor Eric Adams is formulating a plan that would scrap the current system in favor of an open primary where all the candidates — regardless of political party affiliation — would be on the ballot.Under the proposal, the top two candidates would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. And all voters would be eligible to participate in the primary election. Right now, only registered Democrats and Republicans can vote in their party’s primary contest.The 13-member panel, a charter revision commission, recently released a 135-page report that details several proposals that could be on the ballot this November. The measures could curb the City Council’s power to reject new housing, among other ideas. Voters would need to approve the proposals, which would be listed as ballot questions, for them to be enacted.The commission has not yet decided whether to put open primaries on the ballot, and during a four-hour hearing on Monday, public opinions were clearly divided.Here’s what you need to know about the proposal:How would an open primary system work?The panel is considering moving to a system where all registered voters could participate in local primary elections, and the top two candidates who receive the most votes would face off in the general election.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    Musk’s Third Party Starts With a Good Idea

    Elon Musk has finally done something predictable (for a gazillionaire with a political itch, that is): He says he’s launching a third party devoted to the cause of deficit reduction. Instead of the quadrennial dream of No Labels, in which high-minded donors put up the money for an imaginary white knight who never materializes, we may get the “America Party,” in which the world’s richest man puts his fortune behind, he says, “extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield.”If you parse Musk’s postings and re-postings, that seems to mean a third party strategy that targets a handful of close Senate and House seats, trying to create a legislative faction that exerts control over both bodies by preventing anything from passing without their crucial votes.Credit where due: This is a somewhat better plan than just backing a doomed third-party presidential bid in 2028. The most compelling suggestion for would-be third partyers during Joe Biden’s presidency was that they should persuade a clutch of discontented senators to caucus as independents, creating a potent Joe Manchin-Mitt Romney-Lisa Murkowski-Susan Collins-Kyrsten Sinema bloc. Musk’s concentrated-force idea, presumably, would be an attempt to create this kind of bloc from scratch, discovering the next Murkowskis and Manchins and making it possible for them to fund and win a race without an R or D beside their name.Before the travails of DOGE, I would have said that it was a mistake to automatically bet against Musk; now it seems safer to just acknowledge up front that this plan is unlikely to work out, and that Musk will probably find it too difficult to seriously pursue.But in the spirit of possibility, and because the House-and-Senate plan is an advance on most third-party fantasias, let’s consider the things that would need to happen for Musk to succeed.First, the America Party couldn’t just target the tightest swing states. You’ll notice that of the independent-minded senators and former senators listed above, only Sinema comes from a hotly contested state. That’s because under polarized conditions, a true swing state is usually the place where both parties make the strongest efforts at persuasion, where the stakes of each election seem highest and the fear of the other party’s rule is sharpest among partisans on either side.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Elections

    How Insularity Defined the Last Stages of Biden’s Career

    Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s aides did not want him to speak with me.For months, as I worked on a book about the 2024 presidential election, I made multiple requests for an interview with Mr. Biden. One of my co-authors had sat down with President-elect Donald J. Trump, and we felt it was critical to talk to Mr. Biden. But the former president’s aides said he was working on a memoir, and that would conflict with my book.Yet when I reached Mr. Biden on his cellphone in late March, he answered and agreed to talk. He broke his silence on his successor to criticize the early weeks of Mr. Trump’s second term. “I don’t see anything he’s done that’s been productive,” the former president said.When I asked if he had any regrets about dropping out of the presidential race, Mr. Biden said, in a detached tone, “No, not now. I don’t spend a lot of time on regrets.” Then he hung up because he was boarding an Amtrak train.My brief conversation with Mr. Biden prompted a cascade of concern among his top aides. One screamed at me for calling the former president directly. Others texted furiously, trying to figure out how I had obtained Mr. Biden’s phone number.Mr. Biden had seemed open to continuing the conversation, but my subsequent calls went straight to voice mail. His automated greeting simply said, “Joe.”Two days later, that greeting was replaced by a message from Verizon Wireless: “The number you dialed has been changed, disconnected or is no longer in service.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Elections

    Dan Osborn to Seek Pete Ricketts’s Nebraska Senate Seat, Stressing Class Issues

    A steamfitter and former union leader, running as an independent but with Democratic support, will take on the Republican incumbent, a billionaire’s son.Dan Osborn, a steamfitter and former labor leader from Nebraska who ran a surprisingly close campaign for a Senate seat as an independent last year, announced Tuesday that he would run for the Senate again in 2026.Mr. Osborn said in an interview that he would aim to draw a sharp contrast between his working-class background and the profile of Senator Pete Ricketts, the Republican incumbent, who is an heir to billions his father made in the financial services industry.“It’s the C.E.O. from Omaha versus the guy from the shop floor from Omaha, so that’s going be the fundamental difference,” Mr. Osborn said.Mr. Osborn, 50, faces a steep climb against Mr. Ricketts. Republicans have won every House and Senate seat in Nebraska since 2014, when Brad Ashford, a Democrat who had previously been a Republican, won a single term in the House.Mr. Ricketts, 60, who has spent tens of millions of dollars on Nebraska campaigns for himself and other Republicans, is not likely to be surprised by Mr. Osborn, as was Senator Deb Fischer last year, when Mr. Osborn, running a populist campaign, outperformed Vice President Kamala Harris in the state by 13 percentage points. Ms. Fisher defeated Mr. Osborn by 6.6 percentage points.In a campaign announcement video, Mr. Osborn disparages Mr. Ricketts as someone who inherited billions from his father, calls him Wall Street Pete and accuses him of turning his back on Nebraska’s working people. “Bye, Pete,” Mr. Osborn says.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Elections

    A Prominent Investor Is Criticized Over Mamdani Comments

    A partner at Sequoia, the venture capital giant drew criticism for calling the Democratic mayoral candidate for New York an “Islamist.” Shaun Maguire of Sequoia Capital is in the hot seat.Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images For 137 Ventures/FoA battle over a venture capitalist’s Mamdani postsZohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, has drawn heated opposition from many business elites for his policy positions, including higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy.But comments by a leading figure at Sequoia, the venture capital giant, calling Mamdani an “Islamist” have drawn backlash — and put the institution at odds with some of the founders it has backed.TL;DR: Shaun Maguire, a partner at Sequoia and a prominent Silicon Valley conservative, referred on social media last week to the news that Mamdani had checked boxes in his application to Columbia in 2009 indicating his ethnicity as “Asian” and “Black or African American.” (His parents are of Indian origin and he was born in Uganda, and he told The Times that he had sought to represent his complex background, and had noted his Ugandan origins in the application.)Maguire wrote on X that the news showed that Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything” and added, “It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda.”Entrepreneurs and others have censured Maguire’s comments. An online petition went up over this weekend calling the investor’s posts “a deliberate, inflammatory attack that promotes dangerous anti-Muslim stereotypes and stokes division.”It had more than 700 signatories as of Tuesday. Among them was a founder of a company that have been backed by Sequoia; others received investment from entities that have since been spun off from the firm. One, Hisham Al-Falih of Lean Technologies, told Bloomberg that Maguire’s post was “not only a sweeping and harmful generalization of Muslims, but part of a broader pattern of Islamophobic rhetoric that has no place in our industry.” More

  • 88 Shares169 Views

    in Elections

    The Gender Gap That Ate the Democrats

    Much of the analysis of the 2024 election focused on Democratic losses among working-class minorities, especially Hispanic and Black voters. But the dominant theme of the contest was, in fact, the broader shift of men of all races and ethnicities to the Republican Party.If men had supported Kamala Harris at the same level as women did, Harris would have won the popular vote and possibly the Electoral College. Donald Trump beat her by 2.28 million votes, in an election that saw the male vote for the Democratic presidential nominee fall by 3.54 million from 2020 to 2024 and the female vote fall by just over 844,000.The Democratic Party lost ground in the 2024 election among almost all demographic groups — white people, Black people, Latinos, the young, rural and exurban voters — but all the defections had one thing in common: Democratic losses were significantly greater among men than among women.These developments are well documented in two extensive election analyses by organizations that offer some of the best demographic studies of voting patterns: “What Happened in 2024” by Catalist, a liberal voter-study firm, and “Behind Trump’s 2024 Victory, a More Racially and Ethnically Diverse Voter Coalition” by Pew Research.Catalist found that in 2024 Harris, the second woman to run for president as the Democratic nominee, received just 1 percent less support than Joe Biden did in 2020 from white women, while Harris’s backing from white men fell by four percentage points. Among Black voters, Harris saw a one-point drop among women and an eight-point decline among Black men; among Latinos, Harris lost seven points among women, 12 points among men.Catalist summarized its findings on the differences between the partisan shifts of men and women:The partisan gender gap remains high and grew in 2024. Women have long been more likely to support Democrats than men do. The gender gap in partisan preferences increased in 2024: women continued to support Harris (55 percent support) at roughly the same levels that they supported Biden in 2020 (56 percent). But men moved toward Trump in 2024, from 48 percent support for Biden in 2020 to 42 percent support for Harris in 2024.The most severe declines in Democratic voting, according to Catalist, “were concentrated among the younger cohorts of voters, particularly young men. For instance, support for Democrats from 2020 to 2024 among young Black men dropped from 85 percent to 75 percent and support among young Latino men dropped from 63 percent to 47 percent.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares109 Views

    in Elections

    What Happened in Trade Talks Between Japan and the U.S.

    Tokyo had expected smooth tariff negotiations but is experiencing whiplash, becoming a central target of President Trump’s trade frustrations.Earlier this year, Japan’s relationship with the United States seemed to be on solid footing.Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba met with President Trump at the White House in February and pledged to significantly boost investment in the United States. The two leaders talked about their “unwavering commitment” to what some U.S. diplomats have called the most important bilateral relationship in the world, bar none.Those ties appeared to count for something when the Trump administration announced so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of trading partners on April 2. Sure, the 24 percent rate handed to Japan from the top buyer of its goods was a blow. But Japan was the first major trade partner invited to Washington to negotiate those tariffs away.Now, Japan is dealing with diplomatic whiplash.On Monday, Mr. Trump delayed until Aug. 1 tariffs that were supposed to take effect on Wednesday for dozens of countries. Japan was among a subset of countries, along with a neighbor, South Korea, that received letters directing them to change what the White House called unfair trade policies.The announcement that Japan would be targeted with a new 25 percent tariff came after a week in which Mr. Trump repeatedly lashed out at the country, an ally, for its unwillingness to buy American cars and rice. He characterized Japan as “spoiled” and indicated that a trade deal was unlikely.On Tuesday, Mr. Ishiba said Japanese government officials had engaged in “earnest and sincere discussions” with counterparts in the United States. He called the U.S. announcement “deeply regrettable.”The international cargo terminal at the port in Tokyo.Kazuhiro Nogi/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More