New York Gov. Kathy Hochul became the top official in the state to endorse Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani for New York City for mayor on Sunday, marking a shift for a strident defender of Israel as mainstream Democrats grapple with surging public support for Mamdani’s criticism of the Israeli regime over its ongoing genocide in Gaza.

In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Hochul wrote that she and Mamdani shared priorities like making the city more affordable and ensuring strong leadership of the New York Police Department. She also took an oblique shot at Mamdani’s two main competitors: current New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who President Donald Trump’s team has reportedly pushed to drop out of the race, and Andrew Cuomo, who would have a better shot at winning if Adams did so. The former governor lost the Democratic primary by just under 13 percentage pointsto Mamdani in June.

“In light of the abhorrent and destructive policies coming out of Washington every day, I needed to know the next mayor will not be someone who would surrender one inch to President Trump,” Hochul wrote. Trump, apparently displeased with the endorsement, called it “a rather shocking development.”

Hochul’s support for Mamdani followed nearly three months of hand-wringing from the de facto leader of New York’s Democratic Party, who has expressed skepticism of Mamdani’s policy proposals that would require tax hikes on the wealthy and more public spending. Now, Hochul’s endorsement sets her apart from the top two Democrats in Congress — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — who have both declined to weigh in on the most heated race in New York City.

As a result, New York’s Democratic establishment remains split over whether they should rally behind Mamdani, Cuomo, or — seemingly – no one.

Nearly three months after the primary, only four members of the Democratic congressional delegation representing New York City districts have endorsed Mamdani: Reps. Nydia Velázquez, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jerry Nadler, and Adriano Espaillat. Only Velázquez and Ocasio-Cortez backed Mamdani before his primary win.

“We have a Democratic nominee,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters earlier this month. “Are we a party that rallies behind their nominee, or not?”

Many members of New York City’s financial elite, set on edge by Mamdani’s promises of a freeze on stabilized rents and othermeasures to lower the city’s cost of living, have been plotting to keep him from securing the mayor’s seat in November.

Democratic Reps. George Latimer, Ritchie Torres, Gregory Meeks, and Tom Suozzi have endorsed Cuomo. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Reps. Dan Goldman, Grace Meng, and Yvette Clarke have not made endorsements in the race.

Urging her fellow New York Democrats to back Mamdani, Ocasio-Cortez has pointed to her support of President Joe Biden during the 2024 presidential election even though he was not her preferred candidate.

“We use our primaries to settle our differences and once we have a nominee, we rally behind that nominee. I am very concerned by the example that is being set by anybody in our party,” Ocasio-Cortez said earlier this month. “If an individual doesn’t want to support the party’s nominee now, it complicates their ability to ask voters to support any nominee later.”

Outside the city, Rep. Pat Ryan, a Democrat who represents a swing district in the Hudson Valley, endorsed Mamdani last week. Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen, a moderate from Long Island, was the first Democrat to publicly denounce Mamdani’s campaign after his win but has not endorsed a candidate in the race.

Reached for comment, a spokesperson for Jeffries pointed to a statement he made to reporters last week: “I certainly will have more to say about the New York City mayor’s race in short order.”

Offices for Schumer, Gillibrand, Goldman, Meng, and Clarke did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Nadler, who announced this month he will retire at the end of the current congressional session, addressed his change of heart toward Mamdani during an interview with WNYC’s Brian Lehrer on September 5. During the primary, Nadler said he would not back Mamdani because of his criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and what Nadler called Mamdani’s lack of experience. Nadler told Lehrer his decision to endorse Mamdani after he won the primary was a no-brainer.

“First, he was the Democratic nominee,” Nadler said. “Second, what are the alternatives? You have the mayor, who’s a crook, and you had Andrew Cuomo, whom I had said should resign from the governorship because he was a repeat sexual predator.”

Goldman, whose Manhattan district Mamdani won in June, endorsed state Sen. Zellnor Myrie before the primary and has said he has spoken with Mamdani but won’t endorse him without “concrete steps” to assuage fears from Jewish New Yorkers about hate crimes in the city. It’s not clear what further steps Goldman wants to see — Mamdani has repeatedly said he takes concerns about antisemitism seriously and that he would take steps to protect all of his constituents — Jewish and otherwise.

Clarke endorsed New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams before the primary. Meng, who did not make an endorsement prior to the primary, congratulated Mamdani on his win in June and a campaign that she said “built coalitions & mobilized underrepresented New Yorkers!” But she stopped short of endorsing Mamdani.

Gustavo Gordillo, co-chair of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America, which supports Mamdani’s campaign, condemned the party establishment for neglecting to rally behind Mamdani.

“Establishment Democrats have no plan to support the workers targeted by Trump’s agenda,” Gordillo said. “If establishment Democrats refuse to get behind Zohran, they’re not just rejecting the vision of an affordable NYC — they’re rejecting the 500,000 voters and counting who are behind Zohran.”

  • spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    the conspicuous lack of much corresponding effort by the same people to talk up Mamdani himself.

    who are “the same people” that you’re referring to?

    is “people” singular, or plural?

    how many people, specifically?

    because the last time I asked you for a concrete example to back up a sweeping claim like this, you brought up one guy who was a petty tyrant forum moderator you had a beef with. and you were still salty about the beef like a year later.

    making sure Kamala Harris lost the election, to teach the Democrats a lesson about genocide

    do you have any concrete evidence (preferably something more substantial than “Lemmy comment from a guy I got into an argument with a year ago”) that people not voting for Kamala because of Gaza actually changed the election outcome and caused Harris to lose?

    because…ballots are secret, right? you can’t actually know who someone voted for. they can tell you, but they’re not obligated to tell you the truth, they could lie.

    there are exit polls…but by the very nature of exit polls, you can’t capture people who stay home and don’t vote.

    every time I hear this argument about “Democrats who stayed home because of Gaza” it seems like they’re Schrodinger’s voting bloc: so large that it swung the entire election. but also, so small that Democrats were correct to not try to appeal to them (Umberto Eco has a principle that fascism requires an enemy that is simultaneously strong and weak…but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence)

    doesn’t come alongside making sure that Mamdani wins the election

    I live in Seattle. you’re saying I’ve been slacking off about making sure Mamdani wins? OK, tell me what I should do.

    • PhilipTheBucket@piefed.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      who are “the same people” that you’re referring to?

      is “people” singular, or plural?

      how many people, specifically?

      I gave an example elsewhere in this thread. Are you trying to say that there were not any people on Lemmy loudly saying that they weren’t going to vote for Democrats in the last election, because they needed to learn their lesson about supporting genocide? I am noting that I haven’t seen any of those people apply any of that vigor, now, to supporting Mamdani. That’s weird to me.

      because the last time I asked you for a concrete example to back up a sweeping claim like this, you brought up one guy who was a petty tyrant forum moderator you had a beef with. and you were still salty about the beef like a year later.

      I gave two concrete examples, one of which involved one guy, and the other of which involved multiple “guys.” You asserted that because I’d had semi related beef with one of the people involved, that meant the examples didn’t count. Okey dokey.

      do you have any concrete evidence (preferably something more substantial than “Lemmy comment from a guy I got into an argument with a year ago”) that people not voting for Kamala because of Gaza actually changed the election outcome and caused Harris to lose?

      I don’t think that happened. I do think that the overall aggregate of people believing a variety of nutty things about reasons not to vote for Kamala Harris (“Trump will fix the economy,” “immigration is a huge problem and Biden isn’t addressing it,” “Kamala Harris is responsible for the genocide in Gaza,” stuff like that) had a huge impact on the election. I’m just pushing back against one of those beliefs, but I don’t think that belief alone swung the election, no.

      I’m not sure you and me talking about this is going to be productive honestly. It seems like you’re kind of focused just on yelling at me and it seems a little unlikely that you’re going to respond to a detailed factual reply with anything like “Oh yeah I see your point” or anything along those lines.

      • spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Are you trying to say that there were not any people on Lemmy loudly saying that

        I haven’t seen any of those people apply any of that vigor

        I gave two concrete examples, one of which involved one guy, and the other of which involved multiple “guys.”

        I think you may be right that our conversations aren’t productive. but I think you’re wrong about the reason why.

        your entire political universe seems to be based around Lemmy comments. and I think that’s given you a staggeringly misleading view of the world.

        it seems a little unlikely that you’re going to respond to a detailed factual reply with anything like “Oh yeah I see your point”

        so when you’re talking about a “detailed factual reply” what I think you actually mean is “reply with lots of links to Lemmy comments”.

        and like, yes, the existence of a Lemmy comment that you disagreed with is a “fact”. possibly even multiple Lemmy comments that you disagreed with. wow, look at all those detailed facts.

        but you’re right that I’m not going to respond “yeah, you have a point” to that, because I fundamentally disagree about the premise of the point you’re trying to make. you could link to a million Lemmy comments you disagreed with and I’m not going to be convinced.

        because you’re making sweeping generalizations about American politics in general, and the behavior of left-wing voters in particular. and when asked for evidence, all you ever have is “look at these Lemmy comments”.

        you’re staring at the world through a paper-towel tube. Lemmy is a very small, non-representative sample of the population as a whole.

        doesn’t come alongside making sure that Mamdani wins the election

        I live in Seattle. you’re saying I’ve been slacking off about making sure Mamdani wins? OK, tell me what I should do.

        do you have an answer to this? you quoted and responded to the rest of my post, but this was a weird omission.

        because this sort of tracks with the overall point I’m making. this is a forward-looking question, it can’t be answered with “look at this Lemmy post from a year ago”.

        in particular, whatever you think I should do to help get Mamdani elected - does it revolve around “post on Lemmy about it”?

        • PhilipTheBucket@piefed.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          your entire political universe seems to be based around Lemmy comments. and I think that’s given you a staggeringly misleading view of the world.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA&t=139s

          The whole thesis of what I am saying here is that it’s weird that particular Lemmy commenters behaved in certain ways. I was only ever talking about Lemmy. You keep telling me that I believe (for example) that Kamala Harris lost because of Gaza protest voters, and I already explained how that’s not what I believe and explained the difference between the two domains in my view.

          I actually brought up a couple of examples applying to voters outside of Lemmy who operate on a much more normal wavelength (search for “immigration” to see them), contextualizing the tiny subset of voters on Lemmy within the broader context of the average voter who’s very unlike them.

          I live in Seattle. you’re saying I’ve been slacking off about making sure Mamdani wins? OK, tell me what I should do.

          do you have an answer to this? you quoted and responded to the rest of my post, but this was a weird omission.

          I don’t think my original point was about you. It was about people posting constantly on Lemmy, about not voting for Democrats, and specifically self-reporting that they were doing it to influence the Democrats to be better about Gaza, and then being quiet about Mamdani. If that’s not you, then nothing I was saying would apply to you. I actually agree with you that the overall impact of Lemmy is miniscule, like I said when I already contextualized it up above.

          I have no interest in this conversation anymore, that’s why I stopped quoting and responding to you in the middle of the reply. That paragraph up above is what I’ve been saying any number of times repeatedly, and it seems like you’re not into absorbing it, so oh well. If you ask me a direct question which you aren’t happy that I didn’t answer, then sure, I’m happy to, but the overall discussion I do not think can be productive within this format.