Just because a politician uses simple and catchy language doesn’t mean there isn’t policy substance behind it. Democrats have been losing for years trying to explain complicated macroeconomics to their voting base, Mamdani is one of the young democratic candidates who is a breath of fresh air.
Democrats have also been losing on social justice issues while ignoring the actual economic concerns of the poor. Well, is "there shouldn't be billionaires" a social justice slogan, or is it going to actually help the poor in some way? I think it's more a social justice slogan.
So we're back at "slogan, with no substance".
That’s like saying you need substance to back up a slogan like “criminals shouldn’t break into my house.”
I think voters understand intuitively why billionaires shouldn’t exist.
Cuomo was a terrible candidate.
I’ll also remind you that this is a mayoral race. The pew research numbers I’m citing are for president of the United States.
I am quite aware that Cuomo is a terrible candidate, that doesn’t take away from Mamdani being a very good candidate in terms of his effectiveness at conveying his message and building a coalition.
Of course none of us know yet whether he will be a good mayor.
You say Democrats just want to promise freebies so I’ll give you a fun challenge: find me the last Republican Congress that passed a budget that reduced the growth of the national deficit.
I’ll give you a hint there, it’s not the Tax Cut and Jobs Act nor the Big Beautiful Bill.
Meanwhile, Medicare for All was estimated by the congressional budget office (nonpartisan) to save money.
I hate to break it to you but that's the exact same playbook used by the current administration.