New York City mayoral election could be a 4 or 5-way race in November
As the mayoral race heat up in New York, residents are facing a contest not quite like any other.
Polling suggests the June 24 Democratic primary is a two-person race between a young social media darling and a disgraced former governor, but it is only the prelude to a four or five-way race in the November general election.
Notably absent from the primary ballot is incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who has dropped out of the primary to run as an independent in the general election.
And Adams won't be the only independent candidate in November. In addition to attorney Jim Walden, Cuomo is also on the November ballot as the nominee of the newly invented Fight and Deliver Party ballot line and he will continue that campaign even if he loses the Democratic nomination. Likewise, Mamdani is the candidate of the Working Families Party and he may run on that in the fall even if he loses the Democratic primary.
Because both Mamdani and Cuomo are affiliated with other parties, if one emerges victorious in the Democratic primary, it doesn't automatically eliminate the other. If, for example, Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist, pulls off an upset against Cuomo, the former governor could challenge him again in November, attempting to coalesce the support of independents and moderate Democrats.
If, however, Cuomo emerges victorious, Mamandi could run against him again in November on the left-wing Working Families Party ticket.
And then there is the Republican nominee, longtime local gadly Curtis Sliwa, best known for founding the Guardian Angels anti-crime vigilante organization.
Adams has seen sagging approval numbers since his 2024 criminal indictment on federal corruption charges. He subsequently aligned himself increasingly with Trump, whose Department of Justice dropped the charges.
With Adams' approval rating around 20%, the general election could end up being another contest with Mamdani and Cuomo in the lead.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court hands Trump a win on Consumer Product Safety Commission firings
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump can fire three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission for now the Supreme Court said on July 23 in the latest decision boosting the ability of the president to control independent agencies. The ruling was made over the objections of the court's three liberal justices. 'Once again, this Court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote. "By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another." The five-member regulatory commission, created by Congress in 1972, aims to keep people from being injured or killed by defective or harmful products. Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate in staggered seven-year terms to protect them from political or industry pressure and to protect the agency from abrupt changes in composition. By law, commissioners can be removed only for 'neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.' But, in May, Trump fired without cause the three members appointed by President Joe Biden: Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. A federal judge in Maryland ordered the commissioners reinstated, saying the threat to public safety from removing them outweighed any hardship the administration might suffer from keeping them on while the firings are being challenged. In his June ruling, U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox also said the product safety commission is similar in structure and function to another independent agency that was the center of a landmark 1935 ruling − Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. − limiting the ability of the president to remove independent agency officials. 'Humphrey's Executor remains good law and is binding on this Court,' Maddox wrote. But the Trump administration said Maddox instead should've taken his cue from the Supreme Court's May decision allowing the president to fire Democratic members of two federal labor boards while the former members challenge their dismissals. The product safety commission is now effectively controlled by Biden's appointees even though Trump is president, lawyers for the government said in a filing. Decisions made by the commissioners who are 'hostile' to Trump's agenda have 'thrown the agency into chaos and have put agency staff in the untenable position of deciding which Commissioners' directives to follow,' the Justice Department said. Attorneys for the three commissioners appointed by Biden reminded the Supreme Court that the justices twice in the past year declined to review appeals court decisions that upheld restrictions on the president's ability to remove Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. And Maddox, the district judge, noted that the term of one of the three Biden appointees expires in October, giving Trump the chance to appoint her successor and to 'exert significant influence over the agency.'
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Dem Senator Elissa Slotkin complains party is too worried about ‘p—ing off' the Internet
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., says that Democrats are too worried about making people angry and that they 'constrain' themselves too much. During an interview last week on PBS's 'Firing Line with Margaret Hoover,' Hoover asked Slotkin about President Barack Obama's recent criticism of Democrats, where he said that his party should 'toughen up.' 'President Obama chided Democrats, saying they need to 'toughen up' against Donald Trump. You have said we need more 'alpha energy' in the Democratic Party,' Hoover told Slotkin. Slotkin agreed, and Hoover asked if she and Obama are 'saying the same thing.' 'I don't know if we're saying the exact same thing, but it sort of smells the same, right,' Slotkin said. 'And I think this idea that Democrats are so careful, and they're so caveated, and they're so worried about offending each other, offending other people, they're so worried about pissing off people on the Internet. They live often in a world where they constrain themselves.' Hoover then asked if Democrats are 'too sensitive.' 'I think some of them, sure, are too sensitive,' Slotkin said. 'And this is, to me, the central point, especially with Donald Trump in the White House, this is just not a moment to be careful and polite. We need a plan. We need to be on the same page. We need to play as a team. We need to call out when someone isn't helping the team. And we need to hug someone when they do something great.' 3 'They're so worried about pissing off people on the Internet,' Senator Slotkin said about Democrats. 'They live often in a world where they constrain themselves.' PBS 3 Slotkin agreed with Barack Obama's statement that the party should 'toughen up.' 'It sort of smells the same, right,' Slotkin said. Getty Images The PBS host asked Slotkin if she was saying that Republicans are afraid of Trump, and if Democrats 'fear each other's factions.' Slotkin responded by saying that some 'fear' backlash on X, still often referred to as its former name Twitter. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 'You know, I've been shocked — you know, I'm new to the Senate, six months in — how many of my peers said, 'Well, Elissa, I'd love to be with you on that issue, but, you know, Twitter will be mad. You know, the Internet people will be mad at me,'' Slotkin said. 'They literally say that,' Hoover asked. 3 'Especially with Donald Trump in the White House, this is just not a moment to be careful and polite,' the sentor said. 'We need a plan.' AP 'Yeah. There'll be a bad online response,' Slotkin admitted. Obama's 'toughen up' comments referenced by Hoover were made at a fundraiser in July where he said Democrats should complain less.
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court lets Trump fire federal product safety commissioners, liberal justices dissent
The Supreme Court on Wednesday paved the way for President Trump to fire three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) — the second time the justices have allowed Trump's terminations at independent agencies to go into effect. The emergency order lifts a lower court's ruling that determined the firings were unlawful and effectively ordered the reinstatement of commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. as the litigation progresses. The majority pointed to its May emergency ruling greenlighting Trump firing members of two other independent agencies, saying the CPSC did not differ in 'any pertinent respect.' 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned order reads. The three justices appointed by Democratic presidents publicly dissented, saying their colleagues had 'negated Congress's choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.' 'By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another. Respectfully, I dissent,' wrote Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The decision marks an immediate victory for the Trump administration, which has looked to vastly expand executive power since Trump returned to the White House. The administration has sought to eviscerate removal protections for members of independent agencies throughout the government, pushing back on a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent that cleared the way for Congress to establish those protections. The new order marks the second time the justices have intervened to permit Trump's firings of independent agency leaders. In May, the justices cleared the way for Trump to fire National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said lower courts still haven't gotten the message, including when U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox later blocked Trump's termination of the three CPSC members. Sauer urged the Supreme Court to firmly settle the issue by leapfrogging the lower courts to take up the CPSC case on their normal docket. 'This case illustrates that the sooner this Court resolves the merits of this application and decides foundational questions about the scope of the President's removal authority, the better,' Sauer wrote in the application. The majority declined to do so, instead sending the case back to the lower courts. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's second appointee to the court, said he would've taken that additional step. He warned his colleagues may leave 'extended uncertainty and confusion' about whether the court will overrule the precedent. 'Moreover, when the question is whether to narrow or overrule one of this Court's precedents rather than how to resolve an open or disputed question of federal law, further percolation in the lower courts is not particularly useful,' Kavanaugh wrote. The CPSC commissioners, appointed by former President Biden, were let go earlier this year. Trump did not purport to have cause to fire them, despite federal law providing independent agencies across the federal bureaucracy with for-cause removal protections. CPSC commissioners cannot be fired by the president except for 'neglect of duty or malfeasance in office' under federal law. Similar setups exist for a handful of other agencies, providing a degree of independence from the political impulses of the White House. The commissioners, represented by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, urged the justices to stay out of the case. 'The government now asks this Court to disrupt the status quo and enter a stay that would prevent the Commissioners from serving in the roles that the district court held they are entitled to occupy and that they have in fact been occupying for the last month. The government cannot establish its entitlement to this extraordinary relief,' the group's attorneys wrote in court filings.
