Muslim candidate Zohran Mamdani wins New York Democratic mayoral primary in stunning upset
"It always seems impossible until it is done," he said,
"Tonight we made history," Mr Mamdani added amid a round of cheers and applause from supporters.
Peter Yacobucci, a political science professor at Buffalo State University said that Mr Mamdani's victory sends a message to establishment Democrats who might be failing to properly read the mood of the electorate.
"It isn't 1990s anymore and recycling the old will no longer win," he said, referring to efforts by some to make make Democrats take increasingly centrist positions on various issues.
Prof Yacobucci also said that Mr Mamdani's genuine campaign style and fearless use of social media should also be taken note of by party leaders.
"Authenticity wins over scripted normalcy and if leadership does believe that Trump is a significant threat to our democracy they must embrace a new vision," he explained.
Besides being a stunning upset, the results from Tuesday's Democratic primary are also historic in the sense that New York City is now one step closer to electing its first Muslim mayor.
Ultimately, voters faced a choice between the two top candidates: former New York governor Andrew Cuomo and his main challenger, Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim socialist state assembly member who was born in Uganda.
In the first round of ranked-choice voting, Mr Mamdani won 43.5 per cent of the vote and Mr Cuomo 36.3 per cent, according to preliminary results from the city Board of Elections with more than 93 per cent of the ballots counted. Coming in third place on the first round was city comptroller Brad Lander, at 11.4 per cent. Mr Lander and Mr Mamdani had cross-endorsed each other.
It is a groundbreaking show by Mamdani, a 33-year-old Queens assemblyman who rose out of relative obscurity in recent weeks.
Technically, the result is not yet official. Under the city's ranked-choice system, a candidate is declared the winner after receiving more than 50 per cent of the votes.
In each round, a candidate will be eliminated and their voters' No 2 choice will be distributed to the remaining candidates. The process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority. The next rounds of tallying votes are scheduled for July 1.
Voting took place in sweltering heat and as the Big Apple tightens security after the US bombed Iran at the weekend.
The election also became a microcosm of New Yorkers' views on ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, with Mr Cuomo pledging support for Israel as Mr Mamdani criticised the country's wars in Gaza and Iran.
Mr Mamdani, who will likely continue to cruise to victory in the Democratic primary will face incumbent mayor Eric Adams, who won the 2021 election as a Democrat but is running this time as an independent.
Polls had largely shown Mr Cuomo ahead, but an Emerson College survey released on Monday showed Mr Mamdani prevailing in the city's complex ranked-choice voting system.
This operates as a series of instant run-offs, in which the candidate in last place is eliminated and his or her votes redistributed based on voters' second choice. That process is repeated until a winner is decided.
Mr Mamdani hopes his platform of rent freezes and free child care, funded through heavy borrowing, will help voters look past his limited political experience as a state politician.
If victorious, Mr Mamdani stands a good chance in heavily Democratic New York of winning the general election in November.
He recently accused Mr Cuomo of Islamophobia, claiming that a political action committee supporting the former New York governor had doctored a photo of Mr Mamdani, artificially lengthening and darkening his beard.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Zawya
an hour ago
- Zawya
Oil climbs on EU trade deal, potential US-China tariff truce extension
Oil extended gains on Tuesday, lifted by hopes of improved economic activity after the U.S.-EU trade deal, a potential U.S.-China tariff truce and President Donald Trump's shorter deadline for Russia to end the Ukraine war. Brent crude futures were up 24 cents, or 0.34%, to $70.28 a barrel by 0000 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude was at $66.93 a barrel, up 22 cents, or 0.33%. Both contracts settled more than 2% higher in the previous session, and Brent touched its highest level since July 18 on Monday. The trade agreement between the United States and the European Union, while imposing a 15% import tariff on most EU goods, sidestepped a full-blown trade war between the two major allies that would have rippled across nearly a third of global trade and dimmed the outlook for fuel demand. Oil prices were also supported by news of a possible extension of the trade truce between the U.S. and China, with top economic officials from both countries having met in Stockholm on Monday for more than five hours of talks. The discussions are expected to resume on Tuesday. Meanwhile, Trump set a new deadline on Monday of "10 or 12 days" for Russia to make progress toward ending the war in Ukraine or face sanctions. Trump has threatened sanctions on both Russia and buyers of its exports unless progress is made. "Trump's comments reignited fears that Russia's oil flows would be impacted," ANZ senior commodity strategist Daniel Hynes wrote in a note. "This also comes on the back of the latest sanctions package by the EU against Russia, including a lower price cap on the country's crude and the import of refined products made from Moscow's oil in other countries," Hynes added. (Reporting by Anjana Anil in Bengaluru; Editing by Jamie Freed)
The National
an hour ago
- The National
US politics has become a contest between billionaire-funded entities drawing voters to their brands
American political parties are in disarray. Instead of being the engines that organise and drive the country's politics, their roles have been supplanted by partisan social media influencers, non-profit political groups, super political action committees (super Pacs) - and the billionaires who fund them and consultant groups they hire. A few generations ago, it was the political parties who organised politics. In many communities there was an organic connection between the parties and their members. The parties provided structure and access and some benefits to those who belonged to and participated in their work. That is no longer the case for most Americans. Today the parties have become 'brands' to which voters are asked to identify. They are fundraising vehicles raising money for party operations and the consultant groups who now provide the 'services' — message testing, voter data files, advertising and communications. In other words, the connection between most voters and political parties are largely limited to a loose identification with the brand and to being on lists for fundraising emails, text messages, social media posts or robo-calls asking for money or votes. While these efforts do raise some funds, the amounts pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions contributed by billionaire donors who fill the coffers of the parties and the increasingly powerful liberal or conservative 'unaffiliated' interest groups and political action committees. It has been reported that in the 2024 presidential contest one of these liberal independent committees raised and spent almost as much as Kamala Harris's campaign (about $1 billion) on messaging that was sometimes at cross purposes with the Harris campaign they were supposedly backing. Republican independent expenditure groups did much the same, with one spending a quarter of a billion dollars targeting Arab and Jewish voters with disinformation mailings and ads designed to suppress their votes. In the end, the billions spent by the campaigns and the independent groups deluged voters with messages and counter-messages causing confusion and alienation. Even when the parties provided funding to consultants to make personal contact with voters by hiring canvassers to go door to door or phone banks to call voter lists, the efforts were perfunctory and unconvincing because the canvassers or callers had no organic ties to the voters they were engaging. This is in marked contrast to decades ago when the canvassers and callers were local elected party captains engaging their neighbours with whom they had personal ties. This lack of organic connection with voters, the weakness of the party infrastructures, and the barrage of television, social media and other forms of digital messaging are some of the reasons why party identification is at an all-time low, with 43 per cent of Americans now identifying as independent and Republicans and Democrats tied at 27 per cent each. The parties have also lost their role in governing their electoral operations to the billionaires and interest groups. Look at the role they played in defeating congressional Democratic incumbents in the last election or how billionaire donors are stepping over the will of Democratic voters in New York City's upcoming mayoral race. During the primary contest, these interests spent $30 million in advertising in at attempt to smear and defeat a progressive candidate, Zohran Mamdani. Now, despite Mr Mamdani's decisive win as the Democratic Party candidate, the same billionaires have pooled their money to support an independent in the November election. To date, Democratic officials have not criticised this move. The party has a rule stipulating that consultants who work against Democratic voter-endorsed incumbents or candidates will not be eligible for party-funded contracts. This sanction has not been applied to those groups that accepted contracts to defeat pro-Palestinian incumbent congressional Democrats, a clear demonstration of the 'official' party's weakness in the face of billionaire spending. After losing 1,200 federal and state legislative seats during the Barack Obama era and suffering defeats in two of the last three presidential elections, I was initially optimistic to see two headlines in The New York Times last week, one of which read: 'Democrats Are Mulling a 2026 Campaign Pivot: 'We Need to Rethink Things'.' It appears that autopsies are being conducted to understand why Democrats are losing. After reading the piece, however, it became clear that some of the groups conducting the autopsies are the very independent expenditure-funded consultants that are the source of the problem. Their solution: better message testing, better use of social media and digital messaging, etc. In other words, pay us more and we'll dig the hole deeper. No lessons learnt. Parties need to reform and reconnect with and earn the trust of voters by rebuilding their state and local infrastructures What needs to happen and is still not on the agenda is for the parties to reform and reconnect with and earn the trust of voters by rebuilding their state and local infrastructures. There is a push in that direction being made in the Democratic Party by some of its newly elected leaders. Spurred on by party reformers, they have greatly increased the funds being given to state parties, reducing the amounts sent to outside consultants. But as long as the billionaire-funded groups remain the dominant players in the political process, the Democratic reformers will continue to face an uphill battle to wrest back control over elections and party affairs. Meanwhile, the Republican side appears to be a lost cause. US President Donald Trump and his Maga movement have been able to take advantage of the weakness of their party's organisation forcing it to submit and transforming it into a wholly owned Trump subsidiary. Republicans who opposed Mr Trump's conquest have either been demeaned and silenced or drifted away to form PACs that have focused their resources on 'anti-Trump' advertising campaigns which while celebrated by some Democrats have had no impact on rebuilding the Republican Party. The bottom line is that American politics has become less a battle between two competing organised political parties and more a contest between billionaire-funded entities waging virtual campaigns attempting to lure voters to endorse their 'brands'. Until a significant effort is made to regulate the corrosive role of big money in politics, this will continue as will voter disaffection and alienation.
The National
12 hours ago
- The National
EU-US tariff deal draws mixed reaction with French calling it 'submission'
US President Donald Trump's tariff deal with the European Union drew mixed reviews from the bloc's leaders, with some criticising the agreement that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen struck. As part of the deal, the EU will pay a 15 per cent tariff on most goods, including cars, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. The rate is half of what Mr Trump had previously threatened to impose on imports from the bloc. The EU also agreed to purchase billions of dollars worth of US energy and weapons as part of the deal which also involves no tariffs on US exports to Europe. The EU defended the deal on Monday. 'I'm 100 per cent sure that this deal is better than a trade war with the United States,' Reuters reported EU trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic as saying. Ms von der Leyen said it was the 'best we could get'. Other leaders across the bloc, however, were less enthusiastic. 'It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission,' French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou wrote on X. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has a close relationship with Mr Trump, said the EU Commissioner did not stand a chance against the US President. 'It wasn't a deal that President Donald Trump made with Ursula von der Leyen. It was Donald Trump eating Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast,' he said on his podcast. The agreement was the latest announced by Washington in Mr Trump's attempts to reset the country's trade relations with its partners. As well as Japan, he announced deals with the UK and Vietnam, and has agreed to a truce with China under which the two economic powers will drastically lower tariffs on each other while negotiations continue. The EU-US agreement was similar to the one Mr Trump made with Japan, in which he set his so-called reciprocal tariffs at 15 per cent. Military dimensions "That was the template for this deal but that does not completely explain why the EU had to sign this deal,' Simon J Evenett, professor at IMD Business School in Lausanne, told The National. 'The principal reason the EU had to sign this deal is because of the continued US military support for Ukraine. That is the geopolitical overlay which created the imperative for the EU signing this deal. "Halving the tariff rate on the bloc would be an obvious attractive proposition for EU exporters, but we should be under no illusion about the importance of the military dimension here.' Together, the EU and US represent about 30 per cent of global trade in goods and services and 43 per cent of global gross domestic product, according to figures from the European Council and the Council of the EU. The EU and US trade in goods last year was valued at €867 billion ($1.01 trillion), with total transatlantic trade in goods and services valued at more than €1.68 trillion, the councils said. Leaders from Sweden and Denmark joined Mr Orban and Mr Bayrou in expressing disappointment with the agreement. Sweden's Minister for Foreign Trade Benjamin Dousa noted that the deal would bring the highest tariff rate on Europe in nearly eight decades. 'The agreement doesn't make anyone richer but it may be the least bad option," he said on X. "Increased tariffs are primarily paid by the country's own citizens, which is why most wealthy countries have lowered tariffs against the rest of the world over the past 100 years." Some members of the bloc, however, defended the deal for bringing some clarity to the trade tension between the US and EU. 'This agreement has succeeded in averting a trade conflict that would have hit the export-orientated German economy hard,' Reuters quoted German Chancellor Friedrich Merz as saying. Finland's Prime Minister Petteri Orpo also said the agreement brings 'much-needed predictability' to Finnish companies and the world economy. 'Work must continue to dismantle trade barriers. Only free transatlantic trade benefits both sides the most,' he wrote. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who also has a friendly relationship with Mr Trump, said she considers it 'positive that there is an agreement'. 'But if I don't see the details I am not able to judge it in the best way,' she said.
