Is that against the rules or something?

Mamdani doesn't "run candidates." He supported a candidate who was running for office.

But thanks.

No one answered that question, for what reason did Mamdani back Goldman's opponent.

And butt thanks to you too.

He was clearly doing something and holding some beliefs that were out of step with his constituents.

Last edited Fri Jun 26, 2026, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)

support for Israel.

But honestly I think way too much is being made of Mamdani’s endorsements. I believe the primaries in NY simply reflect an electorate that is moving farther to the left in response to the atrocities of the drumpf regime, and one that is furious at a lack of fight from incumbents in Congress to counter drumpf (real or perceived).

Not saying the endorsements didn’t help those people, just that they only accelerated a train that was already in motion.

out of 13 in the city and 26 in the state. Big deal.

But we've seen a leftwards shift in the party. It probably is reflective of where more of the party is. In the same way that Republicans started having a more rightwards shift in who won their primaries. Particularly in districts where the general elections aren't even a little competitive, primary candidates have an incentive to move to where primary voters are. People who vote in primaries tend to be less moderate.

Obviously won't be the case in every district, but with the gerrymandering, we're likely to see more of it.

One Mayor in a deep blue city and he barely got over 50%, a city where Harris got over 60% of the vote a year before. And wins in 3 deep blue districts out of 13 in the city and 26 in the state does not show a leftwards shift in the party. If you look across the entire county and not just one small area of one city there are no signs of a leftward shift at all. Spanberger's and Sherrill's victories in 25 is evidence of that.

Not apples to apples

a disgraced former governor who was highly disliked and a nutjob who most considered a joke. Not apples to apples but no election ever is.

of many members of the Democratic party.

Let's not diminish Mamdani's electoral success. He didn't underperform Harris.

Here are Mamdani's endorsments:

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3682832

Wonder how that impacted Mamdani's numbers?

That probably split the liberal vote and as why Kamala Harris got more votes but that is slightly misleading. In that same election AOC got more votes than Harris in her district in 2024.

As far as Spanberger her approval ratings are going down. Compared to figures like Mamdani & others they remain popular with the entire Democratic party rather than just those few districts.

who was forced to resign. Liberals didn’t like Cuomo. He had very conservative policies as Governor.

The point is one election in one city or district should not be seen as representative of the entire country. Every election is different. Different location. Different candidates. Different issues. Different voters.

But we still talk about TR as synonymous with the earlier Progressive movement, as if he singlehandedly orchestrated the whole thing.

The revolution to excise the republicon illiberalism out of the Democratic peoples party.

Both for Democrats and for NYC.

A reason? Again, I refer you to the end of “The Stepford Wives,” where the town’s wealthy men had their wives replaced by advanced, obedient robots, and the last one, just before her replacement robot kills her, asks her husband: “why?” He answers simply: “because we can.”

I.e. we had the power to do it, so we used it. Did it improve anything? Well, what does that have to do with anything?

If Goldman was so fucking great, the people would have elected him. Democracy seems to hurt some feelings sometimes.

I see—just like if Connor Lamb was so fucking great, how come Fetterman won the primary. You obviously think that Pennsylvania Democrats did the right thing in picking Fetterman in their primary. I don’t see it that way.

I also think the country did badly with Cheney-Bush over Gore and over Kerry. Same with Trump over Hillary and Harris. As with the film, the manipulators make the robots, and the victims realize too late they’ve been pawns in a scheme. Touting a candidate who called Joe Biden a rapist, for example, is touting someone I will thankfully never have to vote for. If that is a “progressive,” I have a different definition of “progress.” Chacun à son goût.

which is a Democratic primary. Fettermen had a stroke. He sucks now but I'm not demeaning Pennsylvania Democratic voters who voted for him by analogizing them to irrational robots. That was your style.

And makes people Stepford husbands?

How does that work?

All republicans are evil and corrupt.

I see nothing wrong with that.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Brad%20Lander%20platform&ko=-1&ia=web

Last edited Fri Jun 26, 2026, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

he was a strong supporter of Israel. Lander refused AIPAC money and ran on a more pro Palestinian platform.

won his primary when there were a number of more progressive candidates running and split the vote. That wasn’t the case this time. He got pretty much the same percentage of the vote as last time.

I don't live in that district and wouldn't know who to vote for if I did. Both Lander and Goldman are good democrats.

..with my very politically engaged daughter, young people see Netanyahu and our support of him as a Deal Breaker! And so do I..

have been so benificial to democrats in the past and didn't give us Bush and Trump.

test?

in the fall election because of Israel policy is a purity test and it handed the election to Trump in 24.

here.

The person I replied to didn't specify that it only applied to primaries.

Thanks for the heads up. I've corrected.

Mamdani is a force for change. Lander is well known and has played his cards well. The former ambivalence to AIPAC has waned and Lander picked the better side.
Voting is emotional and New York reflects its sentiments about the status quo.
Suspect Schumer and Jeffries are very aware.

Who also wanted to be Mayor (and was highly qualified for the job) but saw the writing on the wall as Mamdani soared in the polls. He dropped out, wholeheartedly endorsed Mamdani and. enthusiastically campaigned with him. As a popular Jewish Democrat his endorsement was no small thing and it seems obvious that in return Mamdani agreed to give his support to Lander for his next career move.

I don't have any insider knowledge about this, but from my observation, Lander was a major player in Mamdani's mayoral campaign, and helped Mamdani to get elected. For going out on a limb and supporting Mamdani, the political payoff for Lander was that when he wanted to run for Congress, Mamdani returned the favor and backed him. This was an easy choice for Mamdani, because not only was he returning a favor, Lander was running to the left of Goldman, and if he won, would be an ally to Mamdani in Congress as they had both helped each other to win important races.

That's a pretty normal state of affairs in politics everywhere. I'm not sure this was a case of "Mamdani running a candidate against Goldman" was it? As far as I know it was Lander's choice to run. Democrats like Elizabeth Warren also endorsed Lander.

Mamdani surely had nothing against Goldman personally, and this was a case of “you scratched my back, so I’ll scratch yours.”

Mamdani did not scratch all the backs that scratched his. Maybe he just thought Lander was the better candidate.

and won easily? Must be something, right?

He endorsed candidates who were already running.

Goldman lost by a massive margin, so clearly his heroics as an impeachment prosecutor didn’t transfer to support from his congressional constituents.

Mamdani did not orchestrate Lander's run, Lander would won without a 'mayor Mamdani' anyway, and the result was also a large repudiation of the RW billionaire-funded AIPAC and the Israeli lobby overall constant attempts to put their anti-progressive thumbs on the scale in our Democratic primaries and in general elections where they endorse Rethug MAGAts.

The war criminal Netanyahu and his ultra RW war criminal government's butchery, genocidal/ethnic clesnsing actions and expansionism in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, etc have turned the US electorate overall (especially indies and even more so Democrats) against Israel and in favour of the Palestinian people.

Also, NY-10 itself is VERY progressive. The only reason Goldman first won (in 2022) was because so many progressives foolishly all ran and split the vote, allowing Goldman to win the seat by winning only 25.8 per cent of the vote in the primary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York#District_10





In 2024, no serious candidate ran against Goldman, and yet he still only got 66.1 per cent of the vote in the primary.



In 2026, once Lander got in, no other major progressive ran against him (and Goldman) in the primary, so Lander easily beat Goldman.

Goldman did not connect with his district's voters anymore who are struggling to make ends meet.

cut it for many voters. That voters - God Forbid - might actually expect their representatives to focus on substantive legislation that will improve their lives. The biggest pitch for Goldman was his heroics in the first impeachment - and what exactly did that first impeachment truly accomplish? Was Trump convicted and removed from office? NO. Did it so cripple Trump politically that he was never able to attain a second term as president? NO - it didn't do that either.

Lander likely was just following his own personal political ambitions.

Telling voters to rank them 1 and 2 on Ballots. They even did talk show appearances together. When Mamdani won the primary, Lander endorsed him and campaigned for him. So Mamdani's endorsment this year was probably a quid pro quo so to speak.

In fact I said this:

that Lander won. Is that so?

It's not my district. Both Lander and Golden are good democrats so the district will be well represented.

Time to focus on November.

so odd

Link to Mamdani running a candidate.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. Don't Trumpify this into something that its not.

Maybe, if you had said, why did he support... instead of ran. I'm pretty sure that's what you meant.

At any rate, I too was surprised at the "defeat" of Goldman because I recall how much he was praised here during the Jan6 hearings... but beyond that, I don't really follow NY politics.

I appreciate all the replies that actually answered your question.

I'm sorry so many thought it was a good idea to just respond with snark. It's not helpful.

My intent was to understand the dynamics of the election result but apparently it touched a nerve for some.

I do appreciate the OP's question. I have viewed Goldman favorably. I believe he is competent, ethical, moral and well-intentioned. My answer to the question is that we are at a moment of existential crisis in this country and we need to replace people who are simply competent and decent with people who will fight like hell to save our country. Goldman gave some good speeches, but he seemed to fit right into the status quo crowd that has come to dominate the old guard of NY politics.

The candidates that Mamdani endorsed all won by HUGE margins. And I would point out that the old guard of New York lost many seats in 2024, So that begs the question of what it means to be "left" or "center".

"Left" of what? The old guard (with help from Republicans and other RW organizations that we aren't allowed to name here) characterized Mamdani and all his associates as "socialists", "communists", and "leftsts"

But if they are so "left of center", how do they win in landslides of 60-30? How does a "radically left of center" candidate like Platner win 70-20? By definition, the candidate that gets 60% or even 70% is obviously directly in the center of what the public is feeling, It is the losers who are out of line, far away from the center.

We are at a moment in our history when the people are outraged. They are angry about the concentration of wealth and power. They are angry about the massive criminality that some Democrats don't seem to want to even fight. They are angry about AI, inflation, data centers, the cost of housing, day care, health care, the Iran war, the Venezuenlan atrocities, Greeenland and the loss of our Constitutional form of government, All these things. Candidates that brush these things off deserve to lose.

The Washington Heights race was relatively close.

When a candidate gets the majority of votes, they are BY DEFINITION in the center.

We need to stop playing along with these word games by the radical right and do-nothing "centerists".

If you wwin, then you are in teh center. Period. Full stop.

By today’s standards, Dwight Eisenhower would be considered a far leftist.

By the fascists and billionaires who have contempt for just about every bit of our Constitution? Yes, for sure.

But Eisenhower would probably win in 2028 in a landslide if he were here because people understood him and trusted him to govern fairly and wisely.

We simply have not been given many choices like Eisenhower since then.

These modern(ish) Presidents all were in the middle of live action serving in the military:

* Harry S. Truman
* Dwight D. Eisenhower
* John F. Kennedy
* Lyndon B. Johnson
* Richard Nixon
* Gerald Ford
* George H.W. Bush

None since then, although Bob Dole, John Kerry and Jon McCain ran for President.

Just endorsed somebody.

Goldman and Mandami didn't quite have the same Democratic vision of the future?

As a party, we can look at those differences as a wedge or a net.
Politics is Society's Public Transit.
I'd rather vote for a candidate who will do the job to take us all in the general direction we all voted on and paid them to go, then to take off on scary detours to add to their own profit and not care about the safety or well-being of those who hired them.
Mandami, like Fiorello before him, has a right to his own opinion on who will serve most of New York better.

Mamdani was repaying the favor to Lander and others that backed him. I don't think there was anything personal against Goldman, he just liked Lander.

Not his fault the candidates he endorsed won. If they all lost they would all be talking about how his endorsements have no power or actually hurt the candidates.

candidate. Competition is good. This country was founded on competition,

Lander lost the primary, they ran campaigning to rank each other as 1 or 2.

Those are two different things.