You can make a case that racial preferences for “under-represented minorities” (which everyone agrees does not apply to Mamdani) are important and necessary for a variety of reasons, ranging from representation in elite spaces or as a form of soft reparations. I have issues with some of that, but there is a theoretically coherent case. But if you believe that these policies are important, then you should defend them- and part of that defense is shame and social opprobrium for people who game and take advantage of these policies. Progressives who say that cases like this (and earlier ones, like Elizabeth Warren’s) should be waved away as unimportant are unwittingly strengthening a politics of cynicism that ultimately benefits conservatives.
Really bad take. There’s no evidence that Mamdani was trying to take someone’s space. He told his side of the story and I’ve seen nothing to refute it. He said his intent was to captive his rather unique heritage. You can question whether he should have done it and think it’s unfair for him to seem to claim something he’s not entitled to, but he didn’t get in to Columbia, so what’s the “scandal” here?
Cuomo absolutely knew abt MAMDANI fudging his college entrance application checking AFRICAN AMERICAN for his ethnicity. He chose not to use it because he was courting votes from the African American community & there was no way as a Democrat that he could spin it w/o it looking like he was attacking ''affirmative action '' or whatever you may call it.
The big takeaway from Mamdani's victory was a rejection of pitiable identity based politics in favor of just unapologetic policies that takeback the tax base for normal people.
It would be a very smart decision to go into the primary trying to attack his campaign with a pussyhat identity thing about university admissions. I think that will resonate really well with someone fucked off at how much they have to spend on busses
Biggest takeaways is that he ran a great social media blitz, is very smart(tho utterly dishonest 😂) & is up against some of the worst people in politics, ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC ADAMS, not named DONALD TRUMP or TED CRUZ or MITCH MCCONNELL or MARJORIE T GREENE. the rest of the democratic primary field was filled with capable (ADRIANNE ADAMS SCOTT STRINGER BRAD LANDER) govt officials w/zero name recognition & no social media buzz.
You may be underestimating how fast Zohran is pivoting out of old-left politics. His intifada defense pivoted to "look, how about we all just chill out on regulating speech constantly." Do you think voters are more likely to see that as hypocrisy, or see that as a deal worth taking? They looked past the intifada defense, and that seemed to extend even into the Jewish vote.
Jews and non Jews alike will not take kindly to his flirtations hard or soft with anti semitism, anti Zionism is often used by anti semitic people on both sides of the political extremes to push horrible things like Jew hatred & Holocaust denial.
The scandal is that at least half or more high profile affirmative action slots for blacks (Ivy League admissions, etc) go to African elites and not descendants of slaves.
This is just an even more egregious form since he’s not even black at all. I think Indians trying to pass as black because they are brown will continue to be a big issue going forward.
This is truly a non-story there is so much to be said about this man that the pick on this is trivial. If anything, you should criticize the admission policies of Columbia University that allows for this to happen. As much as I did test this man running for Maya your story is much too long, and it’s really as I noted above trivial
You can make a case that racial preferences for “under-represented minorities” (which everyone agrees does not apply to Mamdani) are important and necessary for a variety of reasons, ranging from representation in elite spaces or as a form of soft reparations. I have issues with some of that, but there is a theoretically coherent case. But if you believe that these policies are important, then you should defend them- and part of that defense is shame and social opprobrium for people who game and take advantage of these policies. Progressives who say that cases like this (and earlier ones, like Elizabeth Warren’s) should be waved away as unimportant are unwittingly strengthening a politics of cynicism that ultimately benefits conservatives.
Really bad take. There’s no evidence that Mamdani was trying to take someone’s space. He told his side of the story and I’ve seen nothing to refute it. He said his intent was to captive his rather unique heritage. You can question whether he should have done it and think it’s unfair for him to seem to claim something he’s not entitled to, but he didn’t get in to Columbia, so what’s the “scandal” here?
Cuomo absolutely knew abt MAMDANI fudging his college entrance application checking AFRICAN AMERICAN for his ethnicity. He chose not to use it because he was courting votes from the African American community & there was no way as a Democrat that he could spin it w/o it looking like he was attacking ''affirmative action '' or whatever you may call it.
The big takeaway from Mamdani's victory was a rejection of pitiable identity based politics in favor of just unapologetic policies that takeback the tax base for normal people.
It would be a very smart decision to go into the primary trying to attack his campaign with a pussyhat identity thing about university admissions. I think that will resonate really well with someone fucked off at how much they have to spend on busses
Biggest takeaways is that he ran a great social media blitz, is very smart(tho utterly dishonest 😂) & is up against some of the worst people in politics, ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC ADAMS, not named DONALD TRUMP or TED CRUZ or MITCH MCCONNELL or MARJORIE T GREENE. the rest of the democratic primary field was filled with capable (ADRIANNE ADAMS SCOTT STRINGER BRAD LANDER) govt officials w/zero name recognition & no social media buzz.
You may be underestimating how fast Zohran is pivoting out of old-left politics. His intifada defense pivoted to "look, how about we all just chill out on regulating speech constantly." Do you think voters are more likely to see that as hypocrisy, or see that as a deal worth taking? They looked past the intifada defense, and that seemed to extend even into the Jewish vote.
Jews and non Jews alike will not take kindly to his flirtations hard or soft with anti semitism, anti Zionism is often used by anti semitic people on both sides of the political extremes to push horrible things like Jew hatred & Holocaust denial.
They did take kindly though. Votes were cast and counted.
The scandal is that at least half or more high profile affirmative action slots for blacks (Ivy League admissions, etc) go to African elites and not descendants of slaves.
This is just an even more egregious form since he’s not even black at all. I think Indians trying to pass as black because they are brown will continue to be a big issue going forward.
This is truly a non-story there is so much to be said about this man that the pick on this is trivial. If anything, you should criticize the admission policies of Columbia University that allows for this to happen. As much as I did test this man running for Maya your story is much too long, and it’s really as I noted above trivial