New York Primary results: Who is winning Mayoral Democratic primary?
Democratic primary
for mayor of
New York
City has shifted into an urgent final footrace to push every last supporter in the five boroughs to the polls with elections are scheduled to be held on Tuesday. The nearly dozen Democratic candidates fanned out across the city Saturday, but most eyes were on the two front-runners, former Governor Andrew Cuomo and state Assembly member Zohran Mamdani, and the vastly different approaches they were taking to try to tip the outcome, as per a report.
67-year-old Cuomo is a moderate and reprising an old, and conspicuously expensive, playbook he has used in statewide races. While his super political action committee pounds Mamdani with millions of dollars in negative commercials and mail, he appears to be largely relying on labor unions and paid canvassers to carry his message to subway stops and doorways, NYT News Service reported.
The number represents the membership of the unions that have endorsed Cuomo, but on the streets and sidewalks, 33-year-old Mamdani, a democratic socialist, may have more muscle.
Despite working with a fraction of the former governor's budget, Mamdani has harnessed a wave of energy from mostly young, left-leaning voters with little precedent in modern New York politics. He claims to have 46,000 unpaid volunteers who have helped his campaign knock on 1.3 million doors so far.
He also collected more than 27,000 individual donations, two-thirds more than his closest rival, Brad Lander, the city comptroller, and several times Cuomo's total of 6,300.
Live Events
On Thursday, Mamdani sought to contrast his approach with Cuomo's, telling reporters in Queens that "politics is not something that can simply be bought by billionaires and corporations."
Campaign veterans, and even some of Cuomo's supporters, say Mamdani has built a more impressive get-out-the-vote machine. So far, over 250,000 people have voted early, a jump in participation overall compared with 2021. The surge has been greatest among younger voters, who tend to favor Mamdani.
Even so, Mamdani faces a steep challenge, particularly if public polls are accurate. A recent Marist Institute for Public Opinion poll showed him narrowing Cuomo's lead but still trailing by about 10 points. Closing the gap would require Mamdani to change the composition of the typical primary electorate in a meaningful way.
Cuomo's allies concede that the race is closer than they expected it would be, but they remain cautiously confident. Fix the City has bought $5.4 million in withering TV attacks against Mamdani in just a few days, outspending him nearly 10-to-1 on paid media.
Cuomo's supporters -- polls show him winning with Black voters, women and older New Yorkers -- are historically among the most likely to vote in a primary.
FAQs
Q1. When will
New York Primary
polls be held?
A1. New York Primary polls will be held on Tuesday.
Q2. Who are frontrunners for New York Primary polls?
A2. Former Governor Andrew Cuomo and state Assembly member Zohran Mamdani are frontrunners for New York Primary polls.
Economic Times WhatsApp channel
)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Strikes on Iran mark Trump's biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble
With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran 's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, U.S. President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic U.S. strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump, who insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks, could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking U.S. military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against American and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. ALSO READ: US forces bomb Iranian nuclear sites; 'Fordow is gone' says Trump Such moves could escalate into a broader, more protracted conflict than Trump had envisioned, evoking echoes of the "forever wars" that America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he had derided as "stupid" and promised never to be dragged into. Live Events "The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities," said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations. "But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond... This is not going to end quick." ALSO READ: New York and other major US cities on high alert after America bombs Iranian nuclear sites In the lead-up to the bombing that he announced late on Saturday, Trump had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were "the right thing to do." ALSO READ: Why the US used B-2 stealth bombers, costing $2.1 billion each to strike Iran's nuclear sites Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a "high probability of success," the official said - a determination reached after more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities paved the way for the U.S. to deliver the potentially crowning blow. Nuclear threat remains Trump touted the "great success" of the strikes, which he said included the use of massive "bunker-buster bombs" on the main site at Fordow. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. "In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy," the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan U.S.-based organization that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. "Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge. The strikes will set Iran's program back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities," the group said. Eric Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, said Iran's next move remains an open question and suggested that among its forms of retaliation could be to hit "soft targets" of the U.S. and Israel inside and outside the region. But he also said there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table - "though they would be doing so in an even weaker position" - or seek a diplomatic off-ramp. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its "national industry" to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would not be legitimate targets. Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X: "Trump indicated this is now the time for peace. It's unclear and unlikely the Iranians will see it the same way. This is more likely to open a new chapter of the 46-year-old US-Iran war than conclude it." 'Regime change' Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking "regime change" if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. That, in turn, would bring additional risks. "Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns," said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. "You'll find the bones of many failed U.S. moral missions buried in Middle East sands." Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in "disproportionate attacks" if it felt its survival was imperiled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential U.S. inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump, who faced no major international crisis in his first term, is now embroiled in one just six months into his second. Even if he hopes U.S. military involvement can be limited in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents. Trump's slogan of "peace through strength" will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. "Trump is back in the war business," said Richard Gowan, U.N. director at the International Crisis Group. "I am not sure anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing ever believed his spiel that he is a peacemaker. It always looked more like a campaign phrase than a strategy."
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Trump ignites debate on Presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
U.S. President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Mr. Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. Also Read | Donald Trump says Iran nuclear sites 'obliterated,' threatens more strikes 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Mr. Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' Follow the Israel-Iran conflict LIVE updates The quick GOP endorsements of stepped-up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Mr. Trump publicly considered the strikes for days, and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Mr. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Mr. Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes." Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional." Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Mr. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment." 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Mr. Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Mr. Casar said. "Enough.'
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Democrats divided as Trump announces US strikes on Iran nuclear sites
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats seemed to remain at odds over policy toward Iran. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Donald Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party 's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist "Make America Great Again" base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee , noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could "measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 혈관이 조여오는 느낌이 드신다면.. 메디셜 더 읽기 Undo "Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran," Martin said in a statement. "Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad." Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran "does not make America more secure." Live Events "This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime," Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tact, stating, "Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately." Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions, "Horrible judgement" and said he'd "push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war." Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war, even before Trump's announcement - underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. "They are sort of hedging their bets," said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. "The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback." Progressive Democrats also are using Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., had called Trump's consideration of an attack "a defining moment for our party." Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that called on the Republican president to "terminate" the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless "explicitly authorized" by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the so-called "manosphere" of male Trump supporters. "That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home," said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as "a peacemaker and a unifier." "Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake," Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance. "The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress," said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and "the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response." Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., said "the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment." Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. "Trump created the problem," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on X. The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being "too supportive" of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level of support was "about right." Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had "a lot" of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict.
