Latest news with #FromthePoliticsDesk
NBC News
2 hours ago
- Politics
- NBC News
JD Vance wades into the immigration thicket: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. Happy first day of summer! In today's edition, Jonathan Allen explores the challenges awaiting Vice President JD Vance as he lands in Los Angeles. Plus, we dive into President Donald Trump's penchant for a giving a two-week timetable on big issues. And Dylan Ebs answers this week's reader question on ranked choice voting. — Adam Wollner The challenge facing JD Vance as he enters the immigration fray Analysis by Jonathan Allen Vice President JD Vance is wading into the immigration thicket today by traveling to Los Angeles, where Marines and National Guard forces have been deployed to provide backup for federal agents executing raids. For Vance, it's tricky territory because President Donald Trump keeps changing his mind — or at least his rhetoric — on immigration enforcement. On one hand, Trump is anxious to fulfill a campaign promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. The MAGA base demands it. And Vance, who hopes to inherit the MAGA base, seldom strays far from its orthodoxy. But on the other hand, Trump has wavered on parts of his own mass deportation plan. After Trump said that workers in certain sectors — farming, hotels and restaurants — would not be targeted in raids, he quickly reversed that policy. Vance finds himself taking on a more visible role just as the MAGA movement is feeling the strain of a president torn between ideology and popularity. It's nothing new for a vice president to land in the middle of a vexing issue. Kamala Harris had the border portfolio in Joe Biden's administration. If Trump's immigration policies end up being a success, Vance will no doubt profit from it. But if they don't, he may suffer. Two weeks' notice: Trump's deadline on Iran is a familiar one By Megan Shannon and Dareh Gregorian President Donald Trump's two-week timeline to decide on whether the U.S. will strike Iran's nuclear sites is a familiar one. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' he said in a statement issued through White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. Since the beginning of May, Trump has promised action on questions or decisions in 'two weeks' around 10 times — and he used the same timeline repeatedly during his first term in office. 'We're going to be announcing something, I would say over the next two or three weeks, that will be phenomenal in terms of tax and developing our aviation infrastructure,' Trump said of tax overhaul plans on Feb. 9, 2017. He released a one-page outline of the plan 11 weeks later, according to a Bloomberg review that year. He went on to repeatedly cite the time frame for impending actions on health care and infrastructure that never materialized during his first four years in office. Trump's use of the timing prediction has accelerated in recent weeks — and he's used it on items ranging from trade deals and tariffs to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Much of what he's predicted hasn't come to pass, with questions he's said he'd answer remaining unanswered. ✉️ Mailbag: How does ranked choice voting work? Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's question comes from Thomas Gysegem: 'Will there be ranked voting in the New York City mayoral primary? Please explain how ranked voting works.' To answer that, we turned to our intern, Dylan Ebs, who just put together a helpful explainer on the process. Ranked choice voting, which New York is utilizing for next week's mayoral primary election, is a system that lets voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than pick just one. The number of candidates voters can rank depends on the specific rules in an area. In New York City, voters can rank up to five in one race. Voters don't have to fill their ballots, though. A voter whose heart is set on only one candidate can pick just one. But if that candidate doesn't get the most votes, that voter won't have a say in later rounds of counting. After the votes are tabulated, the last-place candidate is eliminated. Ballots from voters who supported that candidate then have the next choice counted. If no candidate has hit 50%, then counting continues, eliminating another last-place candidate and counting the next-ranked choices on all those ballots in the next round. The process continues until a candidate reaches majority support and wins.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The political tug-of-war at the center of Trump's Iran decision: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Andrea Mitchell breaks down the critical decision facing President Donald Trump on the Israel-Iran conflict. Plus, Lawrence Hurley examines the questions that a major Supreme Court ruling on transgender rights left unanswered. Programming note: We're taking a break for Juneteenth tomorrow and will be back in your inbox on Friday, June 20. Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here. — Adam Wollner As President Donald Trump considers whether the U.S. will strike Iran — likely the most important decision of his second term, one that could remake the landscape of the Middle East — allies and adversaries are taking sides, both at home and abroad. 'I may do it. I may not do it,' Trump told reporters outside the White House earlier today. 'Nobody knows what I'm going to do.' The president openly admired the effectiveness of Israel's initial airstrikes against Iran, even though Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly launched his strikes to interrupt Trump's nuclear diplomacy with Tehran. But after being rebuffed in April when he sought Trump's approval for a joint operation against Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu could be on the verge of persuading an American president to provide the B-2s to deliver the 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs capable of penetrating the concrete fortress believed to conceal Tehran's most dangerous stockpile of nearly-weapons-grade uranium, based on new Israeli intelligence. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on MSNBC today that conflicts with a briefing to Congress this week that the U.S. intelligence has not changed: Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon. Israel's argument is that it's now or never. It has decapitated two of Iran's proxies — Hezbollah and Hamas — and toppled the Assad regime in Syria, and its retaliatory strikes last year eliminated many of Iran's air defenses. Israel's air force could damage Iran's above-ground nuclear sites and missile bases if it struck now, before Iran repairs its defenses, but can't eliminate the nuclear threat without U.S. bombs and bombers to reach the most critical underground facility. That has created a political tug-of-war for the heart and mind of Trump, who has publicly yearned for the Nobel Prize, seeing himself as a peacemaker who could bring Iran back into the community of non-terrorist nations and avoid another 'forever war.' Fighting that vision is his competing impulse to join Israel in eliminating the nuclear threat once and for all. And Tehran's leaders clearly misjudged how patient Trump would be with their refusal to compromise in the negotiations. Russian President Vladimir Putin remains on the sidelines, preoccupied with his own war. Jordan's King Abdullah II and French President Emmanuel Macron strongly oppose U.S. involvement. Trump has been consulting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Gulf's most influential leader. At home, the MAGA base is divided, with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., leading the hawks and a growing cohort of Republican isolationists — even in Trump's Cabinet — opposed. Most prominently, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard posted a highly produced anti-war video on her official X account, reportedly infuriating her boss. Critics worry about unintended consequences of military action, repeating former Secretary of State Colin Powell's rueful warning before the U.S. war in Iraq. It's like the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you own it. Catch up on our latest reporting on the Israel-Iran conflict: Amid escalating global tensions, Trump struggles to be a 'peacemaker,' by Peter Nicholas, Peter Alexander, Jonathan Allen and Dan De Luce U.S.-backed regime change has a checkered past — Iran may be no different, by Alexander Smith Will Israel's airstrikes cause the collapse of the Iranian regime?, by Dan De Luce and Alexander Smith Tucker Carlson clashes with Sen. Ted Cruz: 'You don't know anything about Iran,' by Megan Lebowitz Follow live updates → The Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Tennessee law banning certain care for transgender youth left various legal questions open, even as other laws aimed at people based on gender identity, including those involving sports and military-service bans, head toward the justices. That means that even though transgender rights activists face a setback, the ruling does not control how other cases will ultimately turn out. 'This decision casts little if any light on how a majority of justices will analyze or rule on other issues,' said Shannon Minter, a lawyer at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights. Most notably, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, did not address the key issue of whether such laws should automatically be reviewed by courts with a more skeptical eye, an approach known as 'heightened scrutiny.' Practically, that would mean laws about transgender people would have to clear a higher legal bar to be upheld. The justices skipped answering that question because the court found that Tennessee's law banning gender transition care for minors did not discriminate against transgender people at all. But other cases are likely to raise that issue more directly, meaning close attention will be paid to what the justices said in the various written opinions, as well as what they did not say. Read more from Lawrence → ↔️ Holding the line: The Federal Reserve left interest rates at their current levels as the central bank continued to assess the impact of Trump's tariffs on the U.S. economy. Read more → ⚖️ SCOTUS watch: The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's authority to approve a facility in Texas to store spent fuel. Read more → 💉 New sheriff in town: Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has ushered in appointees to a federal vaccine advisory panel who have expressed skepticism about the value and safety of vaccines. Read more → 🤔 Regrets, they have a few: Most of the seven Senate Democrats who voted to confirm Kristi Noem as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security are now critical of her performance, with some saying they'd like a do-over. Read more → 📊 Survey says: Americans are divided on their views of artificial intelligence, with no meaningful differences based on age and partisanship, according to the NBC News Decision Desk Poll. The country's attitudes about AI today mirror poll answers about the rise of the internet in the '90s. 🔵 2026 watch: Bridget Brink, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, announced she is running for Congress as a Democrat for a competitive Michigan House seat that Republicans flipped in 2024. Read more → 🗳️ About last night: Democratic state Sen. Ghazala Hashmi won her party's nomination for lieutenant governor of Virginia in a tight race against a fellow state senator and a former Richmond mayor. Read more → That's all From the Politics Desk for now. Today's newsletter was compiled by Adam Wollner and Dylan Ebs. If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at politicsnewsletter@ And if you're a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up here. This article was originally published on
NBC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
The political tug-of-war at the center of Trump's Iran decision: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Andrea Mitchell breaks down the critical decision facing President Donald Trump on the Israel-Iran conflict. Plus, Lawrence Hurley examines the questions that a major Supreme Court ruling on transgender rights left unanswered. Programming note: We're taking a break for Juneteenth tomorrow and will be back in your inbox on Friday, June 20. — Adam Wollner By Andrea Mitchell As President Donald Trump considers whether the U.S. will strike Iran — likely the most important decision of his second term, one that could remake the landscape of the Middle East — allies and adversaries are taking sides, both at home and abroad. 'I may do it. I may not do it,' Trump told reporters outside the White House earlier today. 'Nobody knows what I'm going to do.' The president openly admired the effectiveness of Israel's initial airstrikes against Iran, even though Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly launched his strikes to interrupt Trump's nuclear diplomacy with Tehran. But after being rebuffed in April when he sought Trump's approval for a joint operation against Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu could be on the verge of persuading an American president to provide the B-2s to deliver the 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs capable of penetrating the concrete fortress believed to conceal Tehran's most dangerous stockpile of nearly-weapons-grade uranium, based on new Israeli intelligence. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on MSNBC today that conflicts with a briefing to Congress this week that the U.S. intelligence has not changed: Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon. Israel's argument is that it's now or never. It has decapitated two of Iran's proxies — Hezbollah and Hamas — and toppled the Assad regime in Syria, and its retaliatory strikes last year eliminated many of Iran's air defenses. Israel's air force could damage Iran's above-ground nuclear sites and missile bases if it struck now, before Iran repairs its defenses, but can't eliminate the nuclear threat without U.S. bombs and bombers to reach the most critical underground facility. That has created a political tug-of-war for the heart and mind of Trump, who has publicly yearned for the Nobel Prize, seeing himself as a peacemaker who could bring Iran back into the community of non-terrorist nations and avoid another 'forever war.' Fighting that vision is his competing impulse to join Israel in eliminating the nuclear threat once and for all. And Tehran's leaders clearly misjudged how patient Trump would be with their refusal to compromise in the negotiations. Russian President Vladimir Putin remains on the sidelines, preoccupied with his own war. Jordan's King Abdullah II and French President Emmanuel Macron strongly oppose U.S. involvement. Trump has been consulting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Gulf's most influential leader. At home, the MAGA base is divided, with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., leading the hawks and a growing cohort of Republican isolationists — even in Trump's Cabinet — opposed. Most prominently, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard posted a highly produced anti-war video on her official X account, reportedly infuriating her boss. Critics worry about unintended consequences of military action, repeating former Secretary of State Colin Powell's rueful warning before the U.S. war in Iraq. It's like the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you own it. U.S.-backed regime change has a checkered past — Iran may be no different, by Alexander Smith Will Israel's airstrikes cause the collapse of the Iranian regime?, by Dan De Luce and Alexander Smith by Megan Lebowitz By Lawrence Hurley The Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Tennessee law banning certain care for transgender youth left various legal questions open, even as other laws aimed at people based on gender identity, including those involving sports and military-service bans, head toward the justices. That means that even though transgender rights activists face a setback, the ruling does not control how other cases will ultimately turn out. 'This decision casts little if any light on how a majority of justices will analyze or rule on other issues,' said Shannon Minter, a lawyer at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights. Most notably, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, did not address the key issue of whether such laws should automatically be reviewed by courts with a more skeptical eye, an approach known as 'heightened scrutiny.' Practically, that would mean laws about transgender people would have to clear a higher legal bar to be upheld. The justices skipped answering that question because the court found that Tennessee's law banning gender transition care for minors did not discriminate against transgender people at all. But other cases are likely to raise that issue more directly, meaning close attention will be paid to what the justices said in the various written opinions, as well as what they did not say.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
In Washington and across the country, lawmakers express safety fears: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, we explore the security concerns elected officials are harboring in the wake of the Minnesota shootings. Plus, Steve Kornacki explains why New York City's Democratic mayoral primary may not be the end of the Andrew Cuomo-Zohran Mamdani battle. Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here. — Adam Wollner After the targeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers, elected officials serving in Capitol buildings in Washington and around the country are growing increasingly worried about the level of protection they receive. In Congress: Law enforcement officials have been holding security briefings with members of Congress over the past several days, Scott Wong, Julie Tsirkin and Melanie Zanona report. Federal lawmakers have been told that they can spend money from their office budgets on home security systems and campaign cash on private security. Only a handful of congressional leaders get 24-hour protection from Capitol Police security details. Members can request extra protection, which is assigned based on whether Capitol Police determine there is an active threat. But so far, those assurances have done little to calm nervous lawmakers, who have been harboring such concerns amid a string of violent attacks on American politicians over the past 15 years — a period that has included assassination attempts on a presidential candidate and members of Congress and a riot at the U.S. Capitol. House Democratic leaders have asked Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to boost members' official budgets 'to support additional safety and security measures in every single office.' And over the weekend, House Republicans held a tense call that featured rank-and-file members' expressing concerns about their safety when they are in their districts. 'It's scary as sh--,' a senior House lawmaker said, describing how members of Congress feel after the Minnesota shootings. In the states: Even the limited protection available to the average member of Congress goes far beyond what is available to most state lawmakers, Adam Edelman reports. Outside of their state capital complexes, state legislators have little to no security protection. No state offers proactive security to members of its legislature, though law enforcement will typically step in if there are credible threats. And despite the renewed attention to the issue, lawmakers fear little will ultimately be done that can make a meaningful difference, given that in many states, such positions are effectively part-time jobs with small budgets. 'We are constantly out there, vulnerable. Whether I'm volunteering somewhere, knocking doors for someone, starting to run my own campaign, I'm out there, vulnerable,' said Arizona state Rep. Stephanie Simacek, a Democrat. Read more on the fallout from the Minnesota shootings: Trump says he won't call Gov. Tim Walz after Minnesota shootings, by Megan Lebowitz and Kelly O'Donnell GOP Sen. Mike Lee deletes social media posts about the Minnesota shooting after facing criticism, by Dareh Gregorian How Minnesota shooting conspiracy theories took over social media feeds, by David Ingram, Bruna Horvath and Adam Edelman Political violence thrusts 2028 candidates onto the national stage, by Natasha Korecki and Jonathan Allen New York City is overwhelmingly Democratic, so it seems logical that the winner of the party's mayoral primary next week will be a shoo-in for November. But it may not be that simple, as a confluence of factors could give rise to an unpredictable, multicandidate general election campaign. Start with the two leaders in the Democratic race, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. Each carries significant political baggage. Cuomo, of course, resigned as governor in a sexual harassment scandal in 2021 and has faced sustained criticism of his Covid pandemic policies, especially relating to nursing homes. Even within his own party, Cuomo is a lightning rod, with a recent poll finding that over 40% of Democrats have unfavorable views of him. And Mamdani is a democratic socialist with a history of far-left pronouncements that are now being featured in attack ads from the Cuomo side. If either wins the Democratic primary, there figure to be plenty of unhappy customers within the party and — potentially — among general election voters who would be open to an alternative. And if one falls just short in the primary, either Cuomo and Mamdani could decide to turn around and take another shot in the general election. Each already has a ready-made vehicle to do so. Cuomo has created his own third party, which he is calling the Fight and Deliver Party. Officially, he did that to give himself a second spot on the November ballot if he is the Democratic nominee. Under New York's peculiar election laws, third parties can run major-party nominees as their own candidates. Cuomo's position is that he plans to be both the Democratic nominee and the Fight and Deliver nominee. But if Cuomo were to lose to Mamdani in the primary, there'd be nothing to stop him from simply running as the Fight and Deliver candidate. In fact, his father, Mario, made that very move back in 1977, when he lost the Democratic mayoral primary to Ed Koch but then ran as the Liberal Party candidate in the fall. Meanwhile, the Working Families Party, which is closely aligned with progressive Democrats, has already indicated that it won't back Cuomo even if he is the Democratic nominee. The WFP has also encouraged its backers to make Mamdani their top choice in the Democratic primary. That raises the possibility that Mamdani could run as the WFP's general election nominee even if he loses to Cuomo next week. For that matter, given its antipathy to Cuomo, the WFP might also seek out another high-profile candidate if Mamdani isn't interested. If Cuomo or Mamdani do opt to mount third-party bids in the fall, it could open the door to chaos, since other candidates already loom. The current mayor, Eric Adams, is bypassing the Democratic primary and already has created two vehicles for the general election, the 'EndAntiSemitism' and 'Safe&Affordable' parties. Adams, who faced federal corruption charges before President Donald Trump pardoned him, has his own political baggage but still retains some support, particularly from Black voters. That base, along with his incumbency, would make him a factor in a multicandidate general election. Republicans also have their own ballot line and are set to nominate Curtis Sliwa, who was their nominee against Adams in 2021. And a former federal prosecutor, Jim Walden, is running his own independent bid. He is positioning himself as a centrist and says he was motivated to run after Adams was indicted last year. Of course, it's possible that the Democratic primary result will be decisive enough that the loser stands down for the general election. That would all but ensure the winner a glide path to Gracie Mansion. It's also theoretically possible that another candidate besides Cuomo or Mamdani catches fire in the final week, claims the nomination and unites the party. Read more: New York City Comptroller Brad Lander arrested at an immigration court, by Ben Kamisar Bernie Sanders backs progressive Zohran Mamdani in NYC mayoral race, by Ben Kamisar ➡️ Israel-Iran latest: Trump is considering a range of options when it comes to Iran, including a possible U.S. strike on the country, multiple current and former administration officials said after he met with his national security team in the White House Situation Room. Follow live updates → 🤝 Strange bedfellows: A group of lawmakers spanning a broad ideological spectrum have signed on to a resolution seeking to limit Trump's power to get involved in the Israel-Iran conflict. Read more → ⬅️ Immigration backtrack: The Trump administration has reopened arrests of immigrant workers at hotels, restaurants and agricultural businesses. It's a reversal after Trump said last week they were necessary workers whose jobs were almost 'impossible' to replace. Read more → 🗣️ Going there: Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., called Trump a 'tyrant' in a Senate floor speech in which he recounted his forcible removal from a DHS news conference. Read more → 🪙 GENIUS Act: The Senate passed a landmark cryptocurrency regulation bill on a bipartisan vote of 68-30, sending it to the House. Read more → ⚖️ SCOTUS watch: Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson revealed she made more than $2 million from the publisher of her bestselling memoir as part of her financial disclosure report for 2024. Read more → ⚖️ SCOTUS watch, cont'd: Two educational toy companies today asked the Supreme Court to quickly hear their challenges to Trump's tariffs. Read more → 📦 Tariff update: Trump signed an agreement that formally lowered some tariffs on imports from the United Kingdom as the countries continue to work toward a formal trade deal. Read more → ⚫ Reporting to prison: Former Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., turned himself in at a federal prison in Pennsylvania to begin serving an 11-year sentence on bribery charges. Read more → 🗳️ If it's Tuesday: It's primary day in Virginia, but the general election matchup for the commonwealth's highest-profile race is already set. Read more → That's all From the Politics Desk for now. Today's newsletter was compiled by Adam Wollner and Dylan Ebs. If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at politicsnewsletter@ And if you're a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up here. This article was originally published on
NBC News
3 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
In Washington and across the country, lawmakers express safety fears: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, we explore the security concerns elected officials are harboring in the wake of the Minnesota shootings. Plus, Steve Kornacki explains why New York City's Democratic mayoral primary may not be the end of the Andrew Cuomo-Zohran Mamdani battle. — Adam Wollner In Washington and across the country, lawmakers express safety fears After the targeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers, elected officials serving in Capitol buildings in Washington and around the country are growing increasingly worried about the level of protection they receive. In Congress: Law enforcement officials have been holding security briefings with members of Congress over the past several days, Scott Wong, Julie Tsirkin and Melanie Zanona report. Federal lawmakers have been told that they can spend money from their office budgets on home security systems and campaign cash on private security. Only a handful of congressional leaders get 24-hour protection from Capitol Police security details. Members can request extra protection, which is assigned based on whether Capitol Police determine there is an active threat. But so far, those assurances have done little to calm nervous lawmakers, who have been harboring such concerns amid a string of violent attacks on American politicians over the past 15 years — a period that has included assassination attempts on a presidential candidate and members of Congress and a riot at the U.S. Capitol. House Democratic leaders have asked Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to boost members' official budgets 'to support additional safety and security measures in every single office.' And over the weekend, House Republicans held a tense call that featured rank-and-file members' expressing concerns about their safety when they are in their districts. 'It's scary as sh--,' a senior House lawmaker said, describing how members of Congress feel after the Minnesota shootings. In the states: Even the limited protection available to the average member of Congress goes far beyond what is available to most state lawmakers, Adam Edelman reports. Outside of their state capital complexes, state legislators have little to no security protection. No state offers proactive security to members of its legislature, though law enforcement will typically step in if there are credible threats. And despite the renewed attention to the issue, lawmakers fear little will ultimately be done that can make a meaningful difference, given that in many states, such positions are effectively part-time jobs with small budgets. 'We are constantly out there, vulnerable. Whether I'm volunteering somewhere, knocking doors for someone, starting to run my own campaign, I'm out there, vulnerable,' said Arizona state Rep. Stephanie Simacek, a Democrat. , by Megan Lebowitz and Kelly O'Donnell GOP Sen. Mike Lee deletes social media posts about the Minnesota shooting after facing criticism, by Dareh Gregorian Political violence thrusts 2028 candidates onto the national stage, by Natasha Korecki and Jonathan Allen No matter the result of the Democratic primary, NYC's mayoral election could get chaotic Analysis by Steve Kornacki New York City is overwhelmingly Democratic, so it seems logical that the winner of the party's mayoral primary next week will be a shoo-in for November. But it may not be that simple, as a confluence of factors could give rise to an unpredictable, multicandidate general election campaign. Start with the two leaders in the Democratic race, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. Each carries significant political baggage. Cuomo, of course, resigned as governor in a sexual harassment scandal in 2021 and has faced sustained criticism of his Covid pandemic policies, especially relating to nursing homes. Even within his own party, Cuomo is a lightning rod, with a recent poll finding that over 40% of Democrats have unfavorable views of him. And Mamdani is a democratic socialist with a history of far-left pronouncements that are now being featured in attack ads from the Cuomo side. If either wins the Democratic primary, there figure to be plenty of unhappy customers within the party and — potentially — among general election voters who would be open to an alternative. And if one falls just short in the primary, either Cuomo and Mamdani could decide to turn around and take another shot in the general election. Each already has a ready-made vehicle to do so. Cuomo has created his own third party, which he is calling the Fight and Deliver Party. Officially, he did that to give himself a second spot on the November ballot if he is the Democratic nominee. Under New York's peculiar election laws, third parties can run major-party nominees as their own candidates. Cuomo's position is that he plans to be both the Democratic nominee and the Fight and Deliver nominee. But if Cuomo were to lose to Mamdani in the primary, there'd be nothing to stop him from simply running as the Fight and Deliver candidate. In fact, his father, Mario, made that very move back in 1977, when he lost the Democratic mayoral primary to Ed Koch but then ran as the Liberal Party candidate in the fall. Meanwhile, the Working Families Party, which is closely aligned with progressive Democrats, has already indicated that it won't back Cuomo even if he is the Democratic nominee. The WFP has also encouraged its backers to make Mamdani their top choice in the Democratic primary. That raises the possibility that Mamdani could run as the WFP's general election nominee even if he loses to Cuomo next week. For that matter, given its antipathy to Cuomo, the WFP might also seek out another high-profile candidate if Mamdani isn't interested. If Cuomo or Mamdani do opt to mount third-party bids in the fall, it could open the door to chaos, since other candidates already loom. The current mayor, Eric Adams, is bypassing the Democratic primary and already has created two vehicles for the general election, the 'EndAntiSemitism' and 'Safe&Affordable' parties. Adams, who faced federal corruption charges before President Donald Trump pardoned him, has his own political baggage but still retains some support, particularly from Black voters. That base, along with his incumbency, would make him a factor in a multicandidate general election. Republicans also have their own ballot line and are set to nominate Curtis Sliwa, who was their nominee against Adams in 2021. And a former federal prosecutor, Jim Walden, is running his own independent bid. He is positioning himself as a centrist and says he was motivated to run after Adams was indicted last year. Of course, it's possible that the Democratic primary result will be decisive enough that the loser stands down for the general election. That would all but ensure the winner a glide path to Gracie Mansion. It's also theoretically possible that another candidate besides Cuomo or Mamdani catches fire in the final week, claims the nomination and unites the party.
