Zohran Mamdani

[Gori the Grey]

the more people there are in a location, the more people there will tend to be in that location

This is, indeed, circular.

 

[Lexicus]

Kudos to Zohran! My point was that the high cost of living in NYC in not connected to US US foreign policy. The US has had terrible foreign policies and continues them today. That topic is mostly unrelated to life in NYC.

I mean, I agree that aid to the Zionists is not a primary cause of inflation in the US but that aid represents a lot of resources that could be used to improve life for Americans.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

This is unavoidably circular... people want/need to be where there are other people... for various reasons. So the more people there are in a location, the more people there will tend to be in that location over time.

I'll offer you another, somewhat related bit of reasoning...

China has the most people, by country, of any nation on Earth and the Chinese culture has existed, in the same geographic area, for multiple thousands of years...

So the place is presumably doing something right.

Maybe the more relevant question here would be: what is the population growth in New York City compared to other cities?

just some napkin math I wikipedia'd...
US 1940 census: 132.1 million US residents, versus, 7.4 million NYC residents = 5.6% of total population
1980 census: 226.5m US, 7.1m in NYC = 3.1%
2020 census: 331.4m US, 8.8m in NYC = 2.7%
So, about half if its share of the overall US pop from 80 years ago.

Now if Americans are moving to live in NYC versus elsewhere for the atmosphere or whatever else...I do not see it represented, enough to suggest Mamdani is on the cutting edge of something here. That a lot of people live in NYC just means the political climate there may have a captive audience enough to try out a lot of wacky things without fear of driving too many away, and this is likely to go up, in my opinion...

 

[Hygro]

This is unavoidably circular... people want/need to be where there are other people... for various reasons. So the more people there are in a location, the more people there will tend to be in that location over time.

I'll offer you another, somewhat related bit of reasoning...

China has the most people, by country, of any nation on Earth and the Chinese culture has existed, in the same geographic area, for multiple thousands of years...

So the place is presumably doing something right.

They are definitely doing something right.

Hella not everything but hella something.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That’s not an insult, BJ

I never said it was.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is, indeed, circular.

Yes it is. You also intentionally left out the "over time" to add to the humor, which I'd say, was successful, so 2 pts to Greyfindor

 

[Sommerswerd]

Maybe the more relevant question here would be: what is the population growth in New York City compared to other cities?

just some napkin math I wikipedia'd...
US 1940 census: 132.1 million US residents, versus, 7.4 million NYC residents = 5.6% of total population
1980 census: 226.5m US, 7.1m in NYC = 3.1%
2020 census: 331.4m US, 8.8m in NYC = 2.7%
So, about half if its share of the overall US pop from 80 years ago.

So the US population went up and the NYC population went up, just not as quickly, relatively. This just seems to show that the growth of NYC can't keep up with population growth of the US overall, which makes sense, since the space in NYC is finite and already pretty densely populated, whereas the space nationwide is for practical purposes, unlimited.

Because you got me thinking I took a look at relative square miles for a deeper comparison. NYC is about 468 sq miles, while the US is approximate 3.5 million sq miles (although it has been shrinking over time from 3,554,608 in 1940 to 3,531,905 currently). So in 1940 the US population was about 37 people per square mile and 15,811 people per sq mile in NYC and in 2020 the US has 94 people per sq mile and NYC has 17,094 people per sq mile. I'm not even sure that all my math is correct, but I'm thinking the relative increase in population density given the available square miles was higher for NYC than for the US as a whole.

Now if Americans are moving to live in NYC versus elsewhere for the atmosphere or whatever else...I do not see it represented, enough to suggest Mamdani is on the cutting edge of something here. That a lot of people live in NYC just means the political climate there may have a captive audience enough to try out a lot of wacky things without fear of driving too many away, and this is likely to go up, in my opinion...

To quote Jimmy McMillian, founder of the "Rent is Too Damn High Party" which ran him as a single issue candidate in various elections in the early 2000s and 2010s..."The rent is too damn high!"

 

[Birdjaguar]

Many people in NYC live there because it is the heart of what they do, want to do or used to do. If one is successful it also might be the place where "the money is".

 

[amadeus]

NYT reports he checked “Black or African American” on his college application, reasoning that since he was born in Uganda he ought qualify.

Immediate disqualifier? Maybe not, but I think he was trying to game the system.

 

[danjuno]

That's the best they got? Lmao.

 

[H4run]

I never said it was.

Your reaction suggested precisely that. By urging me to tend to my "national/local" suffering before critiquing the US then contrasting Turkish hardship with America’s you reframed my observation about U.S. policy into a pity contest, as if your struggle "wins" against mine. That was never my intent. Consider this: America possesses the world’s largest defense budget. Its military bases and prisons span the globe, and it pours vast resources into propping up its proxies (its owners, one might say). Had you not been emotionally triggered, I assumed, you’d recognize I’d never dare "flex" against such financial might. I merely highlight the hypocrisy: wealth entrusted by the people, yet withheld from them, diverted instead to foreign ventures. But our General McDonald seems to want exactly that, but for most of the part I know you aren't like McDonald, many times I actually value your opinion and post.

 

[amadeus]

That's the best they got? Lmao.

White South Africans have tried the same thing and it was baloney then. Worth observing I think too that Mamdani is the son of a noted academic, not exactly the type of underprivileged person who should need a boost in their college application.

 

[NovaKart]

White South Africans have tried the same thing and it was baloney then. Worth observing I think too that Mamdani is the son of a noted academic, not exactly the type of underprivileged person who should need a boost in their college application.

He didn’t get accepted to Columbia anyway, which is where the application came from. And that’s where his father was a professor.

 

[Gori the Grey]

the movement is ripe for someone else to step in to his mantle and take it over

Just as one element of my thesis, one part of Trump's "mantle," that I happen to have been mulling over recently.

[For purposes of this hypothetical, the SC does not overturn the 22nd amendment]

It's June of 2027. Trump's term is winding down, and Trump is content to leave it at two terms without a fuss. Some next person has to start a campaign. Ordinarily, it would be the VP. For purposes of this hypothetical, we'll say that Vance has stayed in Trump's good graces, Trump has publicly anointed him as successor, so it is Vance, starting his Make America Even Greater Again campaign.

Now, what is one of the chief things a campaigner does? Hold rallies. So Vance starts holding rallies. But Vance can't duplicate the incoherent, quasi-humorous ramble that Trump supporters find so amusing and that draws them to attend his rallies. So what happens? The rallies don't draw crowds. And what does the larger public conclude from that? Oh, I guess this guy's not popular; he's a dud.

Even just that part of Trump's mantle is going to hang poorly on anyone else who tries to assume it.

 

[Voidwalkin]

If the US public really wanted large domestic aid programs, they'd have them. They don't. It's not to do with foreign policy primarily.

White South Africans have tried the same thing and it was baloney then. Worth observing I think too that Mamdani is the son of a noted academic, not exactly the type of underprivileged person who should need a boost in their college application.

That is correct.

I didn't know he did that. I think it is forgivable. Many people, myself included, made more serious mistakes as an 18 year old. But, yeah, that is gonna be an unpopular thing nationally. He will receive moderate personal ridicule over it. Bad faith jokes by media and unsympathetic common rednecks alike.

It's shady idpol on the personal level, and yeah, there is substantial backlash against both idpol and shadyness generally. Very little is unrecoverable these days, but not ideal.

 

[H4run]

If the US public really wanted large domestic aid programs, they'd have them. They don't. It's not to do with foreign policy primarily.

As if U.S. public opinion ever dictated foreign policy. Remember, Obama ran on ending wars because that’s what the public wanted to hear then escalated drone strikes tenfold. Trump promised “America First” non-intervention to win votes, yet assassinated Soleimani and nearly sparked a war with Iran. Biden pledged restraint, then sent over $14 billion to Israel within weeks.

All three served the same war investors, not American public opinion. Why? Because when donors demand blood, presidents comply, regardless of party or promises.

Public opinion? Tragically overrated. Even now, as the most hawkish public figures begin make a drastic U turn in their opinion and American sentiment shifts radically as a whole (both left and right), YET state policy doesn’t budge an inch.

But next time will be different, Mamdani sets a new trend, in the long run ballots won over dollars.

 

[Arwon]

NYT reports he checked “Black or African American” on his college application, reasoning that since he was born in Uganda he ought qualify.

Immediate disqualifier? Maybe not, but I think he was trying to game the system.

What does "game the system" mean in your imagination here

 

[Arwon]

So the US population went up and the NYC population went up, just not as quickly, relatively. This just seems to show that the growth of NYC can't keep up with population growth of the US overall, which makes sense, since the space in NYC is finite and already pretty densely populated, whereas the space nationwide is for practical purposes, unlimited.

Because you got me thinking goodjob I took a look at relative square miles for a deeper comparison. NYC is about 468 sq miles, while the US is approximate 3.5 million sq miles (although it has been shrinking over time from 3,554,608 in 1940 to 3,531,905 currently). So in 1940 the US population was about 37 people per square mile and 15,811 people per sq mile in NYC and in 2020 the US has 94 people per sq mile and NYC has 17,094 people per sq mile. I'm not even sure that all my math is correct, but I'm thinking the relative increase in population density given the available square miles was higher for NYC than for the US as a whole.

To quote Jimmy McMillian, founder of the "Rent is Too Damn High Party" which ran him as a single issue candidate in various elections in the early 2000s and 2010s..."The rent is too damn high!"

The relevant comparison would be the whole of the New York metropolitan area anyway. New York City proper is just a subset of the place, with as you note finite and fully built up boundaries, and growth tied to it would also be accruing in the rest of the urban area.

 

[Lexicus]

Immediate disqualifier? Maybe not, but I think he was trying to game the system.

This comment gets really funny when I remember that you looked at Donald Trump and thought "yeah this guy is a better choice for President than Kamala Harris".

 

[EnglishEdward]

That was of course the view of the majority of US voters.