Zohran Mamdani

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.
These are misperceptions. "No foreign wars" means "we don't want Americans to die". Killing people is still mostly acceptable to the American public.

Consequently, Trump or Obama or Biden can indeed take actions that result in violence overseas without substantial political blowback. So long as Americans don't die.
 
That was of course the view of the majority of US voters.
49.8% is not a majority. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
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.
Still a nothingburger.
 
These are misperceptions. "No foreign wars" means "we don't want Americans to die". Killing people is still mostly acceptable to the American public.

Consequently, Trump or Obama or Biden can indeed take actions that result in violence overseas without substantial political blowback. So long as Americans don't die.
Ideally, most Americans don’t want anyone to die. The no foreign wars came about as a blowback to George W. Bush’s misadventures in Iraq and most don’t want a repeat of a quagmire that he dragged us in way back in 2003.

Even Obama got his fair share of criticism when he used drones on people.
 
ah . MOST AMERICAN POLITICIANS do not want the PR risks of foreign wars . Obama and his skin colour was great trouble if stuff happened . Trump is famous for not visiting military cemeteries if there is risk of rain damaging his hairdo . Biden apparently made so much fuss with his watch at the Dover Airforce Base where the caskets are brought in country ; apparently so much bored . It is incredible to read American news outlets with their No American boots on the ground fanfare , as if those tens of thousands of American Special Forces troops are not Americans . Indeed very few of those Americans die due to promise of return violence in multipled forms . Once that threshold is passed , like the Russians experienced in 2022 , we will see Americans still have no problems with goreign wars , as long as they are told they are winning . There is no American Exceptionalism .
 
Moderator Action: As I have said before, this is not a US foreign policy thread! If you want to discuss that, start another thread. If it continues, I will remove many of the recent posts.
 
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.
One of the blind spots in this narrative is that you are assuming... inexplicably, that Donna Brazile (or her progeny) is going to be running Vance's campaign... I'm willing to consider the possibility that Mamdani is the answer, or a sign that some kind of turning point is near... but that's very different than just crossing fingers and wishing Trump away and/or hoping his flame dies out...

Vance's campaign isn't going to be idiotic like Al Gore's campaign. They are going to fully recognize exactly what you outline above, and they are going to use the *doh/forehead-slap* obvious tactic of... Just.Let.Trump.Keep.Doing.Rallies.

Vance isn't going to stupidly distance himself from Trump, the way Gore did with Clinton, no matter how many times the Democrats Impeach Trump or how many more scandals they hang on his head, or how much blame they try to pile on him for the potential fallout of the One Big Beautiful Bill. Vance's campaign is going to realize what an asset having Trump do rallies for him is, and they are going to essentially run Trump again, with Vance as window dressing... and they are going to win again, easily, with even larger, Daddy Bush circa 1988 margins...

UNLESS...

The Democrats run someone who is waaaaay more popular than Trump. Otherwise Vance is just going to ride Trump's coat-tails into a second consecutive Republican term.

Waiting Trump/MAGA out isn't going to work. The Democrats need to put forward a new Champion who exceeds Trump.

That's why I'm asking if Mamdani is the guy... Is he the Democrats' new Champion? If yes, then they need to start rallying behind him and promoting him now, because the campaign to remove Trump has to start now, so that there is a thirst for someone specific by the time it is time for him to leave office... otherwise I fear he may not even leave office, either in reality... or worse, in spirit.

To put a finer point on it... you seem to think Trump is like Obama, whereas I think he's more like Reagan.
 
Last edited:
That's why I'm asking if Mamdani is the guy... Is he the Democrats' new Champion? If yes, then they need to start rallying behind him and promoting him now, because the campaign to remove Trump has to start now, so that there is a thirst for someone specific by the time it is time for him to leave office... otherwise I fear he may not even leave office, either in reality... or worse, in spirit.
If this is the criteria, no, certainly not, Mamdani is not that guy.

Further, no Dem can be, because the split between progressives and liberals regarding prioritization of various social issues makes it impossible for any to be. I'd even go so far as to say that if Obama, a transcendent political talent, were to enter the scene today, he would not be able to bridge the gap. It has widened since his arrival.

It might just be that Dems have to resolve their internal contradictions or create and accept a framework that allows coexistence. I can't see any leader that can inspire all parts of the Dem coalition simultaneously.

I dunno how the "great man" is supposed to emerge from today's currents of ideology. All parts of the Dem coalition agree Trump is bad, but beyond that, the systems that create the ideologies poise them for clashes and skirmishes.

I think Mamdani could still beat Vance because I don't think I agree the candidate need be more popular than Trump. A desire for better stewardship and actual change could be enough. But no, he can't be that guy in that way. Really really skeptical anyone can.
 
Last edited:
I'd vote for Oprah! TV star, smart, and rich.
 
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.
MAGA will echo on without Trump, but it is all Trump and its power dies with him.

Future fascists will need a new four letter acronym for their red banner. spqr
 
What does "game the system" mean in your imagination here
The system of racial preferences applied by universities was to increase the number of students from underrepresented backgrounds—“Black or African American” being a category where this discrepancy was the largest. If he qualified under such a system despite not really being black, I would call that gaming 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".
I don’t know how to answer other than that we disagree on politics. 🤷‍♂️

Still a nothingburger
I agree for the most part, I just think it’s kind of funny. Telling of his personality? I don’t know, being fifteen years away from college applications, people change in time. I’m not the same as I was then, and that was more than 15 years. :)
 
The system of racial preferences applied by universities was to increase the number of students from underrepresented backgrounds—“Black or African American” being a category where this discrepancy was the largest. If he qualified under such a system despite not really being black, I would call that gaming the system.:)
 
Trying to decide whether someone was a "man of the people" based on looks got us Fetterman.

Capital is panicking about it, but they're not a hivemind, how exactly they'll retaliate is not set in stone yet.

Millionaires are panicking not billionaires. Big difference.

Edit: also I'm seeing a lot of people here actually thinking federal taxes are meant to fund things, lol! Clearly no one knows mmt or how fiat actually works.
 
Last edited:
Millionaires are panicking not billionaires. Big difference.
TBH I kinda doubt even that. Even New York guys know his ambitions are limited by Hochul and consequently they have little cause for immediate concern.
The problem is that Zohran was quite obviously part of the crew who would have argued "identity check boxes" are a good thing and appears to have min/maxed them. His response, while it will not sink him, will not be a political ground gain. It should be obvious by his reply that he is attempting to mitigate damage; that he does that at all is telling; on the bright side, at least he recognizes the larger political situation.

Presumably, Heidi Moore is already sympathetic to this new way of thinking, of hierarchies of marginalization and disparity in support based on them. The term whiteness and reference to Jim Crow over this issue, seldom if ever used by those not in sympathy.

Big problem: those sympathetic to this way of thinking are a minority, and there is a rather obvious large and stunningly successful movement that has leveraged that discontent into political power.

Zohran is extremely vulnerable to the old woke takedown. Internal strife of the left, indeed.
 
MAGA will echo on without Trump, but it is all Trump and its power dies with him.

Future fascists will need a new four letter acronym for their red banner. spqr
I disagree, especially if the Democrats choose folks like Mamdani and AOC to be the standard bearers. Some of the pillars of Trump's brand are anti-diversity, anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, white-nationalist, Christian-evangelical... Having someone like Mamdani become transcendent in the Democratic party will fuel that fire, because he will represent to MAGA supporters what all those pillars are against.

More and more I am starting to see Trump/MAGA as a spirit that will live on in the Republican party. Before Trump, it was pretty universal for Republicans to identify as "Reagan Republicans" and the spirit of Regan and his administration ruled the Republican party well after he left office and even after his death, I'd say from 1980 to 2012 when Romney lost. Heck, the Republican Presidents during that time period were Reagan, Reagan's VP, and Regan's VP's son, (with the same name to boot). Romney losing to Obama was really the deathknell of the Republican party being led by the spirit of Reagan. Romney even had the "Reagan" look, his aesthetic invoked a young Reagan and was the image of what many people grew up with as what a US President should look like (ie, Reagan).

Romney's loss was a final repudiation of Reaganism as a viable party theme/aesthetic and sent the Republican voters looking for something different/new, which is what Trump gave them. I think, like Reganism and "Reagan Republicans" we are looking at potentially 20 or 30 years of Trumpism/MAGA and "Trump Republicans" being the new party theme. Like Reagan, Trump will be identified as the standard for Republicans for decades to come. It may not have been so if Trump had lost in 2024, but him returning to office solidifies him and his MAGA brand as winners in the minds and hearts of the electorate. Like Reagan, the Republicans won't need Trump to keep Trump's spirit alive and to propel them to wins in national elections.

I don't think waiting Trump/MAGA out is going to work. I'm skeptical of the notion that the Republicans don't have anyone to pick up Trump's mantle, or that JD Vance couldn't do it. Even puting Vance aside, the Republicans have plenty of folks who could step in to lead a MAGA resurgence if Vance were to lose, or win, then lose re-election (like Papa Bush did). Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Brett Favre, Dennis Quaid, Danica Patrick, Aaron Rodgers, Kid Rock, Mel Gibson, Dean Cain, Charlie Kirk... the Republicans have plenty of big names that could easily glom onto Trump's mantle and ride it into elected office.
TBH I kinda doubt even that. Even New York guys know his ambitions are limited by Hochul and consequently they have little cause for immediate concern.

The problem is that Zohran was quite obviously part of the crew who would have argued "identity check boxes" are a good thing and appears to have min/maxed them. His response, while it will not sink him, will not be a political ground gain. It should be obvious by his reply that he is attempting to mitigate damage; that he does that at all is telling; on the bright side, at least he recognizes the larger political situation.

Presumably, Heidi Moore is already sympathetic to this new way of thinking, of hierarchies of marginalization and disparity in support based on them. The term whiteness and reference to Jim Crow over this issue, seldom if ever used by those not in sympathy.

Big problem: those sympathetic to this way of thinking are a minority, and there is a rather obvious large and stunningly successful movement that has leveraged that discontent into political power.

Zohran is extremely vulnerable to the old woke takedown. Internal strife of the left, indeed.
This isn't the "gotcha" on Mamdani that some folks seem to think it is. I couldn't care less that he checked African-American and Asian on his application despite not considering himself Black. Black people understand the flaws in the term "African-American" just as much as we understand the flaws in the term "Black". The flaws are just different. African-American is a more deeply flawed term that (mostly non-Black) folks have come to prefer just because they think it sounds "nicer". Black people are fine with just being called Black. If you want the checkbox to isolate for Black people then it would be simpler to just make it "Black".

In any case I don't think this is going to have any impact on Mamdani's electability. Trump's "Pocahontas" attack on Warren resonates mostly with his own voters, rather than the folks who would otherwise support Warren. I think it will be the same for Mamdani.
 
Last edited:
This isn't the "gotcha" on Mamdani that some folks seem to think it is. I couldn't care less that he checked African-American and Asian on his application despite not considering himself Black. Black people understand the flaws in the term "African-American" just as much as we understand the flaws in the term "Black". The flaws are just different. African-American is a more deeply flawed term that (mostly non-Black) folks have come to prefer just because they think it sounds "nicer". Black people are fine with just being called Black. If you want the checkbox to isolate for Black people then it would be simpler to just make it "Black".
Yep. I do not expect other demographics in question to have this attitude, though.
Trump's "Pocahontas" attack on Warren resonates mostly with his own voters, rather than the folks who would otherwise support Warren
Agree here, too.
In any case I don't think this is going to have any impact on Mamdani's electability.
I think our disagreement then is whether Mamdani actually needs to capture some of those unsympathetic voters.

I believe he does, especially if he is going to be "the guy". We've seen the trendlines in the 2024 and they must be not simply halted, but reversed.
 
This isn't the "gotcha" on Mamdani that some folks seem to think it is. I couldn't care less that he checked African-American and Asian on his application despite not considering himself Black.

The kicker is that he didn't even get into the school. If he had taken an actual Black person's spot at Columbia, well, that might merit some mild condemnation and an apology or something, but he didn't even get in!

As things are, the far greater scandal is, ironically, journalistic ethics at the New York Times in terms of:
-laundering information obtained via a federal crime by a guy known to be a Race and IQ Nazi
-double standard in refusing to publish hacked material on JD Vance and the Trump campaign last year
 
Moderator Action: Foreign policy discussion moved to a new thread.

 
Back
Top Bottom