Samuelsen and Goldwyn on the same committee is pretty funny.

By contrast, if you ask what the Democratic Party stands for, the top answers - from both liberals and conservatives - will often be things that the Democratic party has never itself actually supported ("open borders", "pronouns", "DEI").

As @anildash.com wrote on Nov 5th, Zohran has been so clear and consistent with his messaging that even his *opponents* typically repeat his top 3 slogans† verbatim when criticizing them.

There's no doubt what he stands for!

†freeze the rent, make buses fast & free, deliver universal childcare

The thing about being clear about your agenda is not that you can't make strategic compromises at the edges to get things done. But they have to be strategic: things that advance your overall philosophy, rather than muddy the waters about what you stand for or casting doubt on what you'll fight for.

it basically went exactly the way I expected it to, but somehow even better

the other piece here is the New York piece, he is a New Yorker and he loves New York and he thinks being the mayor is very cool and he likes hanging out with the cool mayor

he hates and wants to punish other cities but this is his town

if you could keep Mamdani around the White House to talk to him all day you could probably get him to do a bunch of good shit, the problem is that after this meeting the next guy in the room is Stephen Miller

One of the best things about electing an "inexperienced" candidate is that they simply haven't had the time to rack up all the to-be-paid favors that get cashed out via these jobs. Can you imagine what a Cuomo mayoralty would've looked like? Every job would be his rolodex going back to the mid-80s