this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
23 points (89.7% liked)

Explain Like I'm 5 (ELI5)

439 readers
1 users here now

Easier to type out this way

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I get and agree that more progressive candidates are a good thing, but how much unilateral power does the mayor of one city really have, even if it's NYC? Why is everyone, up to the top of the US government, chiming in on it?

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 43 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I think the point is that it's potentially trendsetting - if someone to the left of the Democrat establishment can win a hotly contested election against both the Republican candidate and the establishment Democrat candidate, with a tax-the-billionaires agenda in one of the economic centers of the US, maybe there's still hope for the US at large. It shows that you can win elections with this kind of candidate and agenda, and despite fighting against both the Republicans and the Democrats.

[–] yardy_sardley@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To add on to this, it puts a seriously progressive candidate in a position to actually implement some of the changes progressive folks have been championing, which has basically never happened before. If things work out well, it will serve as a real-life demonstration of the merits of leftist policy, which will hopefully force moderates/centrists to maybe confront some of their deeply held assumptions and start pulling in the right direction.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Results are a HUGE thing the opposition is scared of. They're making sounds like Mamdani's plans are bound to fail. They sound like bullies when you stand up, "I'm not afraid of you!" Well, if you weren't scared of me, you wouldn't have to announce the fact.

If they weren't afraid of positive results they'd be laughing, "Fuck him. Let him burn NYC to the ground and everyone will see how these policies work out."

[–] londos@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

If you can make it progressive there, you can make it progressive anywhere.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because if NYC was a country, it would be in the top 15 countries by GDP...

It's kind of a big deal.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

This needs more upvotes.

[–] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's quite likely the most powerful mayoral position in the USA.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How so? What powers does NYC mayor have that make the position so powerful?

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The size of the population alone makes it one of the larger economies in the world, at the city-scale. It’s home to countless investment firms and Wall Street. It’s one of the most profitable real-estate markets. Many who go into business there are looking to profit off of the scale of both the sheer number of customers and the amount they can charge.

If his policies work there, it will be a huge rebuke to the idea that we must let the rich have everything they want in order for society to function.

NYC has motion.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

He can't enact those all policies on his own though, right? There must be city and state legislatures that he must work with on at least some of the big things he promised. If those assemblies are set against him, how much can he do?

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

If those assemblies are set against him, how much can he do?

Probably not much. But elected executives tend to hold a sort of "people's mandate". So he might be able to push his agenda, at least in part, via soft power. And if he can't, he can rail against the council members publicly and possibly get people elected in those positions who do agree with him.

I will note that, imo, this is one of the flaws of allowing people to directly elect executives - they tend to take on a king-like position in the public imagination. Really people should be focused more on their individual representitive, as this is far more democratic.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

That remains to be seen, but the hype is around having someone who will at least try.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Largest city in America and Mamdani is a socialist, we are heading in a very positive direction

[–] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago

In addition to the other comments, New York City alone has a bigger population than several entire states.

[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 months ago

It's a big deal because Mamdani is a self-proclaimed socialist. And his victory gives a shred of hope to the rest of us who want to see the country run by rational, empathetic people rather than billionaires.

[–] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

NYC is a trend setter

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Mandami is not a corporate candidate, he's chosen by the people, and billionaires spent hundreds of millions of dollars to try to prevent him from winning. It's a sign that the rich don't have total control, and that their control may be slipping.

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

It probably doesn't, but if it's not one of Trump's peodphile friends, it's probably better for everyone. Don't support Nazis, pedos or fascists.