Paul Krugman writes:

I was enormously cheered by Mamdani’s victory, not because I think he’ll be a great mayor — honestly I have no idea — but because a Cuomo victory would have been deeply depressing. Why? Because it would have been an affirmation of elite impunity and lack of accountability. Cuomo is by all accounts a terrible person, and his bungled response to Covid killed people. For him to make a comeback simply because he’s part of the old boys’ club and had the big money behind him would have said that the rules only apply to the little people.

There’s a huge argument among Democrats about whether they need to run more centrist candidates. I am not ready to weigh in on that debate. But if you’re going to take that side, find better centrists. I mean, are Cuomo and Eric Adams the best you can do?

Third, the response of the big money — the hysterical assertions that Mamdani is a Communist who will ruin New York, the promises to throw vast sums behind some independent candidate — is especially revealing. Yes, Mamdani calls himself a socialist and is proposing some expansion of government’s role, like opening a presumably limited number of city-run groceries and making buses free. But he’s not going to seize the commanding heights of the city’s economy or seize plutocrats’ fortunes.

In truth, plutocrats will hardly suffer any consequences from their failure to buy this election — other than feeling frustrated over the fact that they did in fact fail to buy it. If attack ads can’t bury a Muslim socialist, maybe the 0.01% doesn’t run things as much as it imagines. [Continue reading…]