Roundup
(1) The other two liberal SCOTUS justices, Kagan and Sotomayor, are not all that happy with Ketanji Brown Jackson.
(2) There’s been some progress on a way to restore aging skin. As Glenn Reynolds might say, “faster, please.”
A lot faster.
(3) Don’t click on this if you don’t want to get depressed by the amount of depraved cruelty circulating online about Kirk’s assassination and his widow’s grief. That features mockery coming from the left, which is where you’d expect it to come from and from where I’m virtually certain the vast majority does originate. But a few on the right – or who used to be on the right, at least for a while – get into the “hate Erika Kirk” act in other ways (I’m talking about the Jew-hating Owens, accusing Kirk’s widow of covering up the fact that the culprit was – of course, because this is Owens – Israel).
(4) I have no idea whether this is true or not. But it’s certainly interesting, and it’s certainly a possibility:
Zohran Mamdani’s campaign is facing explosive allegations that it benefited from tens of millions of dollars in donations funneled from George Soros-linked charities as part of an elaborate scheme that may have violated federal tax laws.
The 34-year-old State Assemblyman’s team has always claimed that he rose from obscurity to become New York City’s mayoral front-runner thanks to an organic, grassroots movement involving many small donations and hundreds of young people with backpacks canvassing on his behalf.
But the Daily Mail can reveal that that narrative is now being called into question according to a report from a watchdog website.
(5) A recent NYC mayoral poll shows this:
According to Atlas Intel, Mamdani leads with 41 percent, Cuomo sits at 34 percent as an independent, and Sliwa trails with 24 percent. The poll carries a ±3 margin of error, a much tighter margin than other major surveys that have shown Mamdani leading by double digits.
That seems to be due mostly to Sliwa picking up support. If Sliwa-supporting people decide to switch to Cuomo when actually in the voting booth and faced with the reality of what their Sliwa vote facilitates (a Mamdani victory), that would give Cuomo the win.
In this poll, the “undecided” vote has shrunk to almost nothing. The poll is an outlier, however; others show Mamdani with a much bigger lead – but Atlas has been known for greater accuracy in the past.
DM is not the best source, being very left. But are least they are doing real journalism.
Yes, I wonder how many of Sliwa’s supporters will in fact vote for Cuomo once they are in the voting booth. They must realize what a disaster Mandani would be for the city and that Sliwa has no chance.
And… are the people responding to the poll are saying Sliwa to give Mamdani a polling “win”?
Will this scare the right-center – sane Ds to vote for Cuomo as well as get Mamdani the opportunity to say something stupid, thinking he has the election in the bag?
Mamdani also stepped in it several days ago with a speech to Muslims:
________________________
WATCH: Zohran Mamdani Claims Aunt Was Victim of 9/11 Because She Feared Wearing Hijab on NYC Subway
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/10/25/watch-zohran-mamdani-claims-aunt-was-victim-of-9-11-because-she-feared-wearing-hijab-on-nyc-subway/
________________________
It was pretty disgusting. It’s obvious that he faked being choked up. It turned out he was lying about his “aunt.” Then double-downed and explained it was his father’s cousin whom he called his aunt. That wasn’t true either.
Damn and double-damn anyone, especially a Muslim, who wants to talk about 9-11 in terms of Islamophobia.
I’d like to think there are more than a few New Yorkers who would take offense and oppose Mamdani more vigorously.
I haven’t given up on the possibility of a mass last-minute sanity check to keep Mamdani out of the Mayor’s Office.
I’m afraid all these revelations are too late. Mail-in voting has been underway for some time, and early voting began a week ago. I’d guess 60% of votes have already been cast.
Jackson isn’t even trying to be a legal authority. Even Sotomayor sees it.
I see what’s going on here, the assumption is that this election is a Keynesian beauty contest, and that every voter should be trying to vote for who they think other voters will vote for.
In that case, Mamdani is most likely to win.
If the Cuomo voters actually wanted real change, they’d vote Sliwa and Sliwa would win. They don’t want change, they want to hold position on the slippery slope which has never worked.
I don’t understand why the obligation to stop Mamdani is somehow solely on Sliwa voters switching to Cuomo instead of Cuomo voters switching to Sliwa, like people who want real change would do. Sliwa’s chances aren’t actually much worse than Cuomo’s if the quoted poll is accurate, but neither candidate has a shot at this point.
41+34+24 = 99. If this poll is accurate all the undecideds went to Sliwa. If that’s real I don’t understand why anyone would still say that Sliwa has no chance and they should defect to Cuomo.
At any rate it’s all kind of moot. Mamdani is winning because the Democratic machine is behind him. Almost all the powerful Democrats recently condemned Cuomo’s attack ad, they praise Mamdani at every opportunity or they stay silent.
This is the electorate New York City has, and this is the kind of candidate they are going to get, and there’s no reason whatever to blame conservatives or Republicans.
Niketas:
You write you “don’t understand why the obligation to stop Mamdani is somehow solely on Sliwa voters switching to Cuomo instead of Cuomo voters switching to Sliwa, like people who want real change would do.”
Most Cuomo voters don’t want the sort of “real change” that Sliwa would represent.
In recent presidential elections, something like 80% of New Yorkers (or in the high 70s) voted for the Democrat. In 2024 it was a tad lower: 68%. The last Republican mayor was Bloomberg, but he was more Republlican Lite, having been a Democrat for his entire life till he ran for mayor. New York City has gone more to the left since then, plus Curtis Sliwa is not Republican Lite.
In addition, only this outlier poll shows Sliwa with a total anywhere near that.
The main blame is certainly on those planning to vote for Mamdani. But a secondary blame IMHO goes to Sliwa for not dropping out. If he wins, however, I’ll be pleased but shocked.
Mamdani’s polls are slipping. Some things are changing. Although it’s difficult to tell exactly what.
Stopping Mamdani doesn’t depend solely on Sliwa votes switching to Cuomo. I assume some are coming from Mamdani. There are also still some Undecideds.
I’m not trying to sell a bridge here. I consider it likely Mamdani will win, but we are living in a very dynamic period of American history.
I agree with Kate, Jackson is a Cultural Marxist and sees everything through that.
As of NY, they have no idea what kind of Hell he will bring if he wins.
Candice Owens is weird one. Her (very bad) hot takes a few years showed a glimpse of her lack of discipline.
From the redstate.com story about KBJ to which you linked:
“Unfortunately, there is no way of excising this kind of poisonous force from the Supreme Court. We are stuck with it. We can only hope that other justices get wise to her game.”
Wisely, The Founders created no path to dismissal for justices beyond the very high hurdle of Senatorial conviction after Congressional impeachment; sensible, in that insulation from casual, or even greater-than-casual retribution due to dissatisfaction should be a key structural component of an impartial judiciary.
They did, however, establish a not-quite-so-high hurdle at the front end with the Advise and Consent stipulation which becomes dependent on the makeup of the Senate. KBJ, in the 177th Congress, got 53 Yea and 47 Nay votes to confirm her as a member of the Supreme Court. the 117th was divided 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats, noting that 2 of the 50 Dems included Independents Angus King from Maine and Bernie Sanders from Vermont, both of whom reliably voted with the Democrats.
The only three Republicans who voted Yea were, predictably, Collins (Maine), Murkowski (Alaska) and Romney (Utah). Their Yea votes were both predictable – they’re all Blue-tinted RINOs – and meaningless, because had they stuck with the Rs it would have been a 50-50 tie with the VP – Harris – voting with the Dems to break the tie, thereby confirming Jackson.
The point here is: “Elections matter.” Downstream purity can only be maintained by consistently establishing purity upstream, and that means maintaining a reliable majority of rational votes in both houses. I say “rational” because reading the transcript of Jackson’s testimony should have quite easily crossed party lines to establish her as completely unsuitable for the job, were party allegiance not the primary driving factor.
There appears to be no recourse, save impeachment and conviction, something I’m sure Roberts would do nearly anything to avoid even come up in discussion, much less occur, because the fallout would be disasterous to both The and his, Supreme Court. Which would suggest, perhaps, application of somewhat stronger internal management of The Court might be warranted.
I’m wondering, though, that if moving quite a bit farther upstream might offer some respite; there’s much discussion of late regarding exactly whom, or if there were multiple whoms, none elected by The People, actually performed as President of the United States between the Januarys of 2021 to 2025. If, perhaps, it can be established that identifiable fraud was committed under the auspisces – and name – of The President, what amount, and level, of Presidential actions might be revisited and maybe even rendered invalid.
(I have my quite strong doubts that very much will be uncovered, and confidence that were uncovering to happen it would be only extremely slight because carried to full conclusion it could cause a Constitutional crisis of substantial proportion; an awful lot of Presidential actions would be negated, forcing a re-do of a very large part of federal actions and results.)
We are really at the edge with 3 Cultural Marxists, 3 wall sitters, and 3 conservatives on the Supreme Court. If this went a couple more Leftists it will drastically change the laws of the country
@neo:Most Cuomo voters don’t want the sort of “real change” that Sliwa would represent.
As I’ve been saying. They want to stay put on the slippery slope. Most of them will be just fine with Mamdani when they found out he’s an empty suit and the machine behind him is in place as it ever was.
In addition, only this outlier poll shows Sliwa with a total anywhere near that.
If the poll is wrong, it mathematically cannot only be wrong for Sliwa. If he’s being overcounted, Mamdani and Cuomo are being undercounted, and it’s still not plausible that Cuomo is getting all the benefit from that undercount, and he would need all of it to have an even chance of winning. If it’s so wrong that 10% are getting counted for Sliwa who are really not, then Mamdani is more likely than not to already have an absolute majority.
But a secondary blame IMHO goes to Sliwa for not dropping out.
I’m still find it hard to make sense of this position, that Republicans and conservatives should be deprived of a candidate to vote for on the slim chance that a slightly less bad Democrat might win if the Republican candidate weren’t there, when the Democrat party machine and all the partisan enthusiasm is for the more bad Democrat.
Even if it worked, it would accomplish little. Cuomo is astroturf: the Democrat voters didn’t want him, and the Democratic Party didn’t want him, that why he was forced to resign as governor. He has no mandate or ability or even desire to undo what Mamdani’s candidacy represents. There is no purpose in delay for delay’s sake, a new NYC electorate that rejects what Mamdani represents is not coming to save the day if you wait a few years for another election.
When even 40% of NYC Jews say they support an anti-Zionist candidate, that is a new political reality that is not going to chicaned away by convincing Sliwa to drop out, and it will not be changed by letting Cuomo warm the seat for a few years until forced to resign again or voted out. Mamdani would only have about 36% if anti-Zionism was sufficient to motivate younger Jews to vote against him. This is not to blame Jews for Mamdani, which would be numerically silly, they’re no more or less to blame than Sliwa voters or any comparable slice of the population, just illustrating how different the electoral reality is from even ten years ago. It’s not about the candidates, it’s about the voters.
Mamdani and illegal campaign contributions:
No big deal; nothing will come of this, even if laws were broken.
Why?
Because he is a leftist.
And don’t expect the media to look into this.
When DeBlasio was mayor, he had his wife oversee 1 BILLION in spending and to this day, nobody knows where the money went and there has been and will be no investigation.
Why?
Because the DeBlasio’s are leftists.
Oh, yea, the media ignored this as well.
Niketas:
If under 50% of voters vote for Mamdani, then NYC voters don’t want him. A majority wouldn’t have wanted him., that is.
And the Jews voting for Mamdani are ethnic Jews whose main allegiance is to leftism. Most of them probably hate Israel, as do most leftists. No surprise there. Most Jews don’t seem to want Mamdani, either.
If KBJ’s writings on a case which goes left are added to those of her liberal colleagues, the result might be to reduce the credibility of the liberals’ position. Win or lose, come to think of it.
So…could the other two afford to be seen agreeing with her? Not that their reasoning and research would be any worse than one might expect, but they AGREE WITH JACKSON.
Not sure what the result would be, but I expect the pressure would be felt.
@neo:If under 50% of voters vote for Mamdani, then NYC voters don’t want him. A majority wouldn’t have wanted him., that is.
If under 50% of voters vote for Cuomo, then NYC voters don’t want him.
And it’s irrelevant either way since the election only demands a plurality. Your point would be valid for a different electoral system that did require a majority.
And the Jews voting for Mamdani are ethnic Jews whose main allegiance is to leftism.
Letting Cuomo warm the chair for a bit won’t change that.
On KBJ:
“Unfortunately, there is no way of excising this kind of poisonous force from the Supreme Court. We are stuck with it. We can only hope that other justices get wise to her game.”
… and:
“Kagan and Sotomayor, are not all that happy with Ketanji Brown Jackson”
I wonder if KBJ is committed & stubborn, or if enough displeasure from her peers might eventually get her to retire. (The displeased peers should be all 8, obviously.)
I doubt she’d retire, and the democrats would try to discourage that, of course.
But I can wish.
(Another fraught issue would be the replacement situation, obviously. )
Niketas:
Of course. That’s what happens in many 3-way races – no one gets a majority and there is no one the majority wants. I would think that’s obvious.
Niketas:
I wonder why you and so many others care so deeply how secular Jews vote. The Jewish population in NYC used to be something like 25% a while back. Now it’s about 12%. The percentage of Orthodox Jews is also higher than it once was, and they vote on the right. So let’s see – 38% of 12% is around 4%. So those secular Jews who are leftist Mandami voters represent about 4% of NYC voters.
@neo: I wonder why you and so many others care so deeply how secular Jews vote.
I’m reminded of the many atheists and non-Christians who like to weigh in on how Christians don’t understand the Bible or how to practice their faith.
Or writers like Thomas Frank, now a Sanders supporter, who wrote “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” That book was about the foolish citizens in flyover country who don’t understand that voting conservative is against their own self-interest.
In all three cases there seems to be a certain amount of condescension and blame at work.
We’ve been told forever that Jews are A People. As A People, they’ve been subject to hideous persecution and cool social distancing and everything in between.
Thus, when a substantial bunch of what is supposedly A People votes against what appears to be The People’s interests, a question arises. But it would appear that those folks are not part of The People at all. Not until Himmler’s clerks start looking through the birth records.
I honestly don’t see much difference between Cuomo and Mamdani. The latter is more open about his hatred of Israel and of free markets. But does anyone really think Cuomo would lift a finger for either? I don’t. He betray either or both in a second if he saw an advantage in doing so.
There is also a theory that the shock of a Mamdani win might move the rest of the state a little to the right. I don’t know that, but there is no doubt in my mind that Mayor Mamdani under Governor Stefanik would be better for everyone than Mayer Cuomo under Governor Hochul.
In all three cases there seems to be a certain amount of condescension and blame at work.
==
Frank’s question was condescending as if turned on at least two conceits: (1) that his understanding of political economy was robust and (2) that everyone should have the priorities he wished they had.
==
Mamdani is hostile to Jews, hostile to Americans, hostile to our country, hostile to small business, hostile to law enforcement, bereft of any executive experience, bereft of any discrete skills, and possessed of a spotty employment history. It’s actually quite puzzling why anyone would hire him to do anything.
Art
Mamdani is being hired by the people who hate the people and institutions he hates.
With regard to Islam and Muslims, the contents and actual, functional meaning of the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, and the life and example of Muhammad, what Islam’s real priorities and aims are, and the history of Islam–particularly its conduct in war, and it’s interactions with non-Muslims and the West—the leaders and people of the West have evidently and generally been very adept at ignoring all of the above; the record.
Now, we have the Catholic church, here in the U.S., joining the club.*
* See https://thefederalist.com/2025/10/31/the-u-s-conference-of-catholic-bishops-needs-to-stop-apologizing-for-islam/
@ Snow > “the leaders and people of the West have evidently and generally been very adept at ignoring all of the above”
The Federalist post was very informative, especially about possible motives for the USCCB to issue this directive to American Catholics (yes, I know it’s not “doctrine,” but many people take their cues from the Approved Narrative Institutions).
Contra the Bishops, we should definitely ask American (or European) domiciled Muslims to condemn terrorism committed by their co-religionists, just like the Internet Harpies demand of American Jews, Christians, and possibly Buddhists (although that’s not a high-profile demographic here).
The funding of the books and articles pushing “anti-Islamophobia” (which is as usual defined as “any criticism of Muslims or Islam or Mohammed or terrorist actions”) is insidious, as we have learned through the illegal immigration scandals that the US Catholic Church organizations (among other churches and NGOs; it’s a BIG business) get a LOT of money from the taxpayers for facilitating the illegal invasion (disguised as charity, and probably sincerely so by LIV believers), which boils down to putting their pecuniary interests above the safety and well-being of US citizens.
More details at Snow’s link