Thanks, David. It was wonderful.
Judy
From: David Studhalter <oldionus@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 11:45 AM
Cc: F Johnson <fhoozit@gmail.com>; Brown, Bob <hirschmann.brown@gmail.com>; Brad Fenton <bfenton43@gmail.com>; Belle Cole <bellecole@comcast.net>; guy hicks <guyhicksjr@gmail.com>; Nancy Studhalter <nestudhalter@gmail.com>; Robt Pine <K6RMP@yahoo.com>; Sally Schubert <sallyschubert3@gmail.com>; Seth Osburn <sethosburn@adelphia.net>; Sydnee Singer <srsinger@aol.com>; Chauncey Canfield <chauncey.canfield@gmail.com>; David Studhalter <zubos.gyromantic@blogger.com>; David Studhalter <ds@gyromantic.com>; Richard Mechtly <rtvmech_2015@yahoo.com>; Sara <sarahdara629@aol.com>; Margaret Bloomfield <Margaret.Bloomfield@gmail.com>; Jean Barganz <jbarganz@aol.com>; Paul Emerzian <pwemerzian@frontier.com>; Boyd Osgood <bosgood.bsn@gmail.com>; Eustacia (Jo) Su <PekinDuck@comcast.net>; Mike Hatheway <mhath2018@gmail.com>; Lewis Waner <Lew_Waner@yahoo.com>; Tim Prindiville <jtimp0@att.net>; Don Strick (piano gp) <donstrick4@msn.com>; Jim & Judy Seubert <seubert.jim@comcast.net>; Mark Jacobi <mjacobi36@hotmail.com>; Meena Nachiappan <mnachiappan@armijogarcialaw.com>; James Beals <james.beals@gmail.com>; Jean Clare Smith, MD <jean316@bellsouth.net>; Cutrell, Doug <onlydoug@gmail.com>; Stanley Hoff <stanhoff@gmail.com>; Sheila O'Brien <sobrien572@gmail.com>; William Koseluk <klavierguy@gmail.com>; Nick Fontana <njfontanapiano@gmail.com>; Marny Elicker <marionpierce26@gmail.com>; Jae (Jack) Perry Hines <jaehines@hotmail.com>; Gary Hewitt <tresbullish@yahoo.com>; Matthew Slick <lucydog4@hotmail.com>; Steve Ware <steve@campanella.net>; Viktors Berstis <viktors@berstis.com>; Chong Kee Tan <tanchongkee@gmail.com>; Christopher Schindler <Chris24@teleport.com>; Kristy Moore <kandbmanagement@comcast.net>; Philip Mandel <phmand@gmail.com>
Subject: New cantata video
New Bach Stiftung video of one of my very favorite of Bach's cantatas, BWV 176, Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes.
Thanks, David. It was wonderful.
Judy
From: David Studhalter <oldionus@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 11:45 AM
Cc: F Johnson <fhoozit@gmail.com>; Brown, Bob <hirschmann.brown@gmail.com>; Brad Fenton <bfenton43@gmail.com>; Belle Cole <bellecole@comcast.net>; guy hicks <guyhicksjr@gmail.com>; Nancy Studhalter <nestudhalter@gmail.com>; Robt Pine <K6RMP@yahoo.com>; Sally Schubert <sallyschubert3@gmail.com>; Seth Osburn <sethosburn@adelphia.net>; Sydnee Singer <srsinger@aol.com>; Chauncey Canfield <chauncey.canfield@gmail.com>; David Studhalter <zubos.gyromantic@blogger.com>; David Studhalter <ds@gyromantic.com>; Richard Mechtly <rtvmech_2015@yahoo.com>; Sara <sarahdara629@aol.com>; Margaret Bloomfield <Margaret.Bloomfield@gmail.com>; Jean Barganz <jbarganz@aol.com>; Paul Emerzian <pwemerzian@frontier.com>; Boyd Osgood <bosgood.bsn@gmail.com>; Eustacia (Jo) Su <PekinDuck@comcast.net>; Mike Hatheway <mhath2018@gmail.com>; Lewis Waner <Lew_Waner@yahoo.com>; Tim Prindiville <jtimp0@att.net>; Don Strick (piano gp) <donstrick4@msn.com>; Jim & Judy Seubert <seubert.jim@comcast.net>; Mark Jacobi <mjacobi36@hotmail.com>; Meena Nachiappan <mnachiappan@armijogarcialaw.com>; James Beals <james.beals@gmail.com>; Jean Clare Smith, MD <jean316@bellsouth.net>; Cutrell, Doug <onlydoug@gmail.com>; Stanley Hoff <stanhoff@gmail.com>; Sheila O'Brien <sobrien572@gmail.com>; William Koseluk <klavierguy@gmail.com>; Nick Fontana <njfontanapiano@gmail.com>; Marny Elicker <marionpierce26@gmail.com>; Jae (Jack) Perry Hines <jaehines@hotmail.com>; Gary Hewitt <tresbullish@yahoo.com>; Matthew Slick <lucydog4@hotmail.com>; Steve Ware <steve@campanella.net>; Viktors Berstis <viktors@berstis.com>; Chong Kee Tan <tanchongkee@gmail.com>; Christopher Schindler <Chris24@teleport.com>; Kristy Moore <kandbmanagement@comcast.net>; Philip Mandel <phmand@gmail.com>
Subject: New cantata video
New Bach Stiftung video of one of my very favorite of Bach's cantatas, BWV 176, Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes.
New Bach Stiftung video of one of my very favorite of Bach's cantatas, BWV 176, Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes.
The FTC handles scam, fraud, and deceptive email reports — including impersonation of government agencies.
Go to: https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/
Click "Report Now"
Choose "Email" as the type of contact
Describe the email, sender address, and link behavior (e.g., that it claims to be from SSA, praises partisan legislation, and links to a private non-SSA domain like Granicus)
You can paste the email contents or upload a screenshot, if you have one
The SSA has its own reporting system for impersonation or scam emails:
Go to: https://oig.ssa.gov/report/
Click "Submit a Report"
Choose "Scam Email or Letter"
Fill out the form describing the misleading message
You can reference that it claimed to come from SSA but included political content and redirected to subscriberhelp.granicus.com, a non-government domain.
Forward the original email (with headers intact, if possible) to:
spam@uce.gov (FTC's spam monitoring inbox)
I received an email claiming to be from the Social Security Administration. It included overtly political language praising "Trump's One Big Ugly Bill," which is not appropriate for a government agency. In fine print it stated that the email was not produced at taxpayer expense, and when I clicked "Help," it redirected to a private third-party site, subscriberhelp.granicus.com. This appears to be a propaganda or scam email misusing the appearance of official government communication. Please investigate and take appropriate action.
| The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits. |
|
|
| ||||
| The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits. |
|
|
| ||||
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . . a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, do solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown.
For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
— Declaration of Independence
On July 4, 1776, our fellow Americans declared their independence from the British empire and its ruling monarchy. Thus began the American Revolutionary War against Great Britain to secure America's independence from the tyrannical rule of King George III. On that first Independence Day almost two hundred and fifty years ago, America freed itself forever from the bondage and oppression of tyrannical rule by monarchs and kings. There would never be another king in the United States of America.
Eleven years later, on September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the United States was signed by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia, and in 1789, thirteen years after the American Colonists declared their independence from the British empire, the Constitution became the charter of government of the United States and the guarantor of our rights, liberties, and freedoms. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Great Charter, became part of the Constitution in 1791.
Today, the United States of America is the beacon of freedom to the world and the Constitution of the United States the envy of the world.
The genius of the American experiment in self-governance is that "We the People," not the government, possess all power and we govern ourselves by representational democracy. We entrust our power to our government to exercise on our behalf in the interests of our nation. To ensure that our government faithfully exercises the power we entrust it with, we the American people ordained and established government by law, instead of by kings.
In America, the rule of law is king.
Let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.
— Thomas Paine, 1776
When the tyrannical reign of King George III became destructive of the ends of government by law under which all persons are equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, the American Colonists declared their independence from the British King, chronicling 27 grievances of self-evident truths about tyranny as reasons for their declaration of independence.
On this July 4, 2025, the eve of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of America's declaration of independence and the founding of this Nation, "We the People" hold to be self-evident these 27 truths about freedom—and about tyranny.
— All persons are endowed with certain rights, liberties, and freedoms that are unalienable and that are the bulwark against tyranny by government.
For, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
— Government should secure, protect, and preserve our unalienable rights, liberties, and freedoms.
For, the King "has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection."
— Government is instituted and its powers derived from the consent of we, the governed, in order that government will secure, protect, and preserve our rights, liberties, and freedoms.
For, "To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" and "to institute new Government . . . laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
— Government power is limited, and government is obligated to conform its every act to the requirements of law, which acknowledges our creation as equals and enshrines our equal and unalienable rights, liberties, and freedoms.
For, the King gave "his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments."
— Every person's rights, liberties, and freedoms—as well as the rights of the majority and minority—are best secured and safeguarded by separation of the respective powers of the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. By separation of the powers of each of the branches of government from the powers of the others, the powers of each of the three coequal branches of government are limited and checked and balanced by the powers of the others.
For, the King "has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures," he "has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance," and he "has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers."
— Each, the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary should exercise only the powers respectively enumerated and conferred upon it by the Constitution or otherwise by law, thereby both avoiding and guarding against encroachment upon the powers of the other two branches of government.
For, the King "has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within." He also "has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures." The King "obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers" and "he has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."
— Government should provide for the common defense, protect the homeland, support our allies abroad, and prevent foreign interference in the affairs of the nation.
For, the King "abolished the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies."
— Government should wage war against foreign enemies only when authorized by the Congress of the United States in a Declaration of War.
For, the King "has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures."
— Government should only wage war against foreign enemies, not misperceived domestic enemies. The people are not the enemy of the government. Rather, the government that regards the people as its enemy is itself the enemy of the people.
For, the King "has excited domestic insurrections amongst us" and "has abdicated Government here . . . by waging War against us." The King "is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."
— Government should respect the need for the separation of military from civil authority and the need to limit military to military purpose and not to civil purpose.
For, the King "has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
— Government should respect that America is a nation of immigrants from foreign lands.
For, "We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here" yet the King "endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."
— Government should respect the need for free and open trade with the world.
For, the King has "given his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world."
— Every person should have the right to petition government and petition the government for redress of oppressions without government answer of injury.
"For, in every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned the King for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
— Every person should have the right to dissent from government and to protest government peacefully.
For, where tyranny and despotism demand allegiance to tyrant and to uniformity, democracy and freedom from tyranny demand the opposite – allegiance to country and to differences of people and opinion. "When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce a People under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
— Every person should have the right to speak freely and to associate freely with others without fear that government will punish them for the exercise of their right to speak and associate freely.
— No person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the promise and guarantee against arbitrary government by tyrants, monarchs, and kings.
For, the King "abolished the free System of English Laws . . . and established therein an Arbitrary government."
— Every person is equal under law, enjoys the same privileges and protections of law, and is subject to the same constraints and penalties of law.
For, "all men are created equal [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
— No person is above the law. The law applies equally to all persons elected or appointed to serve the American people in their government as it does to all other persons, and all elected or appointed representatives of the people are accountable under law for their offenses against the people as every other person is accountable for their offenses.
"For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other . . . Let a crown be placed thereon. . . . But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is."
— No person elected or appointed to represent the people enjoys the royal prerogatives of a king. America was impelled to seek its separation and independence from the tyranny of a king.
For, the King "has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." The King "has abolished the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies."
— Every person should be equally franchised as provided by the Constitution and able to vote freely for their representatives to government in free and fair elections.
For, the King "has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance" and "he has refused to pass other Laws . . . unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."
— Every candidate for elected public office should pledge to the American people that they will accept, respect, and honor, the will of the people expressed in the results of the people's free and fair elections and that they will honor the peaceful transfer of power from one office holder to the next.
For, we the people hold all power and "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." We the people established government by law, instead of by men, in order that our representatives could not, like the king, subjugate us to their will. Our representatives are subjugated to our will by Constitution and Law. "Lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is."
— All persons should have access to independent courts of law to vindicate their rights and interests, and the courts of law should be neither political nor beholden to either the Legislature or Executive.
For, the King "obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers" and he made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."
— All persons suspected and accused of criminal offense should be protected from government abuse by the Constitution's limitations on searches and seizures, due process, equal protection, the privilege against self-incrimination and by the prohibitions on selective and vindictive prosecutions, double jeopardy, and cruel and unusual punishments.
— No person should be tried for criminal offense except by jury of peers.
For, the King "deprived us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury."
— No person should be investigated or investigated and prosecuted for offenses against the nation except in accordance with law.
— No person should be investigated by the Executive on pretext or investigated and prosecuted by the Executive on pretext in revenge and retaliation for different opinion or politics from the Executive or for personal offense taken by the Executive.
For, the King "transported us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences" and "quartered large bodies of armed troops among us and protected them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States."
— All persons should have the right to counsel who is independent of the government and uninfluenced and uninfluenceable by the government, and whose highest responsibility in the representation of their client is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against abuse by the government.
For, the King "tried us for pretended offences" and "protected . . . murderers by a mock Trial, from punishment."
On this Independence Day, July 4, 2025, these self-evident truths of freedom—and of tyranny—are solemnly declared and published.
This is a free edition of Progress Report, an award-winning newsletter. To support independent journalism, elevate untold stories, and unlock exclusive posts, you can become a premium member for the price of a coffee: One more thing: Would you mind hitting the little heart and recycle buttons below to help us get our work to more readers? Substack is ultra-competitive and really helps. How Zohran Mamdani shocked the world — and what it meansThe NYC mayoral primary could presage huge changes to the Democratic Party
Welcome to a Tuesday night edition of Progress Report. We knew there was a strong possibility that Zohran Mamdani could win the NYC mayoral primary, but the broad assumption was that it would happen after the ranked choice votes were tabulated next week. Instead, he blew away the field to score a historic victory and force New York journalists such as myself to burn the midnight oil to write about his victory a full week early. Not that I'm complaining — tonight, we'll examine how this happened and the critically important lessons that should be taken from the election, with inside insights from my work in this mayoral election. Remember, you can check out my deep dive into the election with journalist and political strategist Michael Lange right here.
Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani has defeated disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and will be the Democratic nominee for Mayor of New York City. The 33-year-old Democratic Socialist's decisive victory is without precedent in modern Democratic politics, both for what he represents and the forces that he vanquished during his campaign. Mamdani began the race as a little-known legislator with virtually zero support outside of Astoria and young DSA organizers, and for many observers, he was the afterthought in a field filled with New York political stalwarts. In the end, he survived a bombardment of attack ads and cheap shots in the media, riding a wave of excitement above the slings and arrows flung by an old guard of sclerotic power brokers and billionaires. And in so many ways, this win validates what we've been arguing here for years and years. Here are some lessons that Democrats, pundits, and journalists should take away from this unbelievable upset: Voters have firmly rejected Democratic gerontocracy and corruptionWhen party insiders have their meltdowns over this election, it won't be because they're worried about the Democratic Party's future. It'll be entirely because they're terrified for their own futures now that voters have rejected them. These people did everything they could to sabotage Mamdani, no matter how organically popular his campaign grew or how many solutions it offered to the Democratic Party's existential crisis. Cuomo's Super PAC produced racist mailers, accusations of anti-Semitism were irresponsibly hurled by lawmakers and pundits, relics like James Clyburn and Bill Clinton threw their vastly diminished weight behind Cuomo, and dozens of New York Democrats who once called for his resignation during his sexual harassment scandal lined up behind him. North of $20 million in anti-Mamdani TV ads blanketed the city.  But none of it worked because New Yorkers would not be bamboozled into forgiving an unrepentant retread who dripped corruption and contempt for voters. They ignored tired canards about the electorate being afraid of ambitious ideas and fearful of real change, because they knew that they were the electorate. The desperate need for change is obvious, but the people who run the Democratic Party have been trying to ignore that to maintain their own power. This is a seismic shock to the system, even if Democratic leaders try to downplay it. Watch them quickly abandon Cuomo and say that he was a particularly flawed candidate, though that didn't stop them from jumping behind his campaign. There will be months and months of sniping about Mamdani in the press, accusing him of not being organized or alienating big donors. There will be stories about conservative Democrats fleeing the party. The playbook is clear. But this victory will only embolden progressive lawmakers and outsiders to run for office, both in open races and primary challenges against antiquated, corrupt, and cowardly Democrats who now suddenly seem more vulnerable than ever. In New York City alone, there already murmurs that Torres and Rep. Dan Goldman could see challenges from Michael Blake and Brad Lander, two mayoral contenders who earned public admiration during this race. Dedication to a simple, hopeful messageMamdani won over New Yorkers with charming, innovative campaign videos that focused on his plans to tame the cost of living crisis gripping the city. That message, repeated relentlessly and with an earnest optimism, really came down to a few simple, easy-to-understand promises, including free and fast busses, freezing the rent on rent-stabilized apartments, and city-run grocery stores. While you can quibble with some of the specifics — the city will have to ask Gov. Kathy Hochul for money to cover the cost of the bus scheme — the reality is that voters are not wonks and they gravitate toward candidates who offer simple, digestible, and material solutions that will tangibly improve their lives. It's the exact opposite of what Democrats so often do, which is pitch invisible tax credits and programs that take years and years to roll out. As I've repeated for years, campaigns have to give people a reason to leave the house and cast their ballots, especially in dangerously hot weather. Mamdani's campaign created a clear picture of what his New York could look like; Cuomo offered little beyond vague talk about "getting things done" and half-assed (and ChatGPT-written!) policy papers. It's also worth noting that Mamdani made the time to work on these videos, even if they took him to far reaches of the city or took up half a day. Many candidates are really unwilling to do that, whether it's out of arrogance, ignorance, or a need to focus on fundraising. Mamdani's relationship with DSA made raising small dollars so easy that he didn't have to work the phones begging prospective donors for cash all day, which allowed him to make these videos and raise even more money.  Cuomo ran a dour campaign that depicted the city as a crime-ridden hellhole, arguing that only a strongman with his decades of experience — no matter how much damage he caused people — could fix it. How he'd do it, and for whom, was always unclear. I'm a New Yorker, and Andrew Cuomo's campaign made me feel depressed about the city's prospects, even under his watch. He was offering a triage, not a future. Even if you were willing to ignore his litany of personal scandals and the number of grandparents he helped kill, nothing he said during his campaign was at all motivating, and it led to a collapse in support once another option seemed possible. People love being a part of somethingThe most successful political campaigns have been more like movements: Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and yes, even Donald Trump have animated people in ways that transcended politics. Supporters were more than voters, they were evangelists who dedicated their time and energy and resources to those campaigns, where they met people who were similarly devoted to the cause. Being a significant figure within New York's DSA chapter gave Mamdani a nice head start on that front, but it took a special talent and staff to inspire army that swelled to more than 50,000 volunteers. From the beginning, Mamdani integrated his supporters into his campaign videos — something I urged Jessica Ramos to do even before Mamdani entered the race — and embraced the memes produced by fans without ever trying to co-opt them or silence supporters who they could have viewed as liabilities. Trump's campaigns have been nasty and divisive, but they've also always treated his supporters as part of the larger team. Backing Trump, especially early on, meant being a member of a kind of upstart rebel army, and MAGA obsessives reveled in every harsh tweet and triggered liberal. Their politics and personalities are total opposites, but Mamdani's supporters similarly experienced a kind of validation every time he posted a great video or ripped off a good line in a debate. On that note, Mamdani never tried to triangulate or shrink from his beliefs, no matter how much money and press attention was focused on cynically attacking them. Most prominently was his support for the Palestinian people, which earned him relentless accusations of antisemitism. He defended himself from those allegations, but he never apologized for his beliefs. Democratic voters are so used to being thrown under the bus by their candidates and leaders that Mamdani's decision to stick to his guns was a kind of validation that inspired further buy-in and loyalty. Incidents like his screaming at Trump border czar Tom Homan in Albany went viral, further underscoring his willingness to fight. People want to be part of that fight and feel galvanized by that kind of moment. Last Friday night's walk down the length of Manhattan was the entire thesis of the Mamdani campaign in action: a small group of political optimists invited New Yorkers to join them in a joyous march through a cross-section of a working class city, growing with neighborhood until it became a diverse parade of supporters and people who were just along for the ride. He proactively built a real coalitionYoung voters quickly gravitated toward him, giving Mamdani an advantage in parts of North Brooklyn and his home turf in western Queens, but that's hardly enough to be competitive in an election, let alone win it outright against a former governor with near-universal name recognition. Instead of assuming cultural affinities would help him with certain demographics, Mamdani was proactive in courting diverse communities across the five boroughs, sending his volunteer army to canvass neighborhoods that were previously thin on voters. First generation citizens gravitated toward him as he spoke to their concerns and cut a warm, aspirational figure, and he emphasized as many languages as possible. Compare that to Cuomo, who had zero ground game (he depended on the Super PAC) and really only ever showed up at orthodox synagogues and Black churches at the invitation of their leaders, who usually owed him favors. The obvious solution to the dude problem — if they want itA sports metaphor for you: In January, the Dallas Mavericks traded Luka Doncic, the 26-year-old global superstar who figured to be their anchor for the next decade, to the LA Lakers in exchange for an injury-prone center and some role players. The trade was instantly greeted as one of the worst in NBA history and led to dramatic protests by irate and heartbroken fans. Then, this spring, the Mavericks rode ultra-slim odds to an improbable victory in the NBA draft lottery, giving them the opportunity to draft Cooper Flagg, a generational talent out of Duke who has been tapped as the Next Big Thing. It was a miraculous twist of good fortune for an organization that was in absolute disarray after making a disastrous mistake, an unearned solution that has quieted fan revolt and gotten them excited for the future once again. After their catastrophic loss in November, Democrats were a lot like the Dallas Mavericks brass, being raked over the coals for a series of screw ups that collapsed the party's support among young men and seemed to doom them to perennial drubbings. And then, like Cooper Flagg falling into the Mavs' lap, Mamdani's sudden emergence felt like a divine intervention: an affable 33-year-old former hobby rapper who loves sports, enthusiastically quotes pop culture, and regularly challenges authority — running as not only a Democrat, but a peace-loving, oligarchy-rejecting populist. Mamdani went on the Chapo Trap House podcast early in his campaign and ultimately assembled a coalition of left-leaning dude celebrity supporters — comedians, podcasters, TV hosts — that resembled the orbit of influencers that backed Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020 but were chased away by the Democratic establishment. It was an even more natural fit; he spoke their language, had the same cultural references, and experienced the same millennial economic uncertainty.  While we won't get a demographic breakdown of the electorate for a while, the Emerson poll released on Monday found Mamdani way ahead among men, so it's almost assured that they were key to his victory. This is probably the least surprising aspect of what will forever be seen as a shocking and unexpected upset. Since early last year I've been writing about the reasons behind Democrats' obvious trouble with young men, as well as possible solutions, and my thesis has consistently been that politics is downstream from culture, meaning that progressivism has to be slipped into conversations about sports, movies, music, internet culture, and whatever else people are into. Mamdani's ability to talk about the Knicks and affordable housing policy at the same time is a manifestation of that. None of this should be mind-blowing; I've been prescribing the solution since before Democrats would admit it's a problem. The issue is that when party leaders say that they want to find a "liberal" Joe Rogan or build up media that can reach young and diverse voters, what they really mean is that they want to find people who will willingly parrot their sanitized message. What they need to do instead is find compelling candidates with their own authentic points of view and get them in front of independent creators, hosts, and journalists who have real connections with audiences, whether that's local or cultural, and let them cook. Wait, Before You Leave!Progress Report has raised over $7 million dollars for progressive candidates and causes, breaks national stories about corrupt politicians, and delivers incisive analysis, and goes deep into the grassroots. None of the money we've raised for candidates and causes goes to producing this newsletter or all of the related projects we put out. In fact, it costs me money to do this. So, I need your help. For just $5 a month, you can buy a premium subscription that includes:
You can also make a one-time donation to Progress Report's GoFundMe campaign — doing so will earn you a shout-out in the next weekend edition of the newsletter! You're currently a free subscriber to Progress Report. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
© 2025 Jordan Zakarin
|
