In part 1 I assessed Mayor Mamdani's laws in the legislative bodies of New york city.
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/363-zohran-mamdani-legislation/

As mayor he supported three members of the democratic socialist against members of the party of andrew jackson who are not.
Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated Adriano Espaillat
Brad Lander defeated Dan Goldman
Claire Valdez defeated Antonio Reynoso

When I look at Mamdani I see a continuation from Obama through Schrumpf.
Obama who couldn't win an illinois seat focusing on the black vote, won by splitting the black and white vote and that led to support from very wealthy donors which undid Hillary Clinton's run.
As president Obama was brilliant at speaking, commercials, advertising, appearance but was woeful as a legislator, a maker of laws. the laws he made were not only poor but dysfunctional.
Obama inspired a bunch of people who are what I will call, aracial americans: OCasio Cortez + Orlhan and others do commercials for certain cultures but in truth are Statians, of the usa. They are more comfortable in the multiracial malaise of racially mixed zones of cities in modern USA than the racially aligned zones that afix most of the usa.
Ocasio Cortez and others, prompted laws in congress but none of them were able to get the support of the majority in congress,
Then Schrumpf did what Obama did in the party of andrew jackson and broke through the methodology in theparty of abraham lincoln. Where Obama , focused on splitting all the phenotypical votes and focusing on the aracial voters, usually younger. Schrumpft , ignored the hawks, calling for isolation, ignored the christian, admittedly calling for pussied to be grabbed, and focused on the poor end of the fiscals, by touting america first.
Schrumpf like AOC before him and Obama before her, is a poor legislator.
Now, more will join AOC in the congress, and from my standing the speeches will get more sharp, the polish of appearance will be great, but the legislation is more deadlocked than ever. So, I don't see any new laws coming from the congress of the usa unless, a coalition is made between the anti schrumpt + democratic socialists in the congress. But with lobbying I don't see how. the jewish lobby is the biggest loser and the democratic socialist + many schrumpt + ant schrumpf folk, seem very disinterested in supporting israel.

As I said with Obama, and AOC, and Schrumpft , I said with MAmdani and his local crew. What are your laws and if your laws are impotent , which means don't get results, that will lead to a negative reaction among the common folk. And, then they participate less and less. The most important thing to note about the elections in the dinkey primaries was these were low turnout. It wasn't that a majority of people voted. It is that, a minority voted, but that minority vote was split. Which means, the voters are looking at these candidates carefully and any failure will be problematic.

INFO
https://www.npr.org/2026/06/23/nx-s1-5868676/mamdani-nyc-primaries-progressive-dsa

FORUM POST
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12801-dsa-2026/
CONTENT
Mamdani and the democratic socialist

AFTER READING THE COMMENTS BELOW AND SEEING IN HINDSIGHT
Most in this group saw the rise of Mamdani, especially as a democratic socialist. Though only I connected his style to that of Schrumpf + Obama. For I don't see any difference between either of them. All three are very good at media campaigning, the key to getting elected, but none are actually good at legislation. The problem Obama+AOC+SChrumpft+MAndani+Chevalier and all their peers have is ... I will not say. But, the elected official who doesn't do the one thing they all do, will open a true can of worms, completely inevitable or foresightful at this point.


COMMENTS TO DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

2016 this was said by @Pioneer1
Bernie Sanders says some good things but too many of his supporters are pushing Socialism...or what many of his supports call "Democratic Socialism"....which will not work for Black America because too much socialism will make our people lazy.
I've seen too many talented Black men and women who grew up thinking they could "slick" their way through life by hustling and pimping the system until they could somehow get a social security or disablity check for a few hundred dolllars....then they're satisified.
But in a properly managed economy,  if they were pushed to use just HALF of the good sense God gave them many of them would be millionaires by now.
On the other hand we don't need unbridled Capitalism either because it will lead to the type of exploitation and despotism you see brewing in the United State today that locks so many poor AfroAmericans out of the economy and creates a "permanent underclass".
SOME things that people depend on for their very livelihood like healthcare and education should be socialized.
Other things should not.
I'm not hating on Bernie.
I think he'd probably be a better President from a domestic policy point of view than Hillary and I KNOW he'd be better than Trump.
But we have to learn that what works for OTHERS will not necessarily work for us.
What we need as AfroAmericans is a system uniquely designed BY us...FOR us; and if not implimented by a Black politician in an executive position such as President or Governor....atleast whoever does get in office while respect our agenda and integrate it into his/her Administration.

citation

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/3678-this-or-that/#comment-16411

2022 thsi was said by @Stefan
The Democrats are about to get their backsides waxed in this year's midterm elections. Several mistakes are to blame and most are unforced errors.
1) Too many Black people remain ignorant of what Critical Race Theory actually is. It's not Black History, although many well-meaning Black folks claim that it is. And sadly, they cling to this errant view on social media.
But Critical Race Theory is NOT Black History, which is a collection of truths and facts. Theories are simply suppositions.
I will maintain that CRT is taught only at the university level not in grade, intermediate or any high schools.
The problem lies in that few have come up with a ONE SENTENCE description of exactly what Critical Race Theory is.
Most who try to explain it employ 50-cent word verbiage which average readers in the U.S. have a hard time understanding since most read at a 7th and 8th grade level.
Others dance around it claiming: "Oh, it's been around for 40 years and such and such.” Long-winded explanations do little to clear the air.
So, I fashioned a one-sentence retort that can be shoved in the face of CRT detractors.
Because the GOP and its supporters have been killing us on messaging while we've gleefully surrendered the intellectual landscape by choosing to scream dumb chit such as "Defund the Police!"
Oh, yeah, what a winning slogan that was.
Here is my one sentence description of CRT:
Critical Race Theory is a premise that posits skin color and race determine the outcomes of most decisions, laws and behavior in the U.S.
That's it! That is the one sentence description. And this one line should have been tossed back at those White racists who have been skewering us with attacks on the social term "woke." This is why we have lost the Messaging War. And CRT is going to be used by millions upon millions of racist and angry Whites, Latinos and some Blacks to clobber the Democrats at the polls in November. 
2) Refusal to acknowledge Bernie Sanders' push for so-called Democratic Socialism has failed miserably.
Far too many folks are still drunk on Bernie's Kool-Aid. I keep running into folks who swear the solution to everything is Socialism. As if this canard of economic belief has been successful in any modern society or nation. However, by listening to this aged clown Bernie, AOC and her merry band of knuckleheads threw in all their social wants and desires into the Build Back Better bill, completely guaranteeing that no one, except maybe Kim Jong-Un, would go for it. The bill had to be reworked a few times before the House took a vote.
That's why it failed. BBB contained too too much, would cost too much and proved far too ambitious for most legislators and pundits. But you can't tell Bernie Bots anything. They truly believe they were sent from on high to rule. Yeah, okay. 
In addition to having a new Voting Rights Bill fail, Black people are now going to have to contend with even more Red states preparing their own voter suppression laws. 
Gotta hand it to all those dumb-azz 2016 third party voters. By denying Hillary Clinton their votes, they enabled Trump to squeak by in enough states to win him the White House. I doubted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have survived the first term of whomever won in 2016. She didn't. And this gave Trump a chance to appoint three toadies to the Supreme Court. 
I believe more than 10% of Bernie Bots voted for Trump in 2016. Some news outlets peg it higher. Even if most return to the Dems this year, we're still going to lose in November.

citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/8362-the-gop-blowout-is-coming/#comment-49238

from 2022 from @anonymous50
 Is it possible for an individual, not politician (because most of them are well off anyway), to believe in Democratic Socialism when they are financially successful.
                                Sure, when a person is financially struggling, Socialist programs are very appealing. For example. politicians like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and AOC promise free college tuition and socialized healthcare that won't bankrupt an individual when they get sick. In some instances very progressive candidates  promise to abolish student loan debt,  which can be very devastating to someone who owes such debt. They also promise higher taxes on the rich to pay for these social programs. 
                                But, to the dusty* who remains in poverty this does not matter.  
                                They look upon the rich as having too much anyway. 
                                Part of it is class envy and the other part is realism.  The so-call 99 percent who look at the extremely wealthy 1 percent class with their palatial manors, Rolls Royces, private jets, yachts, and access to some of the most beautiful women in the world know that all of these luxuries are beyond their reach in this lifetime.
                                I know some  would call this a poverty mindset.
                                Most people don't have the drive, ambition, skills and patience to become rich.
                                The paths to riches are limited anyway. Most start up businesses fail after a short period of time. You stand a greater chance of being struck by lighting twice than winning the lottery. Many get-rich-quick schemes advertised in the mail, online, or TV(infomercials) don't work. Only a small number of Pookies and Ray Rays from the hood  who aspire to become rappers or baller are successful. People who go to Hollywood to find themselves seldom become the next big movie stars.
                                So, the poor dusty who struggles from paycheck to paycheck to barely put food on the table looks at the astronomical wealth and toys the 1 percent has and thinks "why should  they not be willing to have their wealth redistributed to help those who are less fortunate."
                                 But, when a person is able to lift themselves out of poverty and become wealthy, is he or she still willing to give up a certain percentage of income through taxation to fund the programs that person once relied upon when he or she was destitute?  Some politicians would like to impose a 40 percent tax rate on the well-to-do.
                               *To use online urban vernacular, a dusty is a man(usually a black man) who is low quality, poor, broke, and has no ambition
                                
citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/9335-an-affluent-democratic/

from 2025 from @ProfD

This young man, Zohran Mamdani, is the breath of fresh air the Democratic party needs.  
Mamdani's positions on social and justice reform, city services, Israel and Jews, etc., may be considered radical.  He makes it no secret that he's a diehard Democratic socialist. 
I believe his connections to a wide cross-section of people (FBA/ADOs, Muslim, Arab, African, Hispanic, Asian, etc.) and affiliation with the Hip-Hop community among others will propel him to becoming the most popular candidate on the ballot.
Regardless of whether or not Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of NYC, he actually has a plan for how he wants to run the city.  Mamdani's plan could be a blueprint for the Democratic party to overtake the GOP. 😎

citation
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11698-if-you-want-to-know-more-about-mamdani/#comment-74720

from 2025 from @Mel Hopkins
If the NYC mayoral race were a novel, I'd deconstruct its architecture. From one election to the next, the narrative appears to shift away from focused policy debates, instead centering on the influence of religious groups. The major religious factions—Christian nationalists, Muslims, and Jews—each appear to compete for cultural and political dominance within the city.
Amid this religious competition, the African diaspora in the U.S.—a powerful and often underestimated voting bloc—continues to be overlooked and taken for granted by both the candidates and the dominant religious groups.  
It sometimes seems as though these competing religious groups neglect the African diaspora’s influence. Ironically, the roots of these religions trace back to African science-based spirituality, yet this connection receives little attention in political or religious discourse.
This dynamic played out in Election 2024: Christian nationalists—including evangelists, southern Baptists, and likely Catholics—rallied strongly behind DJT. Media and external influencers shifted the conversation away from local policy and toward polarizing international issues, like the U.S. stance on Israel and Palestine, further affecting how voters chose among domestic candidates.
When reviewing 2025 election results, I noticed Mamdani was not the only Muslim elected, which raises the question of whether heightened coverage of Gaza led to greater sympathy and increased Muslim representation—a trend potentially extending into the midterms.
Don’t misunderstand—I bear a grudge against all religions. Religious study should bring wisdom, spirituality, and growth, yet it often has the opposite effect. Religions lead to violence instead of joy and peace. Add patriarchy, and it’s chaos.
Returning to the story's structure: Is this a narrative of democratic socialism rising in the heart of Wall Street? Consider Manhattan—the FINANCIAL CAPITAL OF THE WORLD—and its boroughs. Is the city that never sleeps really ready to move from capitalism to social ownership? Notably, NYC is the largest property owner according to Curbed.com, and the mayor administers these assets. Perhaps social ownership is the underlying story arc behind recent shifts.
So, in this story—call it Project 2025 (S)—the central figure is a young millennial poised to challenge the reigning power and reclaim Manhattan for the people. Behind the scenes, religious struggle, human trafficking disguised as immigration reform, and pervasive surveillance set the chaotic stage for change in the city.  
Meet the Muslim and Arab Americans who won in US local elections
Jews vote for Andrew Cuomo over Zohran Mamdani in NYC mayoral race | The Jerusalem Post
"In addition to the Jewish vote, Mamdani lost the Catholic vote by a significant margin: 53% supported Cuomo and 14% backed Sliwa, against 33% for Mamdani.
A decisive 75% of voters with no religious affiliation supported Mamdani."

Here's a past look at Manhattan when DJT began buying up NY property in the early 70s(?) a look back at Palestinians, Israel, Libya, etc.  
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12023-nyc-mayral-thoughts-a-conclusion/#comment-77398


COMMENTARY
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12801-dsa-2026/#findComment-82131

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12801-dsa-2026/#findComment-82131
@undefined
I don't know where i conflated. I mentioned democratic socialism or democratic socialist , please quote me where I mentioned socialims alone or stated any elected fficial was advocating socialims.
and for the record, I didn't say the following
Critical Race Theory is a premise that posits skin color and race determine the outcomes of most decisions, laws and behavior in the U.S.
that was @undefined whom i quoted as saying the prior. I have nothing I wish to say on that.
and I am happy the affordable care act has worked out well for you. It hasn't for all, or most, and was never going to, based on its construction.
@undefined
Such a politician has not existed for a very long time since money has run national politics for several decades.
I argue money has run the elected officials for the entire history of the usa, the founding fathers were the wealthiest or well connected white male slaveowners from each state. Money has always been the biggst influencer in the usa government. In my view, it will always be in the future. The key from a monetary perspective is when various financial actors are battling each other, which happens more often than people realize. Yes, the fiscally wealthy in human nhistory rarely like to add new members or desire new members added BUT, the fiscally wealthy in human history have always battled each other.
Nice point, wasn't what I referred to as the thing not done, for the record, but good point, i only oppose your temporal limit on the power of the fiscally wealthy in the government of the usa.
But, the elected official who doesn't do the one thing they all do, will open a true can of worms, completely inevitable or foresightful at this point.
@undefined
First, Barack Obama did not “fail to win an Illinois seat by focusing on the Black vote.” He was already an elected Illinois state senator when, in 2000, he unsuccessfully challenged longtime incumbent Congressman Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary for Illinois’s First Congressional District. Losing one primary to an entrenched incumbent is not proof that Obama lacked political or legislative ability.
When did I say Obama lacked ability? I said, and i quote what you quoted from me
won by splitting the black and white vote
I said he won, how is that stating he is lacking ability. I said he failed and how he failed, which you admitted is true with the following.
he unsuccessfully challenged longtime incumbent Congressman Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary for Illinois’s First Congressional District.
So why are you asking me for evidence to something that you know is true. HE failed and the reason why is obvious. but he succeeded afterward, which is what I said.
Now, I will ask you a question.
Do you want me to imitate sucking obama penis with my prose? considering your response to this post, the only answer you can have is yes. And I Will reply, I Am not going to imitate sucking obama's dick with my prose.
Reducing Obama’s campaign to speeches, commercials, wealthy donors, and appearances misses the central innovation: it built a decentralized civic movement in which millions of ordinary people became organizers, fundraisers, community leaders, and co-authors of the campaign’s meaning. (Obama's Lost Army)
Again, you call it a reduction which suggests it is making him a lesser than. I am speaking truth, you can call it a reduction, but I didn't say he didn't succeed and in my original point, I said he formed coalitions splitting the votes of two groups. so I don't know why you suggest the following
Successful candidates build coalitions.
as if i don't know that when if others besides you read my words, maybe they will realize i stated he won by forming a coalition by spltiting votes. And in the history of the usa, the types of coalitions are not the same, that candidates build and sometimes, a successful candidate doesn't need to build a coalition.
That is called campaigning. It is not evidence that he somehow “undid” Hillary Clinton’s rightful possession of the nomination.
i didn't say him, I quote what I said
and that led to support from very wealthy donors which undid Hillary Clinton's run.
Notice for anyone who can read, what I wrote was, support from very wealthy donors undid hillary clinton, not obama.
I must ask Mel , why you misread me so much? And not just you @undefined can't read my prose, you can't read , none of you people seem to be able to read my prose. Now clearly, I don't write well or at least convey well enough, and I accept that, but in the future, I need to embrace that the second my prose is misread, not to reply to a misread of my prose.
Cause it is silly on my end. You have said the following
I said Obama lacks talent.
I said Obama undid Hillary Clinton
I said , straightly or unstraightly, Obama's campaign was to be ridiculed or diminished.
Before the quote from you.
Now to the allegation that Obama was “woeful as a legislator”
For me, all of that is lies. I didn't any of those things, but you clearly read them.
Now to the laws.
You are correct, it would be more robust or comprehensive to go through a list of laws + executive orders as president , Obama , from illinois state senate to president, initiated or supported or signed. And, it is important to distinguish laws that he didn't initiate but supported, like the affordable care act, which is Nancy PElosi's not hit. But, I admittedly, wasn't interested in spending the time to do that. And as such, anyone can dismiss my position for the absence of comprehensive. But I stand by it.
Ledbetter is BArbara Mikulsky's not Obama's. Yes, he signed it, but that wasn't hit.
And I already mentioned the affordable care act was nancy pelosi, not obama, which i have said in this forum many times.
And I repeat myself, my uncomprehensive claim can be dismissed on its lacking comprehension. Many people love the evidence or proof of the statistical charts or the paper trail, and I didn't provide that nor was I going to. But I stand by my position.
As for the affordable care act, a college friend of mine, a black woman with a child who was never going to get insurance until the affordable care act. was beyond exuberant, which I have said in this very forum, but the affordable care act is dysfunctional legislation.
Dysfunctional legislation like functional legislation will always have those who benefit from it. All laws have beneficiaries, no matter what they are. From white jewish germans going to concentration camps which gave money to gas makers and concrete makers, to the affordable care act, which gave many financial institutions news veins of profit alongside expanding the insurance industry to those blockaded from it.
and a fourth false claim from you, I quote you
I also personally obtained healthcare benefits through the Affordable Care Act, as did millions of other Americans. You cannot erase the people who benefited from a law merely by declaring the entire law a failure.
I am erasing the people who benefited from the affordable care act because I call it a dysfunctional law.
IT is interesting, when you or troy or others make your posts. I never claim such grandiose. I may oppose what you say, but I never expand my opposition to such things. why do you all do that to me? answer that explicative... please
I don't want to convey a gentleness, I hope I succeeded.
And if Mayor Zohran Mamdani can be as consequential for New York City as President Obama was for the United States, then New York may be well positioned to preserve its standing as one of the world’s leading cities.
Well. Obama is what led to Schrumptf so... based on Obama , I think NYC will be the largest most potent city in the usa, as it was before or after mamdani, gardless of mandani/adams/di blasio, the same way the usa is the most powerful militaristic force in humanity before or after obama, gardless of obama/biden/schrumfpt , but the quality of leadership post mamdani if obama is any historical indicator of value will be, a chaos agent. And I don't see how that will be positive for nyc. Luckily for NYC , the demographics of NYC is in some ways, wider than the usa while in other ways narrower than the usa.
If you cannot identify the law, explain the defect and provide factual evidence of the result, please do not tag me merely to repeat a political impression.
Ahhh, I wish you would had said this from the beginning.
I didn't tag you to repeat a political impression. I tagged you and all others , though you may not have seen that, cause those are your words and i didn't want your words on the issue to be considered mine, which has happened in the past in this forum, and which i failed at because @undefined confused one of the peoples i tagged's words as mine anyway.
Now the good news is that I usually don't quote others in my initial posts, but i did this time, simply because it was warranted. But I have learned next time I quote you i will mention your name without tagging you. I have to admit, I wanted to say something more negative or abrasive at the end, but forget it.

Event details