Cuomo FLOPS, Zohran DOMINATES In Mayoral Debate

The New York City mayoral debate was largely dominated by discussions of foreign policy, specifically concerning Hamas and Israel, rather than local issues. One candidate, in particular, was criticized for not directly denouncing Hamas and for his past statements. This candidate also faced accusations of being "soft on Hamas" due to his responses during an interview, where he focused on peace and justice rather than explicitly calling for Hamas to lay down its weapons.

The debate and campaign were heavily influenced by significant financial backing from pro-Israel donors. One candidate's campaign, for instance, received substantial support from billionaires and super PACs, totaling millions of dollars, with the intent to influence the election. Despite this substantial financial investment, the candidate ultimately lost by a notable margin, suggesting that this strategy may not guarantee electoral success.

The analysis suggests that this focus on foreign policy and the heavy reliance on pro-Israel donors may be a miscalculation, potentially alienating voters who prioritize local concerns. The speaker argues that a candidate's success, particularly a Muslim candidate, might hinge on focusing on the needs of New York City and its residents, rather than aligning with foreign interests or appeasing specific donor bases. The significant spending against a particular candidate, coupled with his potential victory, could indicate a shift in political power dynamics and a weakening of the influence of pro-Israel donor groups.

• The New York City mayoral debate was largely consumed by discussions of Hamas and Israel, overshadowing local issues. [00:21]
• One candidate was criticized for not denouncing Hamas and for a 2019 statement deemed objectionable. [00:03, 02:45]
• Pro-Israel donors and super PACs contributed a significant amount, totaling $35 million, to support one candidate and oppose another. [03:41, 04:39]
• Despite the substantial financial backing, the candidate receiving the funds lost the election by seven points. [04:49]
• The speaker argues that focusing on local issues is a more effective strategy than appeasing foreign interests or donors, suggesting that pro-Israel donor influence might be overestimated. [06:03, 10:57]

Debate Focus on Foreign Policy Over Local Issues [00:00]

• The assemblyman refused to denounce Hamas.
• There was a brawling nearly 2 hours during the New York City mayoral debate.
• One candidate wanted to discuss Hamas and Hassan instead of New York City.
• Critics accused a candidate of being soft on Hamas.

The mayoral debate was significantly sidetracked from local issues to focus on foreign policy, specifically regarding Hamas. One candidate faced accusations of being unwilling to denounce Hamas, which became a central point of contention.

"The assemblyman will not denounce Hamas."

Candidate's Stance on Hamas and Past Statements [01:41]

• During a Fox News interview, when asked if Hamas should lay down weapons and leave leadership in Gaza, the candidate responded by focusing on affordability in New York City and ensuring peace between Israel and Palestine.
• When pressed further, the candidate stated they did not have opinions about the future of Hamas and Israel beyond justice, safety, and international law.
• Another candidate referenced a 2019 statement by the candidate about an individual named Piker, which was deemed objectionable and reprehensible.

The candidate's response to questions about Hamas during an interview was indirect, prioritizing local concerns and general principles of peace and international law over a direct denouncement of the organization. This stance led to criticism and the resurfacing of a past controversial statement.

"I don't really have opinions about the future of Hamas and Israel beyond the question of justice and safety and the fact that anything has to abide by international law."

Campaign Funding and Donor Influence [03:00]

• One candidate was involved in a legal defense team for Benjamin Netanyahu, assembled by Alan Dershowitz, which included former Attorney General William Bar and Fox News commentator Mark Levan.
• The candidate's campaign was backed by the most well-funded super PAC in New York City election history, funded by pro-Israel billionaires.
• Notable donations included $500,000 from Bill Aman, $250,000 from Daniel Loe, and $8 million from Michael Bloomberg.
• The super PAC, Fix the City, spent over $22 million on the mayoral race alone.
• Another pro-Israel super PAC, Sensible City Incorporated, spent over $100,000 opposing a candidate.
• In total, pro-Cuomo forces raised $35 million, compared to the opposing side's $9 million.

Significant financial resources were channeled into the mayoral race through pro-Israel donors and super PACs, aiming to support one candidate and undermine another, illustrating a substantial monetary influence on the campaign.

"Cuomo seems to think that courting big donors, especially donors who support the Israeli government, is a winning strategy."

Electoral Outcome and Strategic Miscalculation [04:49]

• Despite raising a combined $35 million, the pro-Cuomo side lost the election by seven points.
• The speaker suggests that focusing on Israel instead of New York City's issues was a mistake.
• The argument is made that candidates should serve New York City, not Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
• The speaker criticizes the $35 million spent to ensure one candidate did not win, attributing it to bigotry against a Muslim candidate and a misplaced focus on Israel.

The candidate who received substantial funding from pro-Israel donors and organizations ultimately lost the election. This outcome leads to the conclusion that the strategy of focusing on foreign policy and relying heavily on donor money was a significant miscalculation, suggesting that local concerns and candidate identity played a more crucial role for voters.

"People say the race is tightening now that Eric Adams has dropped out, but what do you think it'll look like come November?"

The Power and Influence of Pro-Israel Donors [06:00]

• The speaker suggests that the candidate lost because he was "bought" by $35 million in campaign contributions.
• The argument is made that New York City, being a significant Jewish city, is a target for influence.
• The focus on perceived anti-Semitism is contrasted with the speaker's view of the actual situation, which involves criticism of Israel's actions.
• Past tactics of pro-Israel groups, like creating lists of "self-hating Jews," are mentioned as a way to silence critics.
• The potential win of a Muslim candidate in a heavily Jewish city is seen as undermining the "it's all anti-semitism" talking point.
• The speaker believes that the influence of these donors is not as strong as they believe and that their attempts to control politicians by spending money are becoming less effective.

The speaker posits that the considerable financial power exerted by pro-Israel donors and organizations may be overestimated. The narrative suggests that their attempts to influence elections and control politicians through funding are backfiring, especially if a candidate focused on local issues and not aligned with foreign interests wins.

"The reality is they're actually upset, Jordan, because for the first time in my life, those donors, not all Jewish Americans, tons and tons of people that work at TYT are Jewish. We're never going to let anybody harm Jewish Americans. Never. Okay? But for the first time, they think, 'Whoa, Israel's loyalty pledge that they make every stupid corrupt politician in this country take.' In essence, it might not work."