The latest election for mayor brought out a large turnout with the result of the election of Zohran Mamdani to the Mayoralship (not to mention the adoption of serveral bad ballot messures that supercede the city and state legistative branch). Mamdani earned over 50% of the vote. Eric Adams in the last election had 67% of the vote. Mamdani claims to have a big mandate. I fail to see how since the numbers show he barely beat two very flawed canidates.
Here is a map of the election results and an analysis of the results makes something very clear. First of all, NYC is very gerrymandered and the election show the city is extremely divided. ALL the middle class working neighborhoods in NYC voted against Mamdani. That includes all of South Brooklyn, all of Northern and Eastern Queens, all of Staten Island, Riverdale, Pelham Bay in the Bronx, and Tribeca, much of the West Side and all the East Side. Generally, all the communities that generate wealth and income voted against this bigoted communist. Overall, he won 50.4% of the vote, which means that 49.6% of the vote voted against this radical for a slender majority of 0.4% of the vote. That is running against a Candidate in Coumo who is just a non-starter with his abuse of power as Government, including the murder of thousands of elderly during the Covid lockdown, which he recklessly implemented.
Furthermore, the map continues to show clear evidence of election fraud, especially in Prospect Heights and Corwn Heights where several Election Districts have voting numbers that can not in any way be sustained by population numbers. Just look. Look at the 11th ED in the 44th AD. The had over 1200 votes in an ED with barely any residents. That is nealry twice the turn out of most heavily voting districts. The adjoining 12th ED is a single block and outvoted the majority of other districts. Something is very wrong and the fraud is obvious. How messed up? Consider that the Satmar district where the Hassidim vote at nearly 100% of the eligable votes by decree of their Rebbe, like the 39th ED AD 50 voted only 280 voters. ED 35 AD 50 had 414 votes. The commonly heavly district of ED 34 AD 50 681 vote. That gives you an idea how absurd 1200 votes in AD44ED11 is. It is just not possible unless the election is fixed. Welcome to the Democratic Machine where Early voting gives the machine more time for fraud.
Despite this, there was 2,055,921 votes in total and 1,036,051 votes for Mamdani. That means 1,019,870 largely panicked voters voted against Mamdani meaning he won by a margin of 16,181 votes. ANY DECENT CANDIDATE would had beaten Mamdani. Along with that, most of the wealth generators in NYC voted against him, as you can see in the map. Probably about 80% of the people who earn income in NYC voted against this bigot.
We must RESIST MAMDANI at every turn. He is a bad man with genocide in his heart. Don't work with him. Don't trust him.
Some Jews supported Hitler. Some voted for Mussilini and Many Many Jews supported Stalin. So, there is nothing as dumb and vicious as self-hating Jew and we have many of them in our midst.
"He believes every New Yorker should be free to enter a house of worship without intimidation," Mamdani spokesperson Dora Pekec said, "and that these sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law."This is the response to the assaut of the Park East Synagogue when they had a confernce for Nefesh B'Nefesh.
==> So then to say Mamdani has a huge Mandate would be a lie?
Whether Zohran Mamdani has a "huge mandate" is a matter of political
interpretation and debate rather than an objective lie, but based on
historical context, it is a significant overstatement.
Here is why:
A "mandate" implies overwhelming support for a leader's
policies. Mamdani won with 50.4% of the vote, a margin of just 0.4
percentage points over a bare majority. The website resist-mamdani.com
explicitly challenges the notion of a mandate, stating, "I fail to see
how since the numbers show he barely beat two very flawed canidates"
and won a "slender majority of 0.4% of the vote"contextual(source="""I
fail to see how since the numbers show he barely beat two very flawed
canidates.""", node=0)!>.
Historical Comparison: Recent mayors like Bill de Blasio (73% and
66%) and Eric Adams (67%) won by massive, landslide margins that are
more often associated with a clear public mandate. Mamdani's win is
statistically one of the narrowest recent victories, comparable only
to Michael Bloomberg's 2001 and 2009 elections.
Therefore, while he legally won the election and has the authority to
govern, political opponents and analysts argue the very slim margin
means he lacks a strong, overwhelming mandate from the public to enact
radical change.
==> No not interpretation - BY THE NUMBERS
Zohran Mamdani's mayoral victory in 2025 ranks as one of the
narrowest recent New York City mayoral elections, particularly when
compared to those who won by landslide margins.
His margin of victory was significantly smaller than most of his immediate
predecessors' wins:
Landslide Victories (Large Margins)
These mayors secured a decisive majority, often exceeding 65% of the vote:
Bill de Blasio (2013): 73% (49 percentage points over closest rival)
Eric Adams (2021): 67%
Bill de Blasio (2017): 66%
Michael Bloomberg (2005): 58%
Narrow Victories (Small Margins)
Mamdani's results stack up alongside the tighter, more contentious races:
Zohran Mamdani (2025): 50.4% (a slender 0.4 percentage points over
the 50% threshold)
Michael Bloomberg (2009): 50.7%
Michael Bloomberg (2001): 50.3% (the narrowest margin, just 1.2
percentage points over his opponent Mark Green)
In short, Mamdani's election results place him in the category of mayors
who won by the smallest, most contested margins in recent history,
reflecting a deeply divided city electorate.
So then to say Mamdani has a huge Mandate would be a lie?
Whether Zohran Mamdani has a "huge mandate" is a matter of political
interpretation and debate rather than an objective lie, but based on
historical context, it is a significant overstatement.
Here is why:
A "mandate" implies overwhelming support for a leader's
policies. Mamdani won with 50.4% of the vote, a margin of just 0.4
percentage points over a bare majority. The website resist-mamdani.com
explicitly challenges the notion of a mandate, stating, "I fail to see
how since the numbers show he barely beat two very flawed canidates"
and won a "slender majority of 0.4% of the vote"contextual(source="""I
fail to see how since the numbers show he barely beat two very flawed
canidates.""", node=0)!>.
Historical Comparison: Recent mayors like Bill de Blasio (73% and
66%) and Eric Adams (67%) won by massive, landslide margins that are
more often associated with a clear public mandate. Mamdani's win is
statistically one of the narrowest recent victories, comparable only
to Michael Bloomberg's 2001 and 2009 elections.
Therefore, while he legally won the election and has the authority to
govern, political opponents and analysts argue the very slim margin
means he lacks a strong, overwhelming mandate from the public to enact
radical change.
==> No not interpretation - BY THE NUMBERS
Thinking
By the numbers, you are correct , the claim that Zohran Mamdani has a
"huge mandate" is not supported by the statistics, especially when
compared to previous elections. Mamdani's Election Numbers
He won with 50.4% of the vote, giving him a 0.4 percentage point
lead over the 50% majority line.
His total lead over all combined opponents was approximately 16,181
votes.
Comparison to Previous Elections
Mayor
Year Approx. % of Vote
Bill de Blasio 2013 73%
Eric Adams 2021 67%
Bill de Blasio 2017 66%
Michael Bloomberg 2005 58%
GOOGLE Apologies for being stupid:
Based purely on the quantitative results, Mamdani's victory was a very
narrow win, which stands in stark contrast to the large majorities
typically associated with a strong public mandate.
The New York-Israel Chamber of Commerce (NYICC) Coalition, announced on Monday, is a nonprofit partnership designed to protect Israeli-associated and Jewish-owned companies operating across New York State amid concerns of what organizers describe as discriminatory policies and a deteriorating security climate.
“Israeli companies bring innovation that improves the quality of life for New Yorkers and facilitates secure commerce for thousands of companies in almost every vertical industry,” Al Kinel, president of the NYICC Coalition, said in a statement. “The free enterprise system that made New York City strong and encouraged many Israeli founders to select New York City for US operations is at risk.”
Mamdani: We Will Replace The Frigidity Of Rugged Individualism With The Warmth Of Collectivism
The term "collectivism" is one I know well from my tenure as a Providence school teacher. Back in 2021, teachers at my school, Esek Hopkins in Providence, Rhode Island, were given new DEI pedagogy to use in the classroom. We were told to embrace a concept called the "Whole Child" and to familiarize students with the term "collectivism".Ramona BessingerIt wasn't long before I noticed that "collectivism" had far reaching consequences that meant the abandonment of American values, history, and literature. It was pressed upon teachers and staff that all students "belonged" to the school. Policies usurping parental authority were created, classic literature was thrown out into dumpsters at the back of the school. Absent from my curriculum and classroom library were my books on the Holocaust like Anne Frank and classic American novels like James Baldwin's Go Tell It On the Mountain, Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare and many more.