Hedge-fund billionaire Bill Ackman plans to bankroll a New York City mayoral campaign, arguing that his affluent associates are poised to flood the election with money in an effort to defeat Democratic Socialist frontrunner Zohran Mamdani.
Ackman said he was “gravely concerned” because he believed the left-wing candidate’s policies would be disastrous, triggering an exodus of the wealthy that would endanger New York’s public services by hollowing out its tax base.
Arguing that his own support of President Trump would automatically disqualify anyone Ackman might put forward, the activist investor said he was making a public appeal: Anyone capable of taking down Mamdani in the Nov. 4 election should step forward and volunteer.
“Importantly, there are hundreds of millions of dollars of capital available to back a competitor to Mamdani that can be put together overnight (believe me, I am in the text strings and the WhatsApp groups) so that a great alternative candidate won’t spend any time,” he wrote.
“So if the right candidate would raise his or her hand tomorrow, the funds will pour in.”
It’s unclear whether New Yorkers would honor such a candidate. The recent intervention by Elon Musk in Wisconsin’s state supreme court election indicated the voting public does not always respond well to billionaires using their money to sway races.
New York mayoral races are notoriously unpredictable due to the city’s chronically low turnout. In 2017, for example, Bill de Blasio won reelection with only 14% of registered voters coming out to support him.
A large influx of New Yorkers heading to the voting booth because they are as concerned as Ackman could easily affect the outcome. If Cuomo can hold on to enough fundraisers, political pundits also point out, it’s possible he could run as an independent like Adams, splitting the left vote and spoiling the race.
Ackman, however, argued all these factors would support the emergence of a centrist candidate looking to position themself on the national stage. It could even be another businessman like Bloomberg, he suggested, although Ackman in an earlier post appeared to indicate he would not seek to run himself.
“For the aspiring politician there is no better way to get name recognition, build relationships with long-term donors, and to showcase oneself,” the hedge fund manager wrote, pitching the campaign like a business deal. “The risk/reward of running for mayor over the next 132 days is extremely compelling as the cost in time and energy is small and the upside is enormous.”
Sometimes a left leaning candidate is a great, effective leader (think AOC, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren). Sometimes they are bat shit (think Kshama Sawant). I'm not sure where his guy lands on the spectrum. But as voters, I think we have to look at the candidates through a critical lens and remember left-leaning doesn't always make a great leader.
Why bother "recommending caution" if you aren't informed in the topic?
You could've asked. You could've read about his policies and endorsements. You could've just stayed silent.
Instead, you fearmonger about nothing
The point was never about learning anything. The point was to sew divisiveness. Hey, higher poster than the one I’m replying to: fuck off.
okay centrist
I wasn't clear. I'm not saying centrist candidates are a good idea. I'm saying it is incumbent on us to select strong left-leaning leadership because the alternative can do more harm than good (ranging from being ineffective to outright divisive and undermining the movement). I want the left to be successful but it's like they looked around and chose the worst possible representation.
Well, the proposal here is to prop a billionaire's pawn to replace a left-leaning candidate who proved himself by winning the primaries.
Take your time with your assessment.
And he'll totally win the election even with an alternative running against him. I'm saying he's gonna do a bad job in office and make the left look bad, while simultaneously not delivering on his political promises.
"Vote blue no matter who" just evaporates into nothingness the instant someone other than a centrist wins a primary.
Maybe, but do you prefer someone failing while trying to improve things or someone successful at trickling up money? And how do you actually know the alternative will not be a total failure?
Any candidate is a risk of failure. Why would he be a bigger risk?
At least if he wins, he'll show a leftist can win! That may inspire some more to get in politics.
The fact that this guy put together a political apparatus from grassroots that ran rings around the NYC Democratic establishment despite being outspent 4:1 speaks very well about his leadership abilities.