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.”
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.
There's a greater risk of negative consequences when people try to make a sweeping change, which Mamdani is trying to - especially if some of that sweeping change is not well tethered to reality. I'm not spun up about the tax thing. That piece will be fine, good even. But his ideas around grocery stores shows a huge ignorance about the mechanics (and therefore costs and how much the customer will actually save) of running stores. Fair collection isn't the biggest, or even a substantial, cause of delay to public buses. If he wants free buses, that should be the end of the discussion. Closing streets for kids to play has all sorts of impacts to residents (how will they move?) that appear to be unconsidered. Mamdani has displayed poor thinking and bad decision making already - which I think will continue into his term. He is the best candidate, but not a good candidate.