In addition to New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s race, we’ve been spotlighting two other mayoral contests where socialist, anti-Israel candidates were running competitively against more traditionally liberal standard-bearers: in Minneapolis and Seattle. 

If Mamdani’s bare 50% majority in the three-way race signaled that a far-left candidate could prevail in a deep-blue city — even while dividing the Democratic Party — the underperformance of the two other far-left challengers on big-city ballots underscores the limited appetite even deep-blue constituencies have for radical politics. 

In Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey won reelection to a third term over Democratic Socialists of America-affiliated state Sen. Omar Fateh. The race was close: While Frey held a substantial 10-point lead in the first round of balloting, he narrowly secured a victory by six points (50-44%) in the second round of the city’s ranked-choice election system. 

Fateh formed an alliance with two other left-wing candidates in the race, but ultimately enough people who didn’t back Frey in the first round chose him as a second or third preference.

Fateh, a progressive affiliated with the DSA, has accused Israel of committing genocide, among other anti-Israel views, and campaigned with Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who remains one of Israel’s harshest critics in Congress. 

Members of Fateh’s staff had also expressed hostile views towards Israel; his communications manager, Ayana Smith-Kooiman, said in a series of now-deleted social media posts that Israel “does not have a ‘right’ to exist” and “must be dismantled,” and said she did not care about Hamas a month after the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks — statements that drew rebuke from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). 

The outcome is also looking favorable for the more-moderate incumbent in Seattle — though far from certain. Mayor Bruce Harrell, who trailed his socialist challenger Katie Wilson during the summer primary, is now leading her in the general election by eight points, 54-46%, with more than three-quarters of votes tallied. 

Wilson, who has expressed hostile views towards Israel, including calling the Jewish state’s war on Hamas a “genocide,” led over Harrell in the primary. Wilson has expressed support in the past for divesting from investments in Seattle that support Israeli actions, which is in line with the BDS movement. 

Additionally, some Seattle Jewish community leaders have expressed deep concern over Wilson’s candidacy and her relationships with anti-Israel activists, including Kshama Sawant, a former far-left Seattle city councilmember who has faced accusations of stoking antisemitism.

However, the race is still far from being decided. Many ballots are left to be counted, including a significant share from left-leaning parts of the city. 

If both of the other socialist, anti-Israel candidates go down to defeat, combined with Mamdani’s bare 50% majority in heavily-Democratic New York City, it’s pretty clear that as an electoral strategy, left-wing activism and anti-Israel politicking is still a losing formula. 

On the other hand, the fact that the far-left candidates were able to win between 45-50% of the citywide vote — with one win, one loss and one race still too close to call — it’s a sign that this brand of radical politics isn’t going away. 

A new Quinnipiac poll of the New York City mayoral race with less than a week until Election Day shows Zohran Mamdani on track to win, but with a narrow plurality that underscores the breadth and resilience of the political opposition against him. In short, he’s set to prevail thanks to a divided opposition and backing from an enthusiastic left-wing faction of the electorate — not because he’s winning over hearts and minds in Gotham.

If the polling is accurate, Mamdani would be the first New York City mayor to win without a majority of the vote since John Lindsay in 1969. Mamdani leads former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo 43-33% in the Quinnipiac poll, with Republican Curtis Sliwa tallying 14%. Mamdani, in a sign of his political ceiling, has lost several points of support since the pollster’s survey earlier this month. 

Among Sliwa voters, 55% said that Cuomo was their second choice, while only 7% said the same of Mamdani. If New York City utilized a ranked-choice voting system as it did in the primary, this race would be neck-and-neck.

The Quinnipiac poll finds Mamdani building an unconventional coalition of secular progressives and Muslims in New York City politics, running up the score with voters of no religion (71% support) or of a religion other than Christianity and Judaism (50%). Mamdani struggles badly with Jewish voters, winning just 16% support, while only receiving 28% of the vote among Catholics and 36% among Protestants. 

Mamdani is winning support from just 59% of Democrats, with 31% backing Cuomo — an unusually weak showing for a Democratic nominee. But Republicans are evenly divided between Cuomo and Sliwa, preventing the former governor from capitalizing on Mamdani’s deep unpopularity with GOP voters. Mamdani is tied with Cuomo among independents at 34% apiece. 

There are some indications that the late wave of negative attacks Cuomo has aimed at Mamdani — invoking his embrace of a controversial imam, raising questions about his commitments to fighting Islamic extremism and his ties to antisemitic influencer Hasan Piker — have dented the front-runner’s favorability a bit. Mamdani’s +4 favorability rating in the Quinnipiac poll (45-41%) is a notch worse than his +8 favorability rating (45-37%) in Quinnipiac’s early October poll. 

But Cuomo’s favorability remains decidedly worse, with a 54% majority viewing the former governor unfavorably and 34% viewing him favorably. Cuomo resigned from the governorship amid scandal and allegations of sexual misconduct.

The results suggest that an earlier and more aggressive attack against Mamdani from a better-organized anti-Mamdani coalition could have paid dividends. If the opposition hit Mamdani on his vulnerabilities on crime and safety — especially given his recent tone-deaf comments on the 9/11 terror attack — it could plausibly have laid out a more effective narrative that he’s too extreme to lead the nation’s biggest city.  

But the last-minute nature of the Cuomo attacks feel more like the equivalent of a Hail Mary pass at the end of a football game. 

The one silver lining for Cuomo: There’s only a week of early voting in New York City, and because of the exorbitant cost of airing on New York City television, the swarm of campaign ads doesn’t hit full force until the campaign’s final weeks. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for the first time in the general election, donated $1.5 million to a pro-Cuomo super PAC, an indicator he sees the race getting closer. 

That means that even though Mamdani remains the clear favorite, Cuomo still has a narrow path to a political comeback if he can convince enough Republican Sliwa voters to quietly cast a vote for him to stop the democratic socialist. 

As the New York City mayoral race nears its end, Manhattan Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch has a message for his colleagues: It’s not too late to provide “leadership and clarity of perspective” to voters to oppose Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, citing the candidate’s hostility towards Israel and refusal to recognize it as a Jewish state.

Hirsch, a prominent and notable moderate pro-Israel voice within the progressive-minded Reform movement isn’t surprised by polling showing Mamdani leading his opponents, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent, and Republican Curtis Sliwa, among unaffiliated and Reform Jews, who skew overwhelmingly liberal.

But Hirsch, the senior rabbi of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, expressed frustration with the lack of organized effort among Jewish leaders to oppose Mamdani, whose affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and antagonistic views on Israel — including his refusal to condemn the term “globalize the intifada” — have generated private and public criticism. 

In an interview with Jewish Insider on Wednesday, Hirsch, who has led the Upper West Side congregation for the past 20 years, said there is still time for left-wing Jewish leaders to find their voice. Even without initiatives and statements from the Reform movement, progressive Jewish leaders can still “make a difference” by “laying out the stakes” — even as early voting begins this Saturday. 

Hirsch recently released an online video message, addressing Mamdani directly. “I do not speak for all Jews, but I do represent the views of the large majority of the New York Jewish community, which is increasingly concerned with your statements about Israel and the Jewish people,” the rabbi said. “Your opposition to Israel is not centered on policies, you reject the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state … I urge you to reconsider your long-held rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Be a uniter and a peacemaker.”

Following Hirsch’s video, other Jewish leaders began to follow his lead. Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove of the Conservative Park Avenue Synagogue on Manhattan’s Upper East Side said in an address to his congregation last Saturday, “Mamdani’s distinction between accepting Jews and denying a Jewish state is not merely a rhetorical sleight of hand or political naïveté — though it is to be clear both of those — his doing so is to traffic in the most dangerous of tropes.”

On Wednesday, more than 600 rabbis from around the country signed on to an open letter, “A Rabbinic Call to Action: Defending the Jewish Future,” spearheaded by The Jewish Majority.

“As rabbis from across the United States committed to the security and prosperity of the Jewish people, we are writing in our personal capacities to declare that we cannot remain silent in the face of rising anti-Zionism and its political normalization throughout our nation,” the letter states. 

“When public figures like New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani refuse to condemn violent slogans, deny Israel’s legitimacy, and accuse the Jewish state of genocide, they, in the words of Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, ‘Delegitimize the Jewish community and encourage and exacerbate hostility toward Judaism and Jews.’” 

Hirsch, who serves as president of the New York Board of Rabbis, sat down with JI to discuss the current moment, one that he called “an obligation — it’s the call of history — for Jewish leaders to stand up” ahead of the Nov. 4 election. 

Jewish Insider: You’ve been raising your voice against Mamdani, but with voting starting this weekend, do you think other Jewish leaders who have just started speaking out took too long? 

Ammiel Hirsch: The Jewish world has very serious self-reflection to do in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks. Everything has changed and the future will be different than what it was going to be pre-Oct. 7. The American Jewish community has substantial — in some respects unprecedented — challenges in the years to come.

The kind of antisemitism we are seeing now and likely to see in the future is different and more widespread than anything anyone alive has experienced. Our relationship with Israel has to be reassessed and reevaluated. How we teach our young people has to be reassessed and evaluated and the nature of the American Jewish community itself — we are seeing a deep polarization that should have taken everybody by surprise. During crunch time, when Israel was under real existential threat, we didn’t expect this kind of polarization around the idea of the existence of Israel. 

Everything needs to be reevaluated. I concluded over the last two years that certain things I was perhaps willing to overlook in favor of other values and interests need to be looked at more carefully now. I’m not prepared to overlook candidates for public office who express fundamental anti-Zionism. We need to draw the line on anti-Zionism because it disenfranchises and delegitimizes Judaism itself. It leads to an intensification of antisemitism. 

JI: Are you surprised there hasn’t been more of an organized effort among the Jewish community to challenge Mamdani since he won the primary in June? Has the Jewish world met the moment? 

AH: We’ve been slow to respond to widespread, pervasive, global anti-Zionism and we’ve been slow inside the Jewish community in countering Jewish voices who are anti-Zionist. We, the mainstream of the Jewish community, have an obligation to counter that ideology. If it’s not countered, it intensifies and exacerbates the problem and that relates to public candidates as well. It’s imperative for the American Jewish community to stand up and express the kinds of views that I expressed. I think more are doing so. It is a responsibility at this historic moment in time for Jewish leadership to do so. 

It would have been better had it been earlier, but it’s welcome — and imperative — at any time. It does make a difference and I urge everybody, especially those in Jewish leadership, to lay out the stakes. I say this as a Jewish leader, but I’m a New Yorker and U.S. citizen as well and care about the well-being of the city and country. It goes way beyond the well-being of the Jewish community. 

Judaism has a lot to say about poverty, economics, immigration, the death penalty — all of those issues are important as well. But specifically on the anti-Zionism issue, it goes to the very existence and future of the Jewish people. Anti-Zionism means dismantling the place where half of the world’s Jews live. That’s the intention of the anti-Zionist enemies of Israel and Zohran Mamdani is giving them ideological and communal support. It’s an obligation — it’s the call of history — for Jewish leaders to stand up at this moment of Jewish history. Our people need leadership and clarity of perspective from their leaders. They’re thirsting for Jewish leaders to clarify what is in the best interest of the Jewish people and what is in the best interest of our values. Not to do that is to fail at this inflection point of American and world Jewish history. I’m heartened that more American Jewish leaders are speaking up now, but not enough. 

JI: What do you ​​make of the recent IRS reversal allowing rabbis and other clergy members to make political endorsements from the pulpit? One of the most recent examples being by another prominent New York City rabbi, Elliot Cosgrove, who heads the Park Avenue Synagogue. He decried Mamdani in a speech to his congregation last Shabbat, saying he believes the front-runner “poses a danger to the security of the New York Jewish community.” 

AH: For me, I uphold the Johnson Amendment [a 1954 provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates], no matter what the IRS decided to enforce. I do not endorse political parties or candidates. I speak about policies, which are directly relevant to our roles as rabbis and Jewish leaders. Policies reflect public morality. I’m not going to become partisan. It’s wrong on principle, because we receive tax relief status on the basis of our commitment to being nonpartisan. It weakens us because it unnecessarily splits the community and runs the risk of making synagogues into political centers. I try very carefully to speak about general policies and not endorse parties or candidates. That’s why my message was in the form that it was [speaking to Mamdani directly]. 

In my message, I was turning to the candidate himself. I didn’t tell people what my political preferences were or how they should vote. My message was that anti-Zionism endangers the Jewish community.

JI: Polls that look at Reform, Conservative and Orthodox voters have found Reform Jews are more supportive of Mamdani — why do you think that is? You’ve authored several essays, both before and after Oct. 7, about why the Reform movement is more inclined towards criticizing Israel than other branches of Judaism. Is that a driving factor here for support for Mamdani?

AH: The more liberal a person is the more likely they are to resonate and support liberal candidates, so it’s not surprising to me. The Reform movement started in North America as a religious movement that negated the centrality of Jewish peoplehood, so of course they were going to resonate more to universal values, not as an expression of Jewish peoplehood values, but the negation of it. Part of that still exists and the more years go by that Jews do not perceive an existential threat against the Jewish community, the more they return to that inclination towards universalism — that Jewish peoplehood is the problem. I’ve called that out for years now and I think that does play a role. It’s why I feel so strongly that I need to speak out.

I do not consider anti-Zionism to be a liberal position, it’s illiberal and I think many people are confused. Zionism is the liberation movement of the Jewish people, that’s a liberal philosophy. 

JI: Would you like to see the Union for Reform Judaism come out with an official statement against Mamdani?

AH: I don’t participate in the decisions of the URJ. As I said, I believe it’s important for every Jewish leader to speak up at this inflection point of American Jewish history, so I would welcome it from everybody across the board.

I’ve seen some very good statements from our Orthodox colleagues. We need to unite as much as possible. There is room for debate and disputation, it’s part of Judaism, but at this critical moment in Jewish history we should seek to lay aside for another day controversies that distract us from the main objective that we have, which is to counter antisemitism and a form of anti-Zionism that constitutes antisemitism.  

All of us need to unite on that because we’re a small minority and the task is monumental. If we don’t voice a common position, then what happens is we give an impression that the Jewish community is split on the very essence of the contemporary Jewish experience, which is the centrality of Jewish peoplehood and support of the Jewish state. We give the impression that the small minority of Jews, who are very noisy, constitute a much bigger component of Judaism than they really are. That’s another reason we need to counter this loudly. 

In our movement, which is the most liberal of affiliated American Jews, there are some anti-Zionist voices but the overwhelming majority of the Reform movement is pro-Israel and considers Israel to be a component of their own Jewish identity. 

JI: What are some ways in which you would encourage synagogues and Jewish institutions to engage with Mamdani if he is elected mayor?

AH: If he becomes mayor, he will have been elected fair and square. Then we’ll have to try our best to work with him where we can and oppose him when we must. 

Given that this anti-Zionist philosophy is mainstream, it is imperative for American Jewish leaders to stand up, push back. People will vote how they vote and whoever wins will reflect the will of the people and then we’ll have to work within those constraints. 

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) said on Tuesday, just days before early voting starts in the New York City mayoral race, that he is still not ready to endorse Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, as he hasn’t seen the candidate assuage Jewish communal concerns.

Appearing on CNN, Goldman said he wasn’t sure if he would vote for Mamdani or his rival, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and that he’s “trying to work through” outstanding issues he has with the candidates.

“You know, I’m a Democrat at heart and I believe in the Democratic Party. I am very concerned about some of the rhetoric coming from Zohran Mamdani, and I can tell you as a Jew in New York who was in Israel on Oct. 7, I and many other people are legitimately scared because there has been violence in the name of anti-Israel, anti-Zionism,” said Goldman, a pro-Israel Democrat whose House district, covering Lower Manhattan and a swath of Brooklyn, leans heavily to the left.

“I’ve asked [Mamdani] to speak out on that and to condemn that and I frankly haven’t really seen him do much on that. And I believe, for my personal reasons as well as my professional reasons as a representative of New York City, that it is my duty to make sure that everybody, including the Jewish community, feels safe here, and many in the Jewish community do not feel safe right now,” the congressman continued.

“And I hope that Mr. Mamdani takes that to heart and takes some action to make the Jewish community understand that he will keep us safe and secure,” he concluded.

Goldman is one of several Democratic New York lawmakers who have refused to endorse their party’s candidate for Gracie Mansion, including swing district Reps. Laura Gillen (D-NY) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY) as well as George Latimer (D-NY).

Other prominent New York Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have met with Mamdani but have held back endorsements.

Only five New York City Democratic lawmakers in the state’s congressional delegation have endorsed Mamdani: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY),Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Yvette Clarke (D-NY). 

We’re well into September, and the state of play in the New York City mayoral race hasn’t changed much in the last couple months, despite the many eye-catching developments. But a new New York Times/Siena poll released this week showcases an in-depth picture of the city’s electorate — one that is clearly wary of Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani’s brand of socialism, even as he remains the clear favorite to become the next mayor.

As has always been the case, the divided field of Mamdani opponents is the far-left candidate’s biggest asset. Mamdani leads former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo by 15 points among registered voters, 41-26%, with all the candidates on the ballot. But in a head-to-head matchup, Cuomo pulls narrowly ahead, 46-45%.

The results continue to underscore how the splintered field is the biggest reason Mamdani is favored. Hardly any of the supporters of Mayor Eric Adams, running as an independent, or Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa would support Mamdani over Cuomo if their candidate dropped out. Indeed, among those not supporting Mamdani, over half (52%) said they would never support him for mayor — higher than any other candidate.

Working in Mamdani’s favor is the relatively respectable favorability rating he holds with New York City voters, especially in comparison to his rivals. Nearly half (49%) of respondents viewed Mamdani favorably, with only 35% viewing him unfavorably. That means that despite holding a record far to the left of past New York City mayors, many voters aren’t (yet) holding that against him. But there’s been no significant outside advertising effort against Mamdani, as you would typically expect in the run-up to a high-stakes contest.

Without any effort to remind voters about his far-left record, it’s no surprise that the fresh-faced political newcomer has a respectable image. 

Cuomo, on the other hand, has an underwater favorability rating, with 42% viewing him favorably and 51% viewing him unfavorably — largely a result of the ethical scandal he faced that forced him to resign as governor. 

But on the issues, it’s easy to see how Cuomo remains competitive in a one-on-one matchup. Crime is the top issue for New York City voters, with 26% naming it as the most important problem facing voters, slightly ahead of affordability at 24%. One of Mamdani’s biggest vulnerabilities is his long record of public comments supporting defunding the police and others critical of the NYPD.

One of the most notable findings is the decline in support for Israel in New York City, which has the largest Jewish population of any city in the world. By an 18-point margin, more New Yorkers now say they sympathize with the Palestinians than the Israelis — a finding that mirrors the growing partisanship in views towards the Jewish state. While white New Yorkers still favor Israel more (42-34%), Black (54-14%) and Hispanic voters (44-25%) overwhelmingly side with the Palestinians. 

Donning their foreign policy hats, candidates in New York City’s hotly contested mayoral race were quick to weigh in as violence erupted between Israel and Hamas this week. “I stand proudly with Israel,” former Citigroup executive Ray McGuire pronounced Monday evening in a statement later echoed by Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president. Andrew Yang, the apparent frontrunner who has earned key endorsements from several Orthodox Jewish leaders, also made sure to signal his unwavering support for the Jewish state. “I’m standing with the people of Israel,” he said, condemning “the Hamas terrorists.”

The lone dissenting voice was Dianne Morales, the outspoken former nonprofit executive who, by varying degrees, has positioned herself to the left of every leading candidate in the crowded Democratic primary field. “Our world needs leaders who recognize humanity and the dignity of all lives,” Morales wrote on Twitter early Tuesday morning. “Whether in NYC, Colombia, Brazil or Israel-Palestine, state violence is wrong. Targeting civilians is wrong. Killing children is wrong. Full stop.”

With her statement, rhetorically limp by pro-Israel standards, Morales demonstrated that she is willing to stray from the pack on an issue where most mainstream Democratic candidates in New York, home to the largest Jewish population in the United States, are usually aligned. While the majority of her opponents identify as solidly pro-Israel, Morales has veered in the opposite direction.

During a private virtual event with Jewish high school students last December, for instance, Morales accused Israel of “apartheid” while describing a 2015 mission sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York as “propaganda,” according to leaked audio obtained by The Forward. 

“I’ve been to Israel, and I participated in what would be considered a propaganda trip,” Morales said bluntly in the recording. “The country is beautiful, so I understand why everybody wants a piece of it. That being said, I believe that Israel is an apartheid state. I think that is highly problematic. I cannot advocate for equity and justice in New York City and turn a blind eye to the challenges around those issues in Israel and with the folks living in Gaza and in Palestine.”

Dianne Morales at a march for transgender rights. (Courtesy)

In a recent interview with Jewish Insider, however, Morales seemed hesitant to invoke the same feisty rhetoric. “The first thing that’s really important to say is that I really appreciate the opportunity to have taken that trip,” Morales said of her week-long excursion with the JCRC, which has been leading missions to Israel for more than two decades. “JCRC does really incredibly important work for the community of New Yorkers around leadership development and advocacy for the Jewish community, and I certainly look forward to continuing to support that work as mayor.”

But Morales admitted to harboring “really complicated feelings” about her visit. “I see myself as a champion for equal rights and protections under the law,” she said, without making mention of  “apartheid.” “I don’t think any child should be denied the right to a home or to their full potential and that everyone deserves to be free of state violence.” 

Even having softened her views somewhat, Morales’s public and private comments would almost certainly have come at a cost in previous mayoral races. Instead, it is Yang who has drawn intense feedback for his pro-Israel views. After his Monday night tweet, Yang found himself uninvited from a Ramadan event as pro-Palestinian activists disrupted a campaign stop in Queens. “Utterly shameful,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said of Yang’s comments.

By Wednesday morning, Yang had clarified his initial statement, sending out a white flag of contrition to his 1.9 million Twitter followers. “I mourn for every Palestinian life taken before its time as I do for every Israeli,” he said in a lengthy statement. 

Adams, too, has faced some criticism for defending Israel in the conflict with Gaza. Earlier this week, the Muslim Action Network announced that it was pulling its endorsement of Adams, claiming he had “failed to take a principled stance.”

For her part, Morales appears to be gaining a modicum of momentum as she slipstreams behind New York’s ascendant far-left, which has carved out prominent footholds at the state and federal levels in recent years. “We’ve been defying all kinds of expectations and also bucking the traditions as to what criteria you need to have in order to be considered viable or a contender,” she told JI. “This campaign is, in fact, resonating with New Yorkers.”

That boast comes with some supporting evidence. Having lagged behind her opponents in most polls, Morales suddenly found herself in third place with 12% of the vote, just four points behind Adams, who topped the list, according to a survey commissioned by the Hotel Trade Council’s political arm and released earlier this week. Those numbers suggest that the June 22 Democratic primary remains in flux as underdog candidates like Morales and Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation chief who received a surprise endorsement from the The New York Times on Monday, show signs of life. 

Further scrambling the dynamics, Scott Stringer, the city comptroller and until recently the leading progressive candidate in the race, was rocked by allegations of sexual assault that have hobbled his once formidable campaign. Morales, who has called for Stringer to withdraw his name from the ballot, believes his embattled position has likely pushed some voters to her side as she notches new endorsements that would otherwise have gone his way. 

“I think it’s freed people up who might have felt indebted to him to feel like they can back me or support me or be louder about supporting me,” Morales said, while making sure to add that her grassroots campaign would be cresting with or without the scandal. “We’re just starting to surge,” she said. “The groundwork for that has been laid over the course of the last year.”

***

Morales, a resident of Bedford-Stuyvesant, announced her campaign last November with the hope of becoming New York’s first Afro-Latina mayor. A former employee in the city’s Department of Education, she served for a decade as the executive director and CEO of Phipps Neighborhoods, an affordable housing nonprofit in the Bronx, before seeking office as a first-time candidate. “I spent my entire career actually working on the ground,” said Morales, casting herself as a candidate of the people, “helping communities that have just been historically disenfranchised, underserved, marginalized.”

“She was the most believable, transparent candidate that I met,” said Harvey Epstein, a state assemblyman in Manhattan who endorsed Morales in March. “She had a plan that was achievable and she had a track record that proved she could get things done.”

The platform Morales puts forth is unapologetically progressive, including a municipal Green New Deal, a public bank for underserved New Yorkers and a plan to provide free college education through the city’s public university system.

“She is predictably consistent on the left side of the spectrum,” said David Bloomfield, a professor of education at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, “opposing screens in school admissions, looking toward a highly collaborative form of school governance that gives greater weight to community education councils and parents than most other candidates have indicated.”

Perhaps most notably, Morales is the only candidate in the race who wholeheartedly supports defunding the police. “I understand that the language of defunding is scary to some,” she acknowledged. “But what it really means is that we need to be investing in alternative services and supports for our community members.”

After a shooting in Times Square last weekend, most candidates struck a balance in their messaging on public safety, calling for robust policing while emphasizing a need for reform. But Morales rejects such rhetoric, notwithstanding a violent crime surge that has put many New Yorkers on edge as the city emerges from a destabilizing pandemic. “We’ve seen the escalation in violence despite the fact that there actually has been no real decrease in policing, despite the fact that Times Square is one of the most heavily surveilled communities in the city,” she argued. “I think that we have to debunk the idea that the police are actually creating safer communities.”

Morales advocates for a “multi-pronged” response amid an uptick in hate crimes against Jews and Asian-Americans. “I think antisemitism, anti-Asian violence, anti-Black violence, all of these things are rooted in white supremacy,” she said, while advocating for a humanistic approach to public education that embraces differences. “From a social perspective, I think we need to meet the needs of communities,” Morales continued. “I think the systems right now pit communities against each other and fosters this sort of us-them dynamic, and we need to actually counter that and really sort of lift up this perspective of solidarity and combating these things together.”

Dianne Morales at a rally for Breonna Taylor. (Courtesy)

“I truly believe that all communities that have been historically marginalized or oppressed or harmed deserve to be centered and prioritized moving forward, and to me, that includes the Jewish community,” Morales said, adding: “I understand the history of oppression and discrimination and exclusion and the fear that so often can instill in people. I’m committed to actually creating a safe city for all of us to coexist peacefully and with dignity.”

Morales’s message appears to be falling on receptive ears. Her coalition, she says, represents a diverse patchwork of New York City’s voting populace, including teachers, LGBTQ voters and Hispanic women. Unemployed workers, according to Morales, make up 30% of her donor base. Morales has also been buoyed by a passionate young fan base of volunteers as well as digitally savvy supporters who are enthusiastically promoting her campaign on social media.

Last month, Morales notched an endorsement from the Jewish Vote, the political arm of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, whose 6,000 members live mostly in New York. “We want to make sure that the next New York City mayor is fighting to really transform New York City and fighting for people who are working-class and fighting for racial justice,” Sasha Kesler, who sits on the Jewish Vote’s steering committee, told JI in an interview. “Dianne fit the bill.”

“We want a mayor who takes a firm, principled stance against forms of state violence, militarism and abuse,” Kesler added, expressing her appreciation for Morales’s recent comment on the conflict between Israel and Gaza. “That’s what she said in her message.”

JFREJ says it remains neutral on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, only opposing efforts to criminalize BDS on free speech grounds — and Morales echoed that view in conversation with JI.  “We should not create an environment that penalizes people’s right to organize and protest,” she said, adding: “That being said, that doesn’t mean I support hate or fear mongering or antisemitism. I don’t think that those two things are one and the same.”

Asked for her personal stance on the BDS movement — which is rejected by almost every mayoral candidate in the race as well as by a number of the most progressive candidates now running for public office across the country — Morales was noncommittal. “As a candidate and the mayor of New York City, it’s less important what I believe than what I’m going to uphold for New Yorkers,” she said. “I am going to uphold that it not be criminalized.”

Morales was equally hesitant to weigh in on a controversial questionnaire, distributed last summer by the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, asking that City Council candidates pledge not to visit Israel. “I never actually saw the questionnaire,” she said. “But what I understood was that it was just poorly worded.”

Morales said she was open to visiting Israel again if she is elected —  something of a rite of passage for New York City mayors. Bill de Blasio, the outgoing two-term mayor, toured the Jewish state on a 48-hour trip in his second year in office. But Morales made clear that any future visit would likely be on her own terms. “I’m not opposed to visiting Israel,” she said. “I would want to do that independently rather than through any kind of sponsored trip because I think it’s important to being able to maintain my own sort of independence, judgment and decision-making.”

Ultimately, Morales was reluctant to discuss such issues in much depth, despite her apparent readiness to speak out on social media and in at least one private forum. “I don’t want to distract from the race that I am in,” she said. “If I had wanted to get mired in the international stuff, I’d probably run for a different thing.”

But while New York City mayors wield no direct influence over foreign policy, Morales may discover that the scope of the job is broader than she expects. 

“There was a time in New York City politics, years back, that if you ran for mayor you had to go immediately and visit the three ‘I’s: Italy, Ireland and Israel,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic consultant in New York. “Now the ethnic population has shifted, so what’s left? Just one ‘I,’ and that’s Israel.”