A priest friend writes tellingly of whom to blame for the dismal results of New York’s recent election.

Cartoon by Walt Kelly

Once again, the Catholic voters, who are 38% of the city population could have defeated the Marxist Muslim, if they had been more intelligent. 
And of course one can guess how Catholic Charities voted.

—

And, the friend of a friend, the estimable Bill Donahue, writes all that needs to be written about yesterday’s catastrophe and catastrophes yet to come.

Bill Donohue

November 6, 2025

Who voted for Zohran Mamdani? He is the young radical Muslim socialist who was elected the next mayor of New York City. He took 50.4 percent of the vote; Andrew Cuomo received 41.6 percent; and Curtis Sliwa picked up 7.1 percent.

Let’s start with the two most important demographic segments who voted against Mamdani: Jews and Catholics. Jews voted for Cuomo over Mamdani by a margin of 63 percent to 33 percent; Catholics split the vote 53 to 33 percent, respectively. Among those with no religious affiliation—who are second in size to Catholics—Mamdani won 52 percent of them.

Mamdani walloped Cuomo with the two least sophisticated segments of the voting population, namely first-time voters and young people. He won 65 percent of the former and 62 percent of voters under 30. The older the voter the more likely he was to vote for Cuomo. No matter, seniors were outdone not only among the youngest voters, middle-age voters also broke for Mamdani.

The socialist led the field among those of every race and ethnicity, save for white voters (Cuomo won by 1 percent). An impressive 62 percent of Asians voted for the man of mixed African and South Asian ancestry. Blacks voted for Mamdani over Cuomo 57 percent to 38 percent, and the split for Latinos was 52 to 39 percent.

Men did not turn out to vote (they are 48 percent of the New York City population but they made up only 44 percent of voters) and they chose Mamdani (50 percent) to Cuomo (41 percent). Women are 52 percent of the NYC population, but they accounted for 55 percent of the voters; 50 percent voted for Mamdani, and 43 percent went for Cuomo. Mamdani creamed the field among young women voters—they are the most radical segment of the electorate—winning an astonishing 84 percent of them.

It is incontestable that in recent times both the New York Times and the Washington Post have moved far to the left of their traditional center-left position. But they drew the line with Mamdani.

Last June, the Times not only refused to endorse him when he was running in the Democratic primary, they said, “His experience is too thin, and his agenda reads like a turbocharged version of Mr. de Blasio’s dismaying mayoralty.” A few days ago, the Post said that if he succeeds with his radical policies, “New Yorkers will begin to flee.”

In other words, New Yorkers are more left-wing than the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post. This is amazing.

Does this mean that New Yorkers really believe that a man whose only full-time job outside politics was working as a counselor at a non-profit organization for about a year has the chops to do the job? No. They don’t believe him. Only 39 percent of New Yorkers say he is up for the job, as compared to 47 percent who say he isn’t.

Mamdani prevailed at all income levels, doing best with high-income voters. He tapped into a lot of economic fears. For example, New Yorkers said that their number-one issue is the cost-of-living, and Mamdani ran on a campaign to make New York “affordable.” But his basket of goodies—free bus fare, free child care, a rent freeze—cannot be done without raising taxes. Here’s the kicker: 60 percent of voters said raising taxes will “hurt the economy.”

So is Mamdani being realistic when he sports his budget-busting policies? No. Only 44 percent of voters said his polices are realistic. Cuomo, by contrast, was believable—58 percent said his policies were realistic.

In other words, a majority of New Yorkers voted for a man whom they believe (a) can’t do the job (b) will pursue measures that will hurt the economy, and (c) will promote policies that are unrealistic.

Gloria in excelsis Deo

From the National Catholic Reporter news I somehow missed.

A top American cardinal celebrated a traditional Latin Mass on Saturday (Oct. 25) in St. Peter’s Basilica with the explicit permission of Pope Leo XIV, thrilling traditionalist Catholics who had felt abandoned after Pope Francis greatly restricted the ancient liturgy.

A few thousand pilgrims, many of them young families with multiple children and the women covering their heads with lace veils, packed the altar area of the basilica to standing room-only capacity.

Cardinal Raymond Burke, the conservative American figurehead, presided over the 2 1/2-hour liturgy, which was rich in hymn, incense and priests bowing to the altar, their backs to the faithful in the pews.

For many traditionalists, the moment was a tangible sign that Leo might be more sympathetic to their plight, after they felt rejected by Francis and his 2021 crackdown on the old liturgy.

This is indeed good news, but TLM enthusiasts should be watchful that the Latin Mass being celebrated at St Peter’s, one time only, is merely a friendly gesture by His Holiness to them, and little else.

If the Pope orders TLM to be celebrated regularly at St Peter’s Basilica, or smilarly, then there is a good possibility His Holiness is considering the reversal of Pope Francis’s apostolic letter, Traditionis Custode and successors, which have all but prohibited celebration of the Latin Mass by requiring churches adhere to elaborate, virtually impossible-to-meet restrictions.

Still, there is more cause for hope than we have had before. Oremus.

Photo from NCR

News only surprising to the left

Those who despise socialism will not be surprised when the next country rejects it, nor the next, nor the next, etc.

It will only come as a surprise to red haters if the citizens of the United Kingdom reject the left, not because a substantial percentage of British citizens have long despised socialism with the entire fiber of their being, rather that the entrenched left in their government is at last been removed, not tolerated, by them.

The fight in the British citizenry, which served the nation so well in its conflicts with dictatorships in other lands, seems to have dissipated long ago when dealing with the socialist thugs in their own government.

That could change of course in the UK, Deo volente. Should that happy day come when grit in the Brit returns and the collectivist thieves in Whitehall are at last put out of government and into prison, or at least oblivion, it would be a signature occasion in world politics. This blogger believes if the United Kingdom firmly rejects socialism, it could mark its end, more than any other nation’s, even including Japan’s, as a viable international political movement.

Thanks to GR.

You probably won’t see this in Commonweal or the National Catholic Reporter

What would we do without the New York Post?

There’s probably some truth to this part, if you squint your brain.

Though it is likely the incident has caused a bit of upset in Fr Simplico’s diocesis and to its ordinary, such bad behavior like this is hardly unique among leaders of the Church (and why they too must confess), perhaps most notoriously, and let’s face it, entertaingly, by the 15th-16th century Pope, and Ruler of the Papal States, Alexander VI. Now there was a church leader who knew how to create scandal. Not only did His Holiness have mistresses beyond count, he fathered at least eight children among them. He is even accused of siriring a child by his daughter, though that story is certainly apocryphal.

The sad truth is that as long as human beings comprise the makeup of the Church on Earth, many of them, not heeding the example of the saints, will behave badly. While we may weep at their unfortunate behavior, we would not be human if we didn’t crack a grin at some of those escapades involving consenting adults. It’s only human.

Alexander VI

A prayer of old with an astonishing contemporary significance

Received recently from a scholar of religion is a prayer being used for a bookmark in an ancient volume from the Vatican Library. It has been diligently translated despite vigorous opposition from popish persons and self-conceited Brethren.

AMDG

Almighty God by whose sovereign breath frost is given and running rivers have been made solid (Job 37:10),  and whose Providence hath gendered the hoary frost of heaven (Job 38:29): we humbly thank Thee for having cast ice like morsels when climates cool, and for turning that same ice in time of warming verily to limpid water that doth quench the thirst of wild asses (Psalm 104:11): forgive our selfish pride for making ozone to change the face of soft waters into waters that are hard, and hard waters into waters that are soft. From shrinking pole to expanding pole may all living creatures join the ice and snow in  blessing Thee (Daniel 3:69) whose only Begotten Son was able to walk on water that was not frozen, and with whom there is no variableness neither shadow of turning (James 1:17). Amen.

A voice that crieth in the wilderness

For your amusement, please note the chart below showing the geographical distribution of  Democrats and Republicans in Taos County, New Mexico. Red represents Republican strongholds, blue represents Democrat strongholds.

Chart by Best Neighborhoods

Your Tatler is asked occasionally why there is so little political commentary in this blog concerning his own environs. The answer is, the audience read it before posting.

.

The dismal futures facing the Church of England and the Episcopal Church

What shall become of the Church of England with her brand new Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally or, as the estimable William Tighe has titled her, L’Archflaminica (the definite article added by your Tatler, with apologies to the good professor)? Things don’t look good.

Despite their shared heritage, the Church of England (C of E) and the Episcopal Church in the US have far different futures facing them, neither happy ones.

As per Wikipedia:

“The Church of England (C of E) is the established Christian church in England and the Crown Dependencies.” It is officially headed by the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Charles III.

In short, the C of E is a state institution. Though attendance at that institution has fallen drastically over the years and continues to do so, at the pleasure of the monarch she will continue to be funded, so long as there is an England. To this blogger, the greater possible threat to the C of E, at least her “physical plant,” may well be a “guest religion” in England, whose numbers increase  by leaps and bounds. Should its leadership begin eying enviously all those empty churches, they could make the not unreasonable argument the buildings would be put to far better use by their religion. Perhaps a future Archbishop monarch will agree and the Church of England will slowly, but slowly disappear, or become a greater non-entity than she already is.

The best and most concise description of the possible end of the Church of England might be by a poem by one of her most devout members, Mr Eliot, in the oft-used closing lines, used by many, including this blogger, for whatever suits their purposes, no matter how far afield, his The Hollow Men.

         For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is

Life is

For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

A foreshadowing? St Mark’s Parish, converted in 1980 to New Peckham Mosque, Cobourg Road, London SE5

—

The C of E’s American counterpart, the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, faces extinction, in that, not enjoying royal favor, she must depend mostly on her worshippers for offerings and bequests in various forms. They are not likely to come from members who have left the church. Their number is increasing, owing to the church’s never-ending pursuit of wackiness, including the elimination of strictures pertaining to many personal morals that the Holy Catholic Church (nor the “guest church,” for that matter) has not budged an inch in her teachings .

In short, when Episcopalians choose to stay at home Sunday  mornings, or to hit the links, they will, if not immediately, eventually quit funding the church. There are too many other, more enticing options. That, in time, will lead to the end of the Episcopal Church.