Slop.

I just feel like political illustrators are losing their touch. This is another one that's narratively "who cares?" until you make the face into a sneer and add little details to describe fire and shooting in NYC.

That anti-MLK one about the "peaceful" protest? Narrative coherence. Obviously it's bad and he wants to do more bad. Kelly's anti-polyamory one? Narrative incoherence. It requires little parents crying faces for polyamory to be bad.

So it's like you don't even have anything directly bad to say about the Mamdani otherwise you'd probably have led with that. It HAS to be "well, doing something good actually causes bad things to happen" and it just doesn't seem like that's a popular stance anymore. So you either make an eloquent, succinct, creative, and thoughtful metaphor for what it's like to swallow a poison pill WHICH WAS YOUR ORIGINAL CHARGE AS AN ARTIST or you just flounder around with pure symbolic, uninspired gesturing. You're exposing your ass if you can't show me at a glance WHY people thinking Mamdani is... le good! is... le bad! You're washed. You're boring. You're spinning your wheels. Did you mean if you give a mouse a cookie soon they'll want the state to wipe their ass? Do you think so little of New Yorkers' desire to affect local issues? Did you mean that you believe the Democrat, the unpopular Eric Adams, was doing good for New York? I didn't take you for a vote bloo guy. Are you hopeful they'll enact the good policies of the Republican candidate? Who? Do you just dislike his smile? You're better off using a tried and true meme format - there's even one with an F-slur about a dog. I honestly think you'd have been better off saving the trouble and photoshopping Mamdani onto a dog and calling it a day.