What Zohran Mamdani Means for Democrats

State Rep. Zohran Mandai (D-NY)

There's a lot of politics in the United States, and I will be honest-I am only one man.  So while I don't feel the need (after going into a more relaxed environment with the blog last year) to cover everything political on this blog, when I do cover it, it's generally something related to either federal politics or a governor's race.  Therefore, I wasn't planning on weighing in on the New York mayoral election, though it wasn't for lack of interest.  I used to live in New York (my district, for the curious, went to Cuomo because I lived in the central Bronx), and so it's fun to watch election results for a community I actually know.  But given there are a lot of misconceptions going around, I wanted to clear up a few things (from my perspective) of what this does and does not mean for the upcoming midterms.

First, let's ground ourselves in what happened.  On Tuesday, Zohran Mamdani, a member of the New York State Assembly, decidedly beat former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the mayoral election.  Mamdani, a Democratic socialist, was an underdog for much of the race, as Cuomo had dominated polls since he entered the contest, and Mamdani was behind in virtually every poll save one headed into election day, though he clearly had the momentum.  New York election law is odd, and a primary win (though it affords Mamdani the position as frontrunner) doesn't preclude other candidates from running, and it appears that both Cuomo and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams will be in the race as independents when we have the general election later this year.

Mamdani's win upset the powers-that-be in New York politics distinctly.  Cuomo, despite having a host of sexual harassment claims against him, was endorsed by major Democratic Party hitters like former President Bill Clinton and Rep. Jim Clyburn, and has been a giant in Democratic politics for decades.  Mamdani winning puts major Democrats in the state (including Gov. Kathy Hochul, Senators Chuck Schumer & Kirsten Gillibrand, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) in the awkward position of either endorsing their party's nominee (i.e. a Democratic Socialist) or bucking the primary voters in the largest city in their state (i.e. their base).  Given the three statewide figures are facing primary challenges (or likely primary challenges), this is a position none of them wanted to be in, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were all secretly hoping for Cuomo or a third candidate to upset.

First off, I want to be clear-these four need to endorse Mamdani.  Former DNC Vice Chair David Hogg (whom we've discussed before on this blog) is not someone I agree with often when it comes to the state of the Democratic Party, but his tweet "tell them what they've always told us-vote blue no matter what" rings well here.  New York City is a very blue city, and Mamdani is the Democratic nominee.  This isn't a case where we nominated someone with criminal allegations (like, say, Eric Adams) or sexual misconduct accusations (like, say, Andrew Cuomo).  Mamdani by all accounts is a very left-leaning but still palatable in this jurisdiction nominee, much like the Squad in their districts.  You don't get to spend years lecturing the left "vote for the moderate because it's the only way to stop the Republicans" and then when the left nominates one of their own in a jurisdiction that they can totally win, you start getting hypocritical by not backing their candidate.  I'm not asking for Democrats in other districts like Laura Gillen to get behind him (she's not a New York City-based House member, and is also from a somewhat vulnerable district), but Schumer/Hochul/Jeffries/Gillibrand need to get behind him, or they deserve the consequences that come next (i.e. primary challenges and threats to boycott their party).  If they can't, they shouldn't be in the leadership positions they are in.  So far, none have heeded that call (and Gillibrand has made some verbal slips that border on racist), but they're going to have to before November or they're going to be in trouble in their upcoming elections.

That being said, I don't think that Mamdani is, on the surface, the "future of the party" or this is a harbinger of things to come in 2026.  For starters, he still needs to win-polls show him with a lead over Adams & Cuomo in a three-way race (there is also a Republican, Curtis Sliwa, who will take support from Adams/Cuomo and could play spoiler here), but it's not insurmountable and it's possible that 1-2 of these three men will drop out and endorse the other to improve their collective chances.  But even if he does win, Gracie Mansion is hardly a good launchpad for national politics in recent years.  Mike Bloomberg, Bill de Blasio, John Lindsay, & Rudy Giuliani all mounted presidential campaigns from the post...all of them ended in embarrassment and defeat in the primaries.  Being mayor of a major city is a somewhat thankless job, and requires you to take positions that are at odds with how a mostly suburban nation lives-it's why being a governor or a senator is a better place to start a presidential campaign.  Mamdani in a lot of ways resembles the rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-he's charming, from the far left but able to relate to mainstream audiences, young, and very attractive.  I would definitely assume he has a future in the party, but he needs to win & govern before we start assuming he's a name to remember for a future gubernatorial or senatorial campaign (Mamdani, unlike AOC, is not a naturally-born citizen so he can't run for President).

And we also need to stop assuming he is a sign of things to come in 2026.  Just days before Mamdani won this race, across the river in New Jersey, their Democratic Party had nominated establishment candidate Mikie Sherrill, and in Virginia they nominated former Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, another left-of-middle Democrat far more in the mold of Gillibrand than Mamdani.  Mamdani's campaign was impressive, and shouldn't be dismissed...but he was up against a uniquely awful option in Cuomo.  The biggest mistake the establishment made here is picking a well-known but uniquely terrible candidate when going with someone like Adrienne Adams (not as famous, but local and scandal-free) would've been far smarter & might've resulted in Mamdani not being able to catch fire.  This will be difficult to duplicate in other places in 2026-there are few candidates as reviled as Cuomo, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of challengers as talented as Mamdani.  I do think there are spots on the map next year where incumbents could be vulnerable (already there's a movement to take out Shri Thanedar, and again if you've read this blog for a while you'll know that I'll be fulling back that), but so far Mamdani's win feels like a unicorn situation, and not a predictor of a Democratic Tea Party in the making...though the delayed & embarrassing reactions of Gillibrand, Schumer, Jeffries, & Hochul are not helping the establishment's cause to stave off such a movement given the excitement on the left over Mamdani's win.