With Zohran Mamdani’s recent victory in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, many are confused as to how he managed to beat out Democratic heavy-hitter Andrew Cuomo. Bringing with him the financial might of multiple far-right megadonors and a long career in Democratic politics, first as Housing and Urban Development secretary under President Obama and then as governor of New York, Cuomo seemed a sure bet to take the nomination in a landslide. Even with numerous past scandals, including multiple allegations of sexual harassment and accusations of concealing COVID deaths in nursing homes, he polled well ahead of the rest of the field for most of the race. It was only in the last few months of the campaign that Mamdani, a 33-year-old state assemblyman from Queens, began to gain momentum. In the wake of this incredible upset, many explanations have been offered from all sides of the political spectrum for how the young progressive turned the odds in his favor. Centrist members of the Democratic party seemed eager to paint this victory solely as a result of a social media-savvy campaign and a well-organized ground game. However, the more one actually analyzes the policies and messaging of the two campaigns, the clearer it becomes that this self-serving perspective misses the most important elements of Mamdani’s victory. While it would be wholly inaccurate to suggest that social media and ground game weren’t important aspects of the Mamdani campaign, the true secret to his popularity lies with his bold, progressive policy agenda.
From the start of his campaign, it was clear Mamdani wasn’t a typical Democratic candidate. The democratic socialist was a major departure from many of the well-established norms set for Democrats. Unlike his opponents, he didn’t shy away from policies and positions many considered too radical for the party still reeling from their loss to President Donald Trump in the 2024 election. From his promise to establish city-owned grocery stores to combat rising food prices and food deserts, to his commitment to freezing rent for rent-stabilized tenants and building 200,000 new affordable housing units, his policy platform took aim squarely at the cost-of-living crisis. Where traditional politicians like Cuomo tended to shy away from anything that could be perceived as “radical,” for fear of alienating moderate voters, Mamdani took a novel approach. Instead of simply adopting whatever set of poll-tested policies was predicted to go over well with the highest number of voters, he first identified what people saw as the biggest problems in their lives and proposed solutions to match. This relentless, solution-focused platform was seen by many as a much-needed change of direction from years of compromised strategies. Strategies which had failed to address the economic discontent that defined the political landscape of the primary.
This begs the question: Why are so many establishment Democrats so desperate to frame this election result simply in the context of marketing? If any reasonable analysis shows Mamdani’s unapologetically leftist policy platform to be largely responsible for his win, why is there such resistance to admitting it? After all, if this approach worked so well against such steep odds, there could be much to learn and apply to other Democratic campaigns. To most who’ve been following Democratic politics recently, the reason is tragically obvious. Democrats aren’t afraid leftist politics won’t win elections, they’re afraid they will. As has been shown time and time again over the past 10 years, the Democratic party is a party built on high-dollar donors and corporate interest. While they make every effort to cast themselves as a left-wing party and as resistance to the far right, they’re still beholden to the same interests that govern the Republicans. Interests fundamentally opposed to the kind of progressive economic proposals lauded by Mamdani and other leftist politicians. If Democrats were to embrace the kind of politics that showed so much promise in NYC, they’d risk upsetting those vital donors. Therefore, it is in their best interest to forgo the potential success such an approach could bring if applied on a large scale and instead go on pretending the true secret to winning elections lies with the same centrist strategy that has consistently failed both the Democratic party and the American people.
I won’t say, as many on the left have come to believe, that both parties are the same. There are crucial differences in the policies and practices of the two which manifest themselves in the lives of real people. In almost every case, voting for a democrat will have meaningfully better results for every aspect of Americans’ lives. That said, the Democratic establishment has shown itself to be either unable or unwilling to offer true solutions to the problems that plague life in America. They’re stuck walking a tightrope between appeasing their donors and still being the lesser of two evils. To have any chance of achieving meaningful, long-term electoral success, Democrats need more people like Zohran Mamdani: People willing to implement bold and robust policies to address the urgent issues facing their voters no matter what the cost.