Mamdani Won. And Both Parties Are Freaking Out.
This Wasn’t About Labels. It Was About Lives
In New York, the politics of presence just defeated the politics of power — and the fallout is still unfolding.
The Backdrop
Earlier this week, Zohran Mamdani pulled off one of the most stunning political upsets in recent memory. In a city where political machines still hold sway, Mamdani won by rejecting the blueprint they operate from. His campaign wasn’t driven by saturation ads or mass mailers. It was grounded in conversation, proximity, and a relentless curiosity about how people are actually doing.
That, more than anything, set off alarm bells across the political class.
To Republicans, Mamdani represents everything they warn against: a socialist insurgent, a destabilizing force, a glimpse of where they fear the country is heading. Trump labeled him a “100% Communist Lunatic.” Rep. Nicole Malliotakis called him “very dangerous to the future of the city.” Charlie Kirk went even further, comparing Mamdani’s win to “9/11 2.0.”
But the louder panic came from inside his own party. Democratic leaders rushed to express concern — not just about his victory, but about what it might signal.
Representative Laura Gillen called Mamdani “too extreme to lead New York City,” accusing him of campaigning on “unachievable promises and higher taxes — the last thing New York needs.”
Congressman Tom Suozzi echoed that fear: “I had serious concerns about Assemblyman Mamdani before yesterday, and that is one of the reasons I endorsed his opponent. Those concerns remain.”
According to Axios, “many Democratic leaders and donors are panicking” — not just because Mamdani won, but because of what he represents: a populist, ideologically unpredictable, unapologetically left-wing candidate rising in a party still trying to recover from 2024.
Even Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both Democrats from New York, declined to endorse Mamdani — despite praising voter turnout.
What’s become clear is this: Mamdani didn’t just pull off a political upset. He revealed a deeper fracture — a generation of voters who feel unseen and unheard — and a political establishment that, instead of listening or re-engaging, is warning the rest of the country to look away.
My Takeaways ✨✨✨
#1: This Wasn’t About Labels. It Was About Lives.
Mamdani’s win wasn’t a fluke. It was the result of a campaign that grasped something most politicos and consultants still miss: in cities like New York, the real divide is no longer left versus center. It’s disconnection versus recognition.
Pre-election polling showed his support skewed toward white voters, men, and New Yorkers under 50 — a coalition not typically associated with progressive insurgents. But what bound them together wasn’t ideology. It was lived experience. It was frustration. It was fatigue.
In focus groups I conducted earlier this year, participants voiced the very same concerns Mamdani eventually built his campaign around. They weren’t demanding a Green New Deal or a democratic socialist manifesto. They were asking for something more basic: to be acknowledged.
“Do you understand the cost of commuting on a broken subway system?”
“Do you know what it feels like to be priced out of your neighborhood?”
“Do you see me waiting tables, juggling side hustles, raising kids, trying to survive?”
Mamdani didn’t offer slogans. He listened. He took those stories seriously. Then he built a platform that sounded less like a press release and more like the people living it.
“Don’t assume to know what New Yorkers need. Actually talk to the people and listen.” — Hispanic woman, focus group
“Make the city more affordable and safer. Listen to the community and not your donors.” — White man, 25–40
“They get all this, but I could never ask Mayor Adams a question. How the hell would that even happen?” — Manhattan professional man
That disconnection is real. And Mamdani didn’t manipulate it. He mirrored it — and then turned it into momentum.
And the data backs it up. Mamdani didn’t just sweep expected strongholds like Fort Greene, Brooklyn Heights, and Astoria. He made meaningful gains in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods where Cuomo was supposed to cruise. He carried parts of Bed-Stuy and Crown Heights, won more than 70% in sections of Kensington’s Orthodox Jewish community, and even flipped College Point in Queens — a district represented by a Republican councilmember who once called for his deportation. He outperformed expectations in Asian communities across Queens, Brooklyn, and Manhattan.
This wasn’t just a DSA base play. It was a deeper, broader coalition than anyone — including the establishment — saw coming.
#2: The Trust Recession
This election wasn’t just about housing or crime or affordability. It was about trust. And how little of it remains.
In our Voices of New York survey:
81% of New Yorkers say housing affordability is getting worse
68% feel unsafe on the subway at night
79% disapprove of Mayor Adams’ job performance
63% believe the administration doesn’t listen to people like them
These aren’t vague feelings. They’re lived realities as evidenced from my early 2025 focus groups:
“I’ve been looking for a bigger place I can afford for a year. It’s impossible.” — White man, 25–40
“I have my passport. I just need more money, and I’m out.” — Black woman, 30–44
“I love this city, but I feel like it doesn’t love me back.” — Outer Borough man
That’s the environment Mamdani stepped into — and it’s what he spoke to more clearly than anyone else on the ballot.
#3: The Strategy Worked — But It Doesn’t Travel on Its Own
There’s already a rush to frame Mamdani’s win as a warning shot — or a roadmap — for Democrats nationally. But the truth is more grounded than that. What happened in Queens, Brooklyn, and across parts of the Bronx, Manhattan, and Staten Island wasn’t a template for the nation. It was a local reaction to a local crisis — a campaign rooted in New York’s specific pain points: housing, transit, affordability, and a growing sense that city government no longer works for regular people.
The lesson isn’t to copy Mamdani’s message. It’s to copy his method.
In a post-election interview with Jen Psaki, Mamdani put it plainly: “We hoped to move our political instinct from lecturing to listening.”
That might sound simple. But in modern politics, sadly, it’s revolutionary.
Most campaigns treat voters as targets. Mamdani treated them as teachers. He went to Fordham Road in the Bronx and Hillside Avenue in Queens — places where Democrats have been bleeding support — and asked people why. What he heard again and again wasn’t ideology. It was economics. Cost of living. Survival.
Mamdani brought ideology into the race — no question. He’s been open about it for years. But what set this campaign apart wasn’t the platform. It was the posture. He didn’t lead with slogans or national talking points. He showed up, asked real questions, and let the people most affected by the city’s failures shape the terms of the conversation. His politics weren’t hidden — they were translated through the lived experience of the voters he listened to.
That’s why it worked in New York. And that’s exactly why it won’t work the same way somewhere else.
You can’t lift this campaign out of Bed-Stuy, Astoria, or College Point and drop it into Milwaukee or Phoenix and expect it to land. When candidates try to export someone else’s story — instead of learning the language of the place they’re in — voters can feel it. You don’t earn trust by repeating what worked somewhere else. You earn it by proving you’re listening here.
#4: The Concerns Are Real — and the Test Starts Now
Let’s be clear: not all of the backlash to Mamdani is baseless. There are valid concerns.
Can a $1.1 billion safety plan be funded without harming the city’s budget?
Will the business community stay engaged, or will it disengage and disinvest?
Can Mamdani build working relationships with civic institutions, unions, and bureaucracies that didn’t support him?
If major employers, developers, and nonprofits scale back or leave altogether, the tax base crumbles. And promises without funding are just slogans.
But here’s the real question:
Why were so many Democrats more eager to criticize Mamdani than Cuomo?
Why didn’t they ask the former governor why he wasn’t listening better?
Why he rested on what he did yesterday when this election was about tomorrow?
Voters didn’t just reject Cuomo’s record — they rejected the idea that a résumé is enough.
That’s the context Mamdani stepped into — and that’s what he’ll be judged against going forward.
The Bottom Line
Zohran Mamdani didn’t just beat Andrew Cuomo and the field. He beat an entire narrative about what politics is supposed to look like — that power flows from pedigree, that endorsements equal legitimacy, and that voters still respond to top-down campaigns run by people who don’t live like them.
He built a campaign that didn’t start with polling — it started with listening. He didn’t chase endorsements — he chased eye contact. And he didn’t ask voters to believe in him — he asked what it would take for them to believe in the city again.
That’s why he won. And that’s why the establishment is shaken — because he didn’t just run differently. He exposed how out of touch they’ve become.
But fear isn’t a governing strategy. And backlash isn’t a plan.
Now comes the hard part — not just defending his win, but proving he can deliver. With Cuomo still on the ballot and the city’s political machinery watching closely, Mamdani has to do more than campaign. He has to lead.
And leadership will require more than solidarity. It will require strategy — especially when it comes to the city’s most entrenched power centers. If they walk away or quietly disinvest, the tax base erodes, investment slows, and the resources needed to turn bold ideas into real outcomes vanish. Mamdani can hold his values — but he still has to work with the people who shape the city’s financial and physical reality. Because without a way to bring them to the table — or at least keep them from flipping it — the vision risks staying aspirational instead of actionable.
He’ll also need to show that the politics of presence can withstand pressure. That bold ideas can survive a budget process. That movement candidates can become governing ones. And that he can turn a campaign rooted in recognition into a coalition built for results.
He’s no longer running against the system. He’s running with the burden of expectations.
If Mamdani builds the right alliances — with skeptics, with workers, with small business owners, and yes, with the institutional players he once ran against — he won’t just win again.
He’ll show what a new kind of mayor — and a new kind of politics — can actually look like.
thank you, John, for this excellent analysis. I've avoided the conventional analyses bc they're clearly the usual stuff, and they're clearly inadequate for this event and moment. this points the way not to a template that can be duplicated around the country but an approach that has totally eluded the Democrats. if Democratic candidates can listen instead of lecture, turn the focus to the voters and not just barrage them with policies, this could be the shift so many of us knew had to happen but couldn't imagine what it would look like. excellent work. will share the post.
Thanks, John. I live in Los Angeles. From across the continent, your analysis rings true. All community organizing starts with listening, not ideology. That said, any mayor faces the inherent limits on what cities can do to cure inequality and the acid test on getting things done. Which is to double down on the last points you made. (Enough Red State cities in trouble financially that federal revenue sharing might come back in vogue.)