How Zohran Mamdani's win in the New York City mayoral primary could ripple across the country
Lincoln Mitchell, Columbia University
(THE CONVERSATION) Top Republicans and Democrats alike are talking about the sudden rise of 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani, a state representative who won the Democratic mayoral primary in New York on June 24, 2025, in a surprising victory over more established politicians.
While President Donald Trump quickly came out swinging with personal attacks against Mamdani, some establishment Democratic politicians say they are concerned about how the democratic socialist's progressive politics could harm the broader Democratic Party and cause it to lose more centrist voters.
New York is a unique American city, with a diverse population and historically liberal politics. So, does a primary mayoral election in New York serve as any kind of harbinger of what could come in the rest of the country?
Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Lincoln Mitchell, a political strategy and campaign specialist who lectures at Columbia University, to understand what Mamdani's primary win might indicate about the direction of national politics.
Does Mamdani's primary win offer any indication of how the Democratic Party might be transforming on a national level?
Mamdani's win is clearly a rebuke of the more corporate wing of the Democratic Party. I know there are people who say that New York is different from the rest of the country. But from a political perspective, Democrats in New York are less different from Democrats in the rest of country than they used to be.
That's because the rest of America is so much more diverse than it used to be. But if you look at progressive politicians now in the House of Representatives and state legislatures, they are being elected from all over – not just in big cities like New York anymore.
Andrew Cuomo, the former governor of New York, ran an absolutely terrible mayoral campaign. He tried to build a political coalition that is no longer a winning one, which was made up of majorities of African Americans, outer-borough white New Yorkers and orthodox and conservative Jews. Thirty or 40 years ago, that was a powerful coalition. Today, it could not make up a majority.
Mamdani visualized and created what a 2025 progressive coalition looks like in New York and recognized that it is going to look different than the past. Mamdani's coalition was based around young, white people – many of them with college degrees who are worried about affordability – ideological lefties and immigrants from parts of the Global South, including the Caribbean and parts of Africa, South Asia and South America.
When you say a new kind of political coalition, what policy priorities bring Mamdani's supporters together?
Mamdani reframed what I would call redistributive economic policies that have long been central to the progressive agenda. A pillar of his campaign is affordability – a brilliant piece of political marketing because who is against affordability? He came up with some affordability-related policies that got enough buzz, like promising free buses. Free buses are great, but it won't help most working and poor New Yorkers get to work – they take the subway.
He has been very critical of Israel and has weathered charges of antisemitism.
In the older New York, progressive politicians such as the late Congressman Charlie Rangel were very hawkish on Israel.
What Mamdani understood is that in today's America, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party does not care if somebody is, sounds like or comes close to being antisemitic. For those people, calling someone antisemitic sounds Trumpy, and they understand it as a right-wing hit, rather than the legitimate expression of concerns from Jewish people. Some liberals think that claims of antisemitism are simply something done just by those on the right to damage or discredit progressive politicians, but antisemitism is real.
Therefore, Mamdani's record on the Jewish issue did not hurt him in the campaign, but he needs to build bridges to Jewish voters, or he will not be able to govern New York City.
How else did Mamdani appeal to a base of supporters?
He got the support of 'limousine liberals' – including rich, high-profile, progressive people. His supporters include Ella Emhoff, a model and the stepdaughter of Kamala Harris, and the actress Cynthia Nixon, but there were many others. Supporting Mamdani became stylish – almost de rigueur – among certain segments of affluent New York.
Mamdani is also a true New Yorker and the voice of a new kind of immigrant. His parents are from Uganda and India. But he is also the child of extreme privilege – his mother, Mira Nair, is a well-known filmmaker, and his father is an accomplished professor. Mamdani went to top schools in New York and knows how to play in elite circles and with white people. He is a Muslim man whose roots are in the Global South, but he is not threatening because he knows how to speak their language.
To people of color and immigrants, Mamdani is also one of them. Because of Mamdani's interesting background, he brought the limousine liberals together with the aunties from Bangladesh.
Finally, on the charisma scale, Mamdani was so far ahead of other Democratic candidates. Who is going to make better TikTok videos – the good-looking, young man whose mother is a world-famous movie producer, or the older guy who is a loving father and husband but gives off dependable dad, rather than hip young guy, vibes?
Is New York City so distinct that you cannot compare politics there to what happens nationwide?
I think that nationwide or at the state level there is a potential for something similar to a Mamdani coalition, but not a Mamdani coalition exactly. But in a place like Oklahoma, there are people who are in bad economic shape and who will also respond positively to an affordability-focused, Democratic political campaign. Mamdani remade a progressive New York coalition for this moment. Other progressives politicians should copy the spirit of that and reimagine a winning coalition in their city, state or district.
When Trump was campaigning, he focused at least on making groceries cheaper. Mamdani is one of the few Democrats who took the affordability issue back from Trump and addressed it head on and in a much more honest and relevant way. Trump has the phrase, 'Make America Great Again!' That's a popular slogan on baseball caps for Trump supporters.
If Mamdani wanted to make a baseball cap, he could just print 'Affordability' on it. Boom.
Other Democratic politicians can take that approach of affordability and reframe it in a way that works in Kansas City or elsewhere.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
14 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana school's recording ban is an assault on parents' rights
It's back-to-school season, and parents and kids around the country are prepping for the inevitable transition from summer fun to the fall grind. For one Indiana mom, the stakes are higher than normal. Nicole Graves has sued her school district, Whitley County Consolidated Schools in Columbia City, Indiana, in federal court with help from the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute. She alleges that her First and 14th Amendment rights were violated in a series of interactions with school administrators. All four of Graves' children still attend district schools, and she's rightly concerned – given how she's been treated – about potential retaliation from the administration. Here's what happened: According to the Goldwater Institute, in April 2024, Graves' seventh-grade daughter 'filmed her school bus driver walking up and down the aisle, smacking his belt against his hand with his pants falling and his underwear visible.' After that incident on her daughter's school bus, Graves set up a meeting with the school principal. She recorded the meeting because she wanted an accurate record of what transpired. When Graves wasn't satisfied with what the principal said, she posted the recording on social media. That angered school administrators, who contacted her via letter and told her she broke school policy by recording the meeting without permission. Even though Graves had been unaware of the policy, she was banned from school grounds and restricted in her communication with staff, unless she got written permission from the superintendent's office. While that absurd punishment has expired, the lawsuit seeks to overturn the ban on recording, which remains in place. 'This is not fun for me,' Graves told IndyStar. 'This is not something I ever thought I would have to fight for. But I am more than happy to stand up and fight and talk to who I need to talk to to get things to change because I think it's important for all the families in this school district.' Opinion: School choice wars miss the point. Data can't dictate our values. The complaint argues that the school's recording policy and the no-trespass and communication orders violate the First Amendment, 'which protects the right to record government officials in the performance of their duties.' Adam Shelton, the Goldwater staff attorney working with Graves, says these kinds of recordings fall squarely under the First Amendment. 'The First Amendment protects more than just speech, it also protects conduct that is inherently expressive and conduct that cannot be divorced from the speech creation process, like recording,' Shelton observed on X. 'This is especially true in situations involving parents and school officials.' While Democrats and teachers unions may think they know what's best for children, that's simply false. Parents do. This lawsuit also alleges that the school district violated Graves' constitutional right to direct her children's education. 'The orders also violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, which protects the fundamental rights of parents to control and direct the education and upbringing of their children,' the complaint states. 'This right is the oldest right that the Supreme Court has recognized as one of the 'liberties' protected by the due process clause.' Hicks: Indiana's college crisis has nothing to do with woke campuses or high costs Graves' case reminded me of one I've written about before, regarding another Midwest mom who was shunned by her child's school district. Sandra Hernden of Michigan sued her school district in 2022 for violating her constitutional rights. She had complained to the school board about its COVID-19 policies in 2020, and board members responded by contacting her employer and then reporting her to the Biden administration's U.S. Department of Justice (remember how the DOJ went after parents as 'domestic terrorists'?). Hernden's case is ongoing. Steve Delie, an attorney with the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation that is representing Hernden, made oral arguments in June before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 'Even if we assume there was no monetarily compensable injury, you're still talking about government officials taking advantage of their elected positions of power to silence opposition,' Delie told the court. 'That can't be the way society functions.' No, it can't. Kudos to these moms for their bravery and for standing up for parental rights everywhere.
Vox
26 minutes ago
- Vox
How conservatives help their young thinkers — and why liberals don't
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here. Attendees look on during Turning Point USA's Culture War event at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, on October 29, 2019. Megan Jelinger/AFP via Getty Images Last week, two young liberals asked for help finding a job in the ideas industry. And I didn't have a great answer. It made sense that they were asking: We were at a conference for liberals, dedicated to building a version of the doctrine that works in the 21st century. They were interested in studying ideas professionally, and I was there to moderate a panel about political philosophy. Yet I found myself struggling to give good advice. Sure, they could try for an internship at a liberal publication or think tank, but those are fiercely competitive and don't pay much. They could apply for a PhD program, but teaching jobs were scarce even before President Donald Trump took a hammer to American academia. What's really missing are programs of a specific kind — ones that help college students and recent grads engage with Big Ideas and connect with Important People. If my young acquaintances were right-wing, I might have told them to apply for National Review's Buckley and Rhodes journalism fellowships — multiyear paid opportunities to write for a national audience straight out of college. For a lesser commitment, they could have tried for the Claremont Institute's Publius Fellowship — a three-week program where you receive $1,500, a $700 travel stipend, free housing, paid meals, and an opportunity to study with some of the most influential (and radical) figures of the Trump era. On the Right The ideas and trends driving the conservative movement, from senior correspondent Zack Beauchamp. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Those are two examples of numerous well-funded programs explicitly designed to usher as many bright young people into the institutional conservative world as possible. If you're an ambitious young college grad, and anywhere on the spectrum from libertarian to hardcore Trumpist, you've got tons of options to get into the ideas game. My young acquaintances really wanted a liberal version of such a thing. But as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to exist. Where there should be a talent pipeline from universities to liberal public intellectualism, there is a giant sucking sound instead. And, increasingly, it's giving the right a leg up in winning the future. The right's winning formula for training youth It is true, as conservatives have long alleged, that America's intellectual institutions are pretty left-leaning places. They often overstate the case — professors are more likely to be Elizabeth Warren Dems than 'globalize the intifada' socialist revolutionaries — but data confirms that liberals outnumber conservatives in academia and the media by pretty significant margins. This is, of course, not at all new. One of the founding texts of the postwar conservative movement, William F. Buckley's God and Man at Yale, is all about how academia is full of socialists who are chipping away at the eternal truths of capitalism and Christianity. Buckley founded National Review as an antidote to what he saw as the liberal tilt of the mainstream American press. The legacy of Buckley-style thinking is the rise of a conservative ideas industry. A young person nowadays could attend college at right-wing Hillsdale, build their law school life around membership in the Federalist Society, and then get a job writing right-wing papers for the Heritage Foundation — all while getting their news from Fox News and Mark Levin's radio show. As part of these pipeline programs, older right-wingers get to know young up-and-comers as people, and thus develop a personal stake in their success. At the same time, the right also invested in the kinds of 'pipeline' programs our young liberals are desperate for. These aren't designed to replace traditional education or media institutions, but rather to identify young people interested in ideas and expose them to the right-wing alternatives. These work, in large part, by being intellectually exciting. It's not just that you get to go on all-expenses-paid trips with nice meals; it's that you are put in an environment where you're reading and debating classic works of political thought and literature with other people who share those interests. If you're the kind of nerd who wants to debate the finer points of Locke and Hamilton during undergrad summers, you're the kind of nerd who might one day be someone who matters in US politics — and the right's fellowships are there to help make sure you're mattering on their side. The people these young people are meeting are important and famous (well, DC famous). In a 2021 episode of the Know Your Enemy podcast, Nate Hochman — a radical young conservative writer who later staffed both Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sen. Eric Schmitt — talks at length about 'the masterful things the conservative movement institutionally has done in terms of mentorship.' Hochman, who was raised in a liberal household and moved to the right in college, describes how the movement's fellowship programs brought him in direct and meaningful contact with conservatism's leading lights. 'All of a sudden, you're at dinner with people you've looked up to for years, staying up until 1 am drinking wine with them and asking them questions and getting to talk to them. And they're taking you seriously,' Hochman says. As part of these pipeline programs, older right-wingers get to know young up-and-comers as people, and thus develop a personal stake in their success. When you stay up late drinking with someone, talking about shared ideas, you come to care about them in a way you don't if they sent you a cold email. When they come looking for help getting a job writing about conservative ideas, you'll work that much harder to place them in one. And the right has built its institutions to ensure that such positions are available. Right-wing publications and think tanks are much more open to debating big-picture questions — say, what kind of a nation is America? — than their left-wing peers (more on that in a second). Claremont, for example, was founded by students of conservative political philosopher Harry Jaffa, and it shows in the kind of work they put out (even when it strikes me as substantively ridiculous). Liberals are suffering from success There is no parallel culture in American liberalism — a function, in part, of liberalism's longtime intellectual dominance. There wasn't much of a need for liberal donors to create programs to cultivate liberal thought, as people interested could simply go get a PhD or an entry-level reporting job. However, these institutions were not avowedly liberal in character. They styled themselves as politically neutral, focused more on quality research and reporting, than as contributing to a particular ideological cause. This means that while liberals in such fields were in left-leaning environments, many were trained to see themselves primarily as professionals working a craft. So while there are plenty of internships available to young liberals, they're mostly focused on professional training (or coffee-fetching) rather than staying up late swapping ideas with big names. More broadly, the liberal professional approach also produced a kind of intellectual siloing. If you were a young liberal interested in political philosophy, odds are that you end up going to a PhD program and pursuing a career in academia. If you're interested in policy, odds are that you ended up studying a set of applied skills (like law or economics) that prepared you for very specific policy discussions in your area of expertise. But the conservative intellectual model bridges the philosophy-policy gap. It trains young people in the big-picture ideas, like conservative visions of political morality and religion, and teaches them to connect those things to everyday policy discussions. You aren't learning about abstract ideas or concrete policy, but rather learning a comprehensive worldview that treats policy issues as downstream of specific values. You are, in short, learning an ideology. Liberalism has plenty of brilliant theorists who work at a largely abstract level, and policy wonks who work on the most applied issues. But in the middle area of ideology, one bridging the gap between principle and policy, they've basically ceded the field to conservatism. The pipeline problem for young people is a symptom of the movement's blind spot: liberals, as a collective, don't care to cultivate a youth ideological cadre. This might not have been a problem in the past — and maybe even a benefit. Ideological thinking tends to produce rigidity, an unwillingness to adjust one's policy thinking based on new evidence. The right's longtime insistence that tax cuts can reduce deficits, or addiction to proposing military solutions to foreign policy problems, are two examples of curdled ideology. But we're at a moment where liberalism is in a particular kind of crisis: under threat from new ideologies that challenge not specific liberal policy ideas, but the basic premises of a liberal political system. Liberals need a new and compelling vision: one that explains why our ideas are not merely a defense of an unpopular status quo, but a broader politics that can be used to address cardinal problems of the 21st century. At this moment, liberals lack the personnel to articulate such a vision — while the right's radical thinkers, at places like Claremont, seize the field.
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrats launch radio ad attacking GOP over cuts to rural radio funding
The Senate Democrats' campaign arm is launching a new radio ad Wednesday attacking Republicans for slashing funding for rural radio stations as a part of more than $1 billion Republicans made in cuts to public broadcasting in their recissions package. 'Thank you for listening to your local radio station. But stations like these might not be around for long,' a narrator says in the 30-second ad, which was first shared with The Hill. 'Last month in D.C., Republican Senators cut radio funding, voting to end weather alerts, community news and our way to stay connected,' the narrator continued. 'Rural America relies on radio. But Republican politicians left us behind.' They added, 'We can't trust them to fight for us.' The ads are being aired in recognition of National Radio Day, and they're expected to run in rural stations in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, all of which Senate Democrats are eyeing as potential pick-up opportunities next year. 'Rural communities rely on local radio to stay connected on everything from local news to lifesaving alerts about severe weather — but Republican Senators left them behind,' Maeve Coyle, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), said in a statement. 'Republican senators will be forced to explain to their constituents why they're robbing the programs that support their communities in order to pay for a giveaway to billionaires,' she added. President Trump signed a recissions package last month, which rescinds around $9 billion Congress had previously approved for funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps fund NPR and PBS and its affiliates, and global aid programs. CPB is contending with more than $1 billion in cuts alone. Federal funding makes up a smaller percentage of the money NPR and PBS rely on, but rural stations have already warned it will impact them more severely since it makes up a higher proportion of their overall funding. Republicans have attacked NPR and PBS, arguing they're liberally biased and their programs push 'radical left positions,' which its leaders have pushed back on. Contending with the cuts, the CPB announced it would begin to shut down, with its president Patricia Harrison saying in a statement 'we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations.'
