With Zohran Mamdani's win in New York, voters spoke. Is the Democratic establishment listening?
Advertisement
Even Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who pushed for Cuomo's resignation in 2021 after a state investigation concluded that he
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
A majority of voters rejected Cuomo in a primary with a larger than usual turnout on a day that was
Advertisement
Mamdani's victory — and, to be clear, he still needs to win the November election to become New York's next mayor — shows that Democratic voters are tired of the same old faces in the same old places. They want to vote for, and not just against, someone, and that's what Mamdani represents across a spectrum of voters and communities.
His win recalls 2018, when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also a democratic socialist, defeated Joe Crowley, a 10-term New York incumbent, to become, at 29, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. Later that year, Ayanna Pressley, the first Black woman elected to the Boston City Council, was also elected to Congress, besting Michael Capuano, who had represented the Massachusetts 7th Congressional District since 1999.
Pressley, who trailed Capuano in the polls right up to the election but
That could be what voters want from Mamdani — a different kind of leader who is relatable, engaging, and dynamic. He spoke with people, not to them. And he presented economic policies like rent freezes and free buses that ordinary New Yorkers — not billionaires — could embrace and understand.
Meanwhile, Cuomo borrowed the GOP's politics of fear and tried to scare everyone to death. He
Advertisement
The former governor's dismissive tone had the tinny echo of
Maybe voters didn't want a political nepo baby running on familiarity and name recognition. Maybe they rejected a man who left his previous job in disgrace over credible sexual harassment accusations.
Or perhaps people needed the light and hope Mamdani offers in these difficult times instead of Cuomo's doom and darkness.
In a CNN interview, Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut said, 'I know that this feels like a shock to a lot of folks but it doesn't seem like rocket science. [Mamdani is] focused on reordering economic power, he's dynamic, and he's a new voice. Check, check, check.'
Democrats don't need a wildly popular podcaster, someone who could be their liberal Joe Rogan, to win again. They need candidates who generate passion and stand fast for the values of equity and justice that the Democratic establishment espouses but abandons when elections don't go their way.
Related
:
Mamdani's road to Gracie Mansion — the New York mayor's residence — won't be easy. Cuomo appears likely to run an independent campaign, which is what Eric Adams, the problematic President Trump-appeasing incumbent, already has done. Mamdani will continue to face baseless accusations of antisemitism as well as hostility from bellicose billionaires like
Advertisement
So far, there's been more noise from Mamdani's detractors than from the leaders of the party he belongs to. They should recognize and replicate how he has connected, especially with young voters.
In his
Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
37 minutes ago
- CNBC
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. "Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved," said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. "Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents." Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional "collections" actions that one would take against a "deadbeat debtor." Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including "sanctuary" policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. "We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites," she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. "It's a novel concept," said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. "I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds." Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. "So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much," said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. "There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people," he said. "The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'" But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. "Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'" he said. "States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law." But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. "We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget," said Moon, the Maryland legislator. "There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House."
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Senate debates Trump's major tax, Medicaid, border bill after dramatic vote: Live updates
Hours of debate will be followed by likely hours of voting on what could be dozens of amendments. WASHINGTON – The Senate begins its marathon debate about President Donald Trump's package of legislative priorities as Republicans try to thread the needle for tax cuts, Medicaid reforms and border security funding with a narrow majority. The debate comes after a dramatic 51-49 vote June 28 that was held open for more than three and a half hours while a handful of Republican senators negotiated with Senate leaders, Trump and Vice President JD Vance. The victory meant the bill cleared a key hurdle for the success of Trump's domestic agenda for tax cuts and border security. Trump has urged Congress to complete the measure by July 4. After the vote, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, forced Senate clerks to read the entire 940-page bill rather than customarily waiving that chore. The debate that could last 20 hours before senators begin voting on what is expected to be dozens of amendments in a process nicknamed a "vote-a-rama" that could hours longer. Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, has said he is uncertain whether enough Republicans will support the final version of their bill to send it back to the House. "We'll find out," Thune said. Here is what has happened so far: Which Republicans voted against Trump's bill? The president blasts GOP lawmakers Trump took to his Truth Social platform to criticize the GOP lawmakers who voted against moving his major tax bill forward – Tillis and Paul. "Numerous people have come forward wanting to run in the Primary against 'Senator Thom' Tillis. I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks, looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina and, so importantly, the United States of America," Trump said. Trump had a shorter message for Paul, a longtime GOP lawmaker from Kentucky: "Did Rand Paul Vote 'NO' again tonight? What's wrong with this guy???" GOP senators raise – and some resolve – concerns about bill Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina were the only Republican votes against debating the bill as written. Paul, who golfed with Trump that afternoon, opposed the bill's spending levels. Tillis voiced concerns about Medicaid cuts costing his state tens of billions of dollars. Trump threatened to find a Republican primary opponent for Tillis in 2026. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, initially voted no on starting the debate. But he flipped his vote at the last minute rather than force a tie that Vice President JD Vance was on hand to break. GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida were the last to vote, each saying yes after hours of talks with leadership. Along the way, Lee withdrew a contentious provision that Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Montana, threatened to oppose the legislation over. − Bart Jansen Elon Musk called bill 'political suicide' for hurting jobs, economy Billionaire Elon Musk, Trump's former adviser on cutting government spending, fired off another set of attacks against the president's legislative package for potentially killing millions of jobs. Musk had quieted his harsh criticism of Trump and the legislation the week after his departure from government May 30. But he blasted the bill again as the Senate prepared to debate it. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' Musk said June 28 on social media. 'Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' Musk added another post warning the GOP of the electoral risks if they vote for the Trump-backed legislation that is not polling well with Republicans. −Bart Jansen What's in the Senate version of Trump's bill? The largest provisions in the legislation would extend expiring tax cuts and create a few new ones, and a dramatic increasing in spending on border security. The heart of the legislation would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts which are set to expire at end of the year. Republicans have said defeat of the measure would lead to a $4 trillion tax hike over the next decade. New tax deductions Trump campaigned on would apply to tips for employees such as waiters through 2028 and for overtime pay. The Senate capped the deduction at $25,000 and weakened the break for individuals with income above $150,000. For border security, the bill would increase funding about $150 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. The bill authorizes $45 billion for new detention centers as Trump ramps up arrests and $27 billion for a mass deportation campaign. A crucial provision would increase the amount the country can borrow by $5 trillion. The country's debt is already approaching $37 trillion and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned the current limit on borrowing will be reached in Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican holdout on the bill, said he wouldn't vote for the bill unless the debt limit gets a separate vote. But Republican leaders want to keep the unpopular vote within the overall package. −Bart Jansen
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: The federal government once stood up for what was right. What's changed?
As a Black teenager growing up in Detroit in the 1960s, I was horrified after seeing news coverage of the peaceful demonstrators, marchers and children being attacked and brutalized. The demonstrators, mostly Black Americans, were simply asking for the same rights that were afforded to the majority of Americans. Today's demonstrations against the Trump administration's immigration roundups in Los Angeles and elsewhere remind me of the Civil Rights Movement. The National Guard is deployed in Los Angeles, purportedly to protect federal property. The last time the guard was used in a disputed manner was 1957. Nine Black high school students attempted to enroll at the all-white Little Rock Central High School in 1957. The Democratic Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus called in the National Guard to prevent it. In response, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent the Army to protect the students. The irony is self-evident. The cause of the peaceful demonstrators in Los Angeles and beyond is righteous. It is a shame that the federal government under President Donald Trump no longer protects the disenfranchised and marginalized. Clarence Boyd, Oakland Maintain health care I was relieved when Sen. John McCain voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act in 2017. As a breast cancer survivor with two pre-existing conditions, the thought of losing my health care was terrifying. I recently overcame another bout of breast cancer, and I'm grateful a second mastectomy was avoided. Medicare's follow-up care has been superb. Now we're facing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, which threatens the health care coverage of 16 million Americans by 2034. The proposed bill includes substantial cuts to Medicaid and changes to the Affordable Care Act that will affect low-income individuals and families. What kind of society are we if we fail to support our sick, elderly and disabled? We need to pressure Congress to refuse a huge deficit increase while simultaneously denying health care to vulnerable populations. It's not crazy You might think that I am a Republican. I believe in fiscal responsibility. I support a balanced federal budget. I support a strong immigration policy. I support a strong national defense. I support a rational and fair tariff policy. I believe in fair and honest elections. But I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat. And just because I have empathy for the most vulnerable and defenseless among us, that also does not make me 'a radical left lunatic.' Bill Schrupp, Lafayette
