Intersectional Communist Zohran Mamdani Shows Democrats Can't Quit Obamaism
This week, a Quinnipiac University poll revealed that congressional Democrats have a minuscule 19% approval rating—an all-time low in the history of that particular poll. Earlier in the week, a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll similarly found that the party as a whole has an approval rating of 40%—considerably lower than the Republican Party's 48% approval rating found by the same poll. Nor can Democrats necessarily rely on any GOP infighting to redound, in seesaw-like fashion, to their own benefit; for all the Sturm und Drang generated by the "Epstein files" affair, President Donald Trump's approval ratings have actually increased among Republicans this month.
The issue for Democrats is that their current unpopularity is not a byproduct of the political scandals of the day or the vicissitudes of Trump's polarizing social media feeds. Rather, the problem for Democrats is structural—and it requires a rethink and a reboot from soup to nuts. As this column argued last November, it is clear that Barack Obama's winning 2008 political coalition—comprising racial and ethnic minorities, young people, and highly educated whites—has completely withered. "Obamaism" is dead—and Democrats have to reconcile themselves to that demise. At minimum, they should stop taking advice from Obama himself; the 44th president was Kamala Harris' top 2024 campaign trail surrogate, and we saw how that worked out.
In order for the party to rise up anew, as has often happened throughout American history following a period of dominance from a partisan rival, Democrats are going to have to move beyond their intersectional obsessions and woke grievances that have so greatly alienated large swaths of the American people on issues pertaining to race, gender, immigration, and crime and public safety. And the good news, for conservative Americans who candidly wish the Democratic Party nothing but the worst, is that Democrats seem completely incapable of doing this.
Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old recent winner of New York City's much-discussed Democratic mayoral primary, is a case in point.
Democratic socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani, who won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, can be seen speaking at an endorsement event from the union DC 37 on July 15, 2025, in New...
Democratic socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani, who won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, can be seen speaking at an endorsement event from the union DC 37 on July 15, 2025, in New York City. (Photo by) More
The Ugandan-born Shiite Muslim Mamdani is a democratic socialist, but he is better understood as a full-fledged communist. That isn't hyperbole: One merely needs to consider his proposed policies for New York City and review his broader history of extreme far-left political rhetoric. Mamdani won the primary, and is now seeking the mayor's office, on a genuinely radical platform: support for citywide "free" bus rides, city-owned grocery stores, a full rent freeze on certain low-income units, outright seizure of private property from arbitrarily "bad" landlords, race-based taxation (an assuredly unconstitutional proposal), a $30 minimum wage, and more. A true Marxist, Mamdani has called for the "abolition of private property." And he has something of a penchant for quoting Marx's Communist Manifesto too.
But Mamdani's communism is only part of his overall political persona. He also emphasizes, and trades in, exactly the sort of woke culture warring and intersectional identity politics that have defined the post-Obama Democratic Party. Mamdani is a longstanding harsh critic of Israel who has long trafficked in, and had long refused to distance himself from, anti-Semitic rhetoric such as calls to "globalize the intifada." Most recently, he also opposed Trump's decision to have the U.S. intervene in last month's Israel-Iran war, condemning it as a "new, dark chapter" that could "plunge the world deeper into chaos." (In the real world, there were zero American casualties, and the bombing run was followed promptly by a ceasefire.) In many ways, Mamdani singlehandedly encapsulates the unholy "red-green" alliance of Marxism and Islamism.
There is, to be sure, nothing good down this road for denizens of New York City. If Mamdani wins this fall, expect a massive exodus of people, businesses, and capital from the Big Apple—probably to the Sun Belt. But even more relevant: There is nothing good down that road for the national Democratic Party as a whole. In order to demonstrate that the party has learned anything from its 2024 shellacking and its current abysmal standing, it will have to sound and act less crazy on the tangible issues that affect Americans' day-to-day lives.
That isn't happening. If Mamdani's rise is representative—and it may well be, especially as other far-left firebrands like Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) continue to make outsize noise—then Democrats seems to be moving in the exact opposite direction: full-on Marxism and woke craziness. If the party continues down this path, it will experience nothing but mid- to long-term political pain. But as one of the aforementioned conservatives who wishes the Democratic Party nothing but the worst, I'm not too upset about that.
Josh Hammer is Newsweek senior editor-at-large, host of "The Josh Hammer Show," senior counsel for the Article III Project, a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation, and author of the new book, Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West (Radius Book Group). Subscribe to "The Josh Hammer Report," a Newsweek newsletter. X: @josh_hammer.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
27 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections
WASHINGTON — Redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau or in response to a court ruling. Now, Texas Republicans want to break that tradition — and other states could follow suit. President Trump has asked the Texas Legislature to create districts, in time for next year's midterm elections, that will send five more Republicans to Washington and make it harder for Democrats to regain the majority and blunt his agenda. The state has 38 seats in the House. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after the death of a Democrat. 'There's been a lot more efforts by the parties and political actors to push the boundaries – literally and figuratively – to reconfigure what the game is,' said Doug Spencer, Rothgerber Jr. Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado. Other states are waiting to see what Texas does and whether to follow suit. The rules of redistricting can be vague and variable; each state has its own set of rules and procedures. Politicians are gauging what voters will tolerate when it comes to politically motivated mapmaking. Here's what to know about the rules of congressional redistricting: Every decade, the Census Bureau collects population data used to divide the 435 House seats among the 50 states based on the updated head count. It's a process known as reapportionment. States that grew relative to others might gain a seat at the expense of those whose populations stagnated or declined. States use their own procedures to draw lines for the assigned number of districts. The smallest states receive just one representative, which means the entire state is a single congressional district. Some state constitutions require independent commissions to devise the political boundaries or to advise the legislature. When legislatures take the lead, lawmakers can risk drawing lines that end up challenged in court, usually for violating the Voting Rights Act. Mapmakers can get another chance to resubmit new maps. Sometimes, judges draw the maps on their own. By the first midterm elections after the latest population count, each state is ready with its maps, but those districts do not always stick. Courts can find that the political lines are unconstitutional. There is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons, such as increasing representation by the party in power. 'The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,' Spencer said. 'And then some state legislatures got a little clever and said, well it doesn't say we can't do it more.' Some states do have laws that would prevent midcycle redistricting or make it difficult to do so in a way that benefits one party. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., has threatened to retaliate against the GOP push in Texas by drawing more favorable Democratic seats in his state. That goal, however, is complicated by a constitutional amendment that requires an independent commission to lead the process. Texas has done it before. When the Legislature failed to agree on a redistricting plan after the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in with its own map. Republican Tom DeLay of Texas, who was then the U.S. House majority leader, thought his state should have five more districts friendly to his party. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,′′ he said at the time. Statehouse Democrats protested by fleeing to Oklahoma, depriving the Legislature of enough votes to officially conduct any business. But DeLay eventually got his way, and Republicans replaced Democrats in five seats in 2004. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not get involved in debates over political gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts for partisan gain. In that decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said redistricting is 'highly partisan by any measure.' But courts may demand new maps if they believe the congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads House Democrats' campaign arm, indicated at a Christian Science Monitor event that if Texas follows through on passing new maps, Democratic-led states would look at their own political lines. 'If they go down this path, absolutely folks are going to respond across the country,' DelBene said. 'We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine voices of the American people.' In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently joined Newsom in expressing openness to taking up mid-decade redistricting. But state laws mandating independent commissions or blunting the ability to gerrymander would come into play. Among Republican-led states, Ohio could try to further expand the 10-5 edge that the GOP holds in the House delegation; a quirk in state law requires Ohio to redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was considering early redistricting and 'working through what that would look like.'
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Paramount, Skydance expected to close deal on Aug. 7
Paramount and Skydance announced Friday that, with the Trump administration's approval, the highly anticipated merger between the entertainment giants is expected to take place next month. The Aug. 7 date, unveiled in a press release, comes after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday allowed Skydance's acquisition of Paramount to move forward after the merger was first proposed last year. FCC Chair Brendan Carr in announcing the decision said he welcomed Skydance's commitment to remaining 'unbiased' in its journalism and willingness to promote 'a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum.' 'Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly,' Carr added. 'It is time for a change.' The move caps off months of turmoil between Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, and President Trump. Trump sued CBS's '60 Minutes' last year after he argued an interview it aired with former Vice President Harris was altered in her favor during the 2024 presidential election cycle. While the company fought the claims, including releasing a full transcript from the episode, it ultimately settled with the administration for $16 million. Those funds are set to go to Trump's eventual presidential library. The news outlet has also faced criticism in recent days after CBS made the decision to sunset 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' next May, after more than 30 years on air. Paramount said the move was based on finances, but critics have argued the settlement and Skydance deal were likely involved — and bribery allegations have been floated. Comedian Stephen Colbert, who has hosted the show since 2015, has been openly critical of the merger. Colbert blasted the network earlier this week for choosing to axe the show and thanked those who have reached out in support, including Democrats, press freedom advocates and many of his late-night counterparts. He added that 'one key mistake' the network made when moving forward with the plan is that 'they left me alive.' Colbert also lashed out at Trump after the president said in a post online that he 'absolutely' loved that the comedian was getting 'fired.' 'How dare you, sir,' the host responded. 'Would an untalented man be able to compose the following satirical witticism: 'Go f‑‑‑ yourself.'' Under the terms of the $8 billion merger, the company will become 'New Paramount' and will be led by Trump-ally and billionaire David Ellison, the son of tech tycoon and Oracle founder Larry Ellison.
San Francisco Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The House is looking into the Epstein investigation. Here's what could happen next
WASHINGTON (AP) — A key House committee is looking into the investigation of the late Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking crimes, working to subpoena President Donald Trump's Department of Justice for files in the case as well as hold a deposition of Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee acted just before House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent lawmakers home early for a monthlong break from Washington. The committee's moves are evidence of the mounting pressure for disclosure in a case that Trump has unsuccessfully urged his supporters to move past. But they were also just the start of what can be a drawn out process. Here's what could happen next in the House inquiry as lawmakers seek answers in a case that has sparked rampant speculation since Epstein's death in 2019 and more recently caused many in the Trump administration to renege on promises for a complete accounting. Subpoena for the Epstein files Democrats, joined by three Republicans, were able to successfully initiate the subpoena from a subcommittee just as the House was leaving Washington for its August recess. But it was just the start of negotiations over the subpoena. The subcommittee agreed to redact the names and personal information of any victims, but besides that, their demand for information is quite broad, encompassing 'un-redacted Epstein files.' As the parameters of the subpoena are drafted, Democrats are demanding that it be fulfilled within 30 days from when it is served to Attorney General Pam Bondi. They have also proposed a list of document demands, including the prosecutorial decisions surrounding Epstein, documents related to his death, and communication from any president or executive official regarding the matter. Ultimately, Republicans who control the committee will have more power over the scope of the subpoena, but the fact that it was approved with a strong bipartisan vote gives it some heft. The committee chairman, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said he told the speaker that 'Republicans on the Oversight Committee were going to move to be more aggressive in trying to get transparency with the Epstein files. So, we did that, and I think that's what the American people want.' Will Congress depose Ghislaine Maxwell? Comer has said that he is hoping that staff from the committee can interview Maxwell under oath on Aug. 11 at or near the federal prison in Florida where she is serving a lengthy sentence for child sex trafficking. In a congressional deposition, the subject typically has an attorney present to help them answer — or not answer — questions while maintaining their civil rights. Subjects also have the ability to decline to answer questions if it could be used against them in a criminal case, though in this instance that might not matter because Maxwell has already been convicted of many of the things she will likely be asked about. Maxwell has the ability to negotiate some of the terms of the deposition, and she already conducted 1 1/2 days of interviews with Justice Department officials this past week. Democrats, however, warn that Maxwell is not to be trusted. 'We should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people,' Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the oversight committee, told reporters this week. The House wants to subpoena others Committee Republicans also initiated a motion to subpoena a host of other people, including former President Bill Clinton, former Sen. Hillary Clinton as well as the former attorneys general dating back to Alberto Gonzales, who served under George W. Bush. It's not clear how this sweeping list of proposed subpoenas will actually play out, but Comer has said, 'We're going to move quickly on that.' How will Pam Bondi comply? Trump is no stranger to fighting against congressional investigations and subpoenas. And as with most subpoenas, the Justice Department can negotiate the terms of how it fulfills the subpoena. It can also make legal arguments against handing over certain information. Joshua A. Levy, who teaches on congressional investigations at Georgetown Law School and is a partner at Levy Firestone Muse, said that the results of the subpoena 'depend on whether the administration wants to work through the traditional accommodation process with the House and reach a resolution or if one or both sides becomes entrenched in its position.' If Congress is not satisfied with Bondi's response — or if she were to refuse to hand over any information — there are several ways lawmakers can try to enforce the subpoena. However, that would require a vote to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress. It's practically unheard of for one political party to vote to hold one of its own members in contempt of Congress, but the Epstein saga has also cut across political lines and driven a wedge in the GOP. Growing pressure on the Trump adminitration for disclosure Ultimately, the bipartisan vote to subpoena the files showed how political pressure is mounting on the Trump administration to disclose the files. Politics, policy and the law are all bound up together in this case, and many in Congress want to see a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation. 'We can't allow individuals, especially those at the highest level of our government, to protect child sex traffickers,' said Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., a committee member. The Trump administration is already facing the potential for even more political tension. When Congress comes back to Washington in September, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to advance to a full House vote a bill that aims to force the public release of the Epstein files.
