First Thoughts on Mamdani's Big Win
In the end the Democratic primary in New York wasn't even close, but it was still fascinating.
The Democratic primary for mayor of New York City drew an enormous amount of national attention because it was such a clear referendum on the future of the Democratic Party. The result was that the progressive candidate Zohran Mamdani drubbed Andrew Cuomo, the conservative Democrat who a month ago was widely expected to win. There will be a lot more written about this race in the coming days, and probably years, but here are some preliminary thoughts.
Mamdani has won a resounding victory. Although he did not get 50% in the first round, there is no possible Rank Choice Voting (RCV) miracle for any other candidate. Because the denominator declines in every round, Mamdani’s roughly 43% of the vote in the first round is already very close to a majority of the votes that will be counted in the final round.
It is not yet clear how many rounds it will take for Mamdani to break the 50% threshold, but if it gets down to Mamdani and Andrew Cuomo and no other candidates in a final round, Mamdani will probably have at least 55% of the two-candidate vote.
It still seems strange to have an elaborate RCV system in a primary and then have a general election in November where the candidate who gets a simple plurality wins. New York should move towards nonpartisan RCV elections. This would force candidates to the middle more effectively and allow all voices to be hears in a city where about one out of every three voters are not Democrats.
The general election in New York could be the most interesting of the post-Bloomberg era, but it is extremely likely Mamdani will win in November. The centrist and conservative vote will be divided among Cuomo, incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa and Jim Walden. Mamdani may not get a majority, but he will get a plurality and that will be enough.
The contrast with San Francisco’s most recent mayoral election with regards to electoral systems is striking. If the 2024 election in San Francisco had been held with a partisan primary, it would have been a very competitive race between London Breed and Aaron Peskin. Daniel Lurie would not have had a chance. Similarly, Mamdani probably would have lost, and Cuomo would have won a nonpartisan RCV general election in New York this year.
Mamdani ran an historically great campaign. He had an extraordinary field operation-better than any citywide race I can remember. His volunteers were everywhere, deeply committed and able to converse fluently and intelligently with voters. Mamdani himself was tireless, very charismatic and did excellent social media.
While it is essential to give the Mamdani campaign the credit they deserve, it is also true that Cuomo ran a terrible campaign. Maybe that is not fair because in many respects he ran no campaign at all. Cuomo’s campaign was almost entirely internet and television ads and mail, mostly through the ham-fisted “Fix the City” PAC that was not part of the formal Cuomo campaign. Cuomo himself rarely spoke to the media, seemed to have no ground game and almost never interacted with voters outside of his base at all. His weaponization of antisemitism was Trump-like and so unsophisticated that it ended up making the issue itself seem unserious. Cuomo also made no attempt to address some of the many negatives that ultimately cost him this election. Up until about June 15th, I was expecting Cuomo to start campaigning, but he never did.
It was clear by the end of the race that the conservative wing of the Democratic establishment was panicking about the possibility of a Mamdani win, so redoubled their support for Cuomo. This reached a peak on the Sunday before the election when Bill Clinton campaigned for Cuomo. Cuomo had served as Clinton’s HUD Secretary in the 1990s. I don’t think I am the only one who saw the irony, and foolishness, of a candidate who was very credibly charged with being a sexual predator campaigning side by side with Bill Clinton.
The line to be the second person to kick Andrew Cuomo on the way down has been long. It is not clear who gave that first kick, but once Cuomo no longer seemed inevitable, the pile-on was something to behold. Turns out that decades of bullying, sleaziness and arrogance is not always a great political strategy. This is a fitting end to the mayoral aspirations for somebody whose first foray into NYC mayoral politics was those "vote for Cuomo not the homo" signs in 1977.
There are many lessons that can be taken from Mamdani’s campaign, but an important one that should not be overlooked is that the key to mobilizing the grassroots left of the Democratic Party is to be the loudest anti-Israel voice in the race. Mamdani would not have passed, and ultimately minimized, the other non-Cuomo candidates in this race if he had not been active, and a leader, in the Free Gaza movement. That is where the energy is on the left in New York and nationally. The corrupt, extremist, brutal, stupid and murderous Israeli regime is facilitating that.
There has not been a major Latino candidate for mayor of New York since Fernando Ferrer lost to Michael Bloomberg in 2005. Beginning with Herman Badillo’s campaign for Mayor back in 1977, many assumed it would be a matter of time until New York elected a Latino mayor, but other than Ferrer no Latino has come close to that this century. This is a reflection of both the changing demographics in the city as well as how politics in New York are no longer as tribal as they were a generation or two ago.
I supported Brad Lander in this race and believe he would have been a great mayor, but he ran a perplexing campaign. At the exact moment when he was getting some momentum due to a very good debate and an almost endorsement from the New York Times, but while still third in the polls, Lander did a cross-endorsement with Mamdani. The problem with that was that when a candidate who is substantially behind in the polls cross-endorses with a front-runner, the support only goes one way and only benefits the stronger candidate. Lander did not need second place votes from Mamdani, he needed to move first-place votes from Mandani to himself. Maybe that was impossible, but the result was that from the moment of the cross-endorsement, Lander was seen as second fiddle and essentially Mamdani’s running mate. It is apparent that Lander was focused on stopping Cuomo, but that cross-endorsement was the end of Lander’s campaign.
The major impact of Lander’s cross-endorsement of Mamdani was to inoculate Mamdani from charges of antisemitism and to contribute to a narrative that raising concerned about Mamdani’s record on Jewish issues is a right-wing trope. Antisemitism is complicated and is rarely discussed with any nuance in the media, particularly during elections, but it is real and rising. While Mamdani is not walking around muttering about dirty Jews and does not believe in global Jewish conspiracies or anything like that, it is not unreasonable for Jewish voters to be concerned about the centrality of anti-Israel views to his politics, his failure to recognize antisemitism in that movement, his defense of language like “Globalize the Intifada,” his odd unwillingness to co-sponsor a bill in the legislature recognizing Holocaust Remembrance Day. and other parts of his history. Now any time these issues are raised, particularly outside New York, the response will be “but Brad Lander…” I have Jewish friends who have been on the far left since before Mamdani was born who found themselves unable to vote for him. Dismissing those people as being manipulated by the far right is absurd and offensive; Lander has made that a little bit easier.
·
Hoping this is the last time we hear from Bill Clinton (and Hillary). On anything
Couple of points I would push back on.
Landers cross endorsement of Mamdani is not just Stop Cuomo. They both believe in the same socialist vision for New York. Not only that it was advantageous for him personally. The primaries for National races are next year and by cross endorsing he takes this race as a victory (as opposed to someone like Adrienne Adams who had no interest in coalition building) and he would be a strong candidate to primary Chuck Schumer who is reaching high levels of disapproval among democrats.
Two I would challenge you to engage with Mamdanis Israel views beyond what is spoon feed in opinion editorials from Israeli nationalists. Did you watch his interview clip where he made very valid points of the same word being used by the Holocaust Museum to describe the Warsaw uprising? (Despite what the entirely Trump appointed board at the Holocaust Museum says you can fact check this on the way back machine). Not co-signing a bill when he has made his position very clear (surprise, he thinks the Holocaust is real and bad) and using that as a gotcha is absurd. Even exploring that position with one layer of critical thinking would unravel the poorly constructed attack line. At a time when Israel has been co-opted by facists as the hammer to bludgeon those who do not fall in line with Trumps agenda, engaging in such surface level takes is irresponsible at best.
I would encourage you to listen to his deeply thoughtful and nuanced take on the Bulwark podcast regarding rising antisemitism.