2025 & 2026 Elections

[Paine]

Don’t kid yourself. I live here and have had these conversations. Young people in NYC are very opposed to Israeli treatment of Palestinians, from Gaza bombings to settlements and occupation to you name it. It is currently THE motivating issue among that demographic here. Way more so than free buses. Even if some won’t say it out loud.

No matter how Mamdani has walked that line lately with his messaging, there is a tacit understanding by his voters (especially young voters) that he is of course with them on that. That, and his youth and charisma are what has them lining up behind him. Plus having such an easy narrative foil as Cuomo.

Sure he’s well organized which helped him pull in broader support and also did fine in the debates… but after the identity politics, the rest was paint by numbers to fill in his platform. Hardly revolutionary.

The question isn’t whether Israel-Palestine played a role. It’s whether that issue alone can explain how a self-identified socialist pulled off a win in the face of $25 million in attack ads, Cuomo’s return, media smears, and elite silence. Spoiler: it can’t.

If it was all just youth and charisma, Democrats would have a much deeper bench. But they don’t. Because charisma without substance doesn’t beat Cuomo.

Just keep moving the goalposts. Anything to avoid acknowledging that Mamdani ran a disciplined campaign with a clear message, rooted in material politics, and built a coalition that grew across the city.

 

[akillesheel]

And that’s the issue. These type of candidates can’t win nationally. They can’t be competitive nationally. The Democrats have to be smart in their primaries. It’s like the lessons from right after Cheeto winning ate already forgotten and the party is now somehow interpreting it as “we were left enough.” It’s beyond frustrating.

they can win nationally by doing what Zohran did and will now have to do going into the NYC general - expanding and energizing the Dem voter base with a strong, worker-forward, populist campaign, and then forcing the "Blue No Matter Who" crowd to put their money where their mouth has been and vote for a candidate to their left instead of outing themselves as hypocritical diet conservatives.

 

[superrific]

It proves red-baiting doesn’t always work.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. I mean, I guess if you literally adhere to "always", sure. But this is one episode, and let's break it down:

1. This means Mamdami is the mayor, right? Wait, this was a Dem primary only? Oh. Now, in NYC, the Dem primary usually (but see Mike Bloomberg) produces the mayor only because Democrats so outnumber Pubs. But the fact is that Mamdami got 44% of the vote in a Dem primary in the first or second most liberal city in the country. This is not the triumphant data point that you are portraying.

2. I suspect a lot of people never even considered voting for Cuomo on personal grounds. I would have left him off the ballot. He resigned from the governor's position in disgrace, and rightfully so. I figured his political career was finished. It should be finished. And apparently it is.

But if Cuomo didn't have a legacy of lying to the public, sexually harassing his aides, generally being a huge asshole -- and his other flaws -- then the race comes out differently. Maybe Mamdami still wins, but I doubt it and at best we don't know. I suspect Cuomo lost well more than 10% of the vote because he's an asshole. I'm about as much of a political pragmatist as there is, but there's no nose-pinch tight enough to keep out that smell.

3. Here's where I will give your argument some credit but again, we need to remember that this is not a replicable political contest elsewhere. It's true that in the usual case, I would not give much thought to someone like Mamdami, pretty much without thinking about it too deeply. He wouldn't win, so why bother -- and even if he did win, it would make the left look bad. I never had time to pay close attention to city politics. In other words, it was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because the socialist had no chance of winning, I didn't have to pay attention to him/her (there have always been very left candidates for NY mayor).

If the socialists are seen as having a chance of winning, then maybe they would be taken more seriously and maybe they would gain more support. This is certainly a possibility. Actually, I'm confident it's true to some degree -- the uncertainty would be whether it's a 1%-type effect or a 10% effect.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Cherry picking. NYC is hardly the best test case for this theory. Along with the other most liberal big cities, it’s a layup for this kind of thing.

But the rest of the country is where elections are being lost, not in liberal big cities.

Exactly. Not to mention, the “establishment” Dem here was someone with lots of baggage who was pushed by his own party to resign from being governor. People are making this out to be much more than it really is on a national level.

And remember just 4 years ago when many thought that Eric Adams being elected was a sign that voters were rejecting progressive policies for more centrist policies?

 

[superrific]

So you mock “pushing back and clarifying” like it’s some pie-in-the-sky fantasy, but what’s your alternative? Let Republicans define our candidates uncontested? Let Fox News frame the narrative while Democrats stay silent?

How much time have you spent in NYC? How much do you know about it? Do you think maybe a twenty something from small town ENC isn't going to have strong insights about the place in America most different from there?

I'm not criticizing you so much as asking for a bit of humility. I don't try to lecture people about Eastern NC (or Western NC for that matter, or even central NC where I've at least lived). I would especially not do that on a board where lots of people are from those areas and perhaps live there now.

I am also skeptical that this race was about Gaza, but how about some deference to the people on the ground there? Why would you take such an oppositional attitude toward people who live in a city that you (in all likelihood) barely understand?

 

[Paine]

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. I mean, I guess if you literally adhere to "always", sure. But this is one episode, and let's break it down:

1. This means Mamdami is the mayor, right? Wait, this was a Dem primary only? Oh. Now, in NYC, the Dem primary usually (but see Mike Bloomberg) produces the mayor only because Democrats so outnumber Pubs. But the fact is that Mamdami got 44% of the vote in a Dem primary in the first or second most liberal city in the country. This is not the triumphant data point that you are portraying.

2. I suspect a lot of people never even considered voting for Cuomo on personal grounds. I would have left him off the ballot. He resigned from the governor's position in disgrace, and rightfully so. I figured his political career was finished. It should be finished. And apparently it is.

But if Cuomo didn't have a legacy of lying to the public, sexually harassing his aides, generally being a huge asshole -- and his other flaws -- then the race comes out differently. Maybe Mamdami still wins, but I doubt it and at best we don't know. I suspect Cuomo lost well more than 10% of the vote because he's an asshole. I'm about as much of a political pragmatist as there is, but there's no nose-pinch tight enough to keep out that smell.

3. Here's where I will give your argument some credit but again, we need to remember that this is not a replicable political contest elsewhere. It's true that in the usual case, I would not give much thought to someone like Mamdami, pretty much without thinking about it too deeply. He wouldn't win, so why bother -- and even if he did win, it would make the left look bad. I never had time to pay close attention to city politics. In other words, it was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because the socialist had no chance of winning, I didn't have to pay attention to him/her (there have always been very left candidates for NY mayor).

If the socialists are seen as having a chance of winning, then maybe they would be taken more seriously and maybe they would gain more support. This is certainly a possibility. Actually, I'm confident it's true to some degree -- the uncertainty would be whether it's a 1%-type effect or a 10% effect.

Again, nobody said Mamdani’s win is replicable everywhere. What I’ve said, and what you’re tiptoeing toward admitting, is that when voters believe a left candidate can win, they start paying attention. And when they do, the red-baiting doesn’t automatically work. That’s the point. That’s what this race proved.

It wasn’t just that Cuomo was a bad candidate. The institutional machine threw the kitchen sink at Mamdani. And he still won. That’s not a “meh” result. That’s a sign that something has changed.

 

[Paine]

How much time have you spent in NYC? How much do you know about it? Do you think maybe a twenty something from small town ENC isn't going to have strong insights about the place in America most different from there?

I'm not criticizing you so much as asking for a bit of humility. I don't try to lecture people about Eastern NC (or Western NC for that matter, or even central NC where I've at least lived). I would especially not do that on a board where lots of people are from those areas and perhaps live there now.

I am also skeptical that this race was about Gaza, but how about some deference to the people on the ground there? Why would you take such an oppositional attitude toward people who live in a city that you (in all likelihood) barely understand?

I’ve never claimed to be an expert on NYC. What I have done is engage with the political implications of a well-documented race that drew national attention and $25 million in attacks. You don’t need to be a Park Slope native to see what that means for messaging strategy.

It’s not about me pretending to be a New Yorker. It’s about the fact that a candidate openly embracing the socialist label just won a high-turnout, high-stakes primary despite every institutional force aligned against him. That doesn’t mean we’ll see the same result in Ohio or Georgia tomorrow. But it does mean that red-baiting isn’t the silver bullet it once was, and that should matter to anyone thinking seriously about the future of the party.

My whole point is: this isn’t just about geography. It’s about narrative. And the narrative that “socialist = political suicide” just took a hit. That’s worth talking about whether you’re in Brooklyn or or Bertie County.

 

[superrific]

But it is a real crack in the conventional wisdom. The idea that “socialist” is still a disqualifying label just took a hit. You don’t have to think this changes everything to acknowledge that.

I mean, it depends on what you mean by "hit" doesn't it? I would say it was more like a gentle tap but sure, we would be silly to deny the data point entirely.

But here's the next crucial part: there is now a LOT of pressure on Mamdami to be good. Progressives were super stoked about De Blasio and that didn't go well because de Blasio sucked as a mayor. But more importantly, you STILL hear the name David Dinkins in NY politics. Well, you did 10 years ago, a generation after he left office.

Dinkins, after all, was NYC's first black mayor. His tenure was widely considered a horrible failure. I can't evaluate that claim as I wasn't there nor have I studied it, but I can tell you that people have not forgotten him. And the memory is not favorable. Remember: after Dinkins, there were two terms for Rudy and three for Bloomberg. Dinkins set his cause back through perceived incompetence.

If Mamdani is a great mayor, it would be helpful. But if he screws up, he will be the new Dinkins. He will set progressive politics back by a lot. So we all better hope he's up to the task. Is this fair, that one bad leftist can poison the brand for a generation whereas centrists can fuck up without their experience smearing other centrists? It is not fair. But it's reality. And that's part of why the "socialist" label is toxic.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Mamdani leans into Democratic Party stereotypes and that will clearly be used as ammunition against the Democrats going in to 2026...and if he actually wins the election - his inexperience will almost certainly yield growing pains at best which will (in addition to some of his more questionable policy proposals and his remarks vis a vis Israel and the Palestinian conflict and what can be broadly interpreted as veiled swipes at Jews) likely have some impact on the 2026 election.

The real problem is that there are very few national Democratic Party leaders with a national media presence. So, when one garners significant national attention - it's under significant scrutiny. Mamdani isn't the type of politician we should want under that type of national scrutiny.

Yep. Republicans absolutely LOVE the idea of him becoming NYC’s mayor. And I’m not saying that because anything is actually wrong with him. But he does check almost every box of how republicans stereotype and caricature democrats to scare a substantial portion of American voters.

 

[wmheel1287]

they can win nationally by doing what Zohran did and will now have to do going into the NYC general - expanding and energizing the Dem voter base with a strong, worker-forward, populist campaign, and then forcing the "Blue No Matter Who" crowd to put their money where their mouth has been and vote for a candidate to their left instead of outing themselves as hypocritical diet conservatives.

Do keep in mind that a significant number of the "Blue No Matter Who" crowd has already been voting for candidates to their left over the past 8 years. That group may be smaller than the potential gains to the left or it may be larger. Nobody really knows. I do know, however, that it will start to get uncomfortable for some folks in the middle who have been solidly blue lately.

 

[Paine]

I mean, it depends on what you mean by "hit" doesn't it? I would say it was more like a gentle tap but sure, we would be silly to deny the data point entirely.

But here's the next crucial part: there is now a LOT of pressure on Mamdami to be good. Progressives were super stoked about De Blasio and that didn't go well because de Blasio sucked as a mayor. But more importantly, you STILL hear the name David Dinkins in NY politics. Well, you did 10 years ago, a generation after he left office.

Dinkins, after all, was NYC's first black mayor. His tenure was widely considered a horrible failure. I can't evaluate that claim as I wasn't there nor have I studied it, but I can tell you that people have not forgotten him. And the memory is not favorable. Remember: after Dinkins, there were two terms for Rudy and three for Bloomberg. Dinkins set his cause back through perceived incompetence.

If Mamdani is a great mayor, it would be helpful. But if he screws up, he will be the new Dinkins. He will set progressive politics back by a lot. So we all better hope he's up to the task. Is this fair, that one bad leftist can poison the brand for a generation whereas centrists can fuck up without their experience smearing other centrists? It is not fair. But it's reality. And that's part of why the "socialist" label is toxic.

Sure, Mamdani will have to govern well. That’s true of any candidate.

Now the argument has shifted: not that the label disqualifies you, but that one misstep in office could discredit the movement.

Yes, the left is held to a higher standard. But that’s not a reason to play small. That’s a reason to get serious about backing strong candidates and fighting for their success.

Because the alternative, retreating from anyone who might draw scrutiny, is how the party ends up with no vision, no energy, and no bench. Mamdani didn’t win by playing it safe. He won by organizing, speaking clearly to people’s needs, and refusing to let the label define him.

 

[Duke Mu]

The question isn’t whether Israel-Palestine played a role. It’s whether that issue alone can explain how a self-identified socialist pulled off a win in the face of $25 million in attack ads, Cuomo’s return, media smears, and elite silence. Spoiler: it can’t.

If it was all just youth and charisma, Democrats would have a much deeper bench. But they don’t. Because charisma without substance doesn’t beat Cuomo.

Just keep moving the goalposts. Anything to avoid acknowledging that Mamdani ran a disciplined campaign with a clear message, rooted in material politics, and built a coalition that grew across the city.

Cumo is a lazy shell of himself. Dems need new populist leadership. Without it, a young socialist wins. I don't think is has much bearing on the party, nationally, except a cry for populist talent. The voters are rejecting the old party norm.

 

[Paine]

Cumo is a lazy shell of himself. Dems need new populist leadership. Without it, a young socialist wins. I don't think is has much bearing on the party, nationally, except a cry for populist talent. The voters are rejecting the old party norm.

Exactly. That’s my takeaway too, not that the “socialist” label suddenly plays everywhere, but that voters are sick of business as usual. The appetite for populist, working-class politics is real. And right now, a lot of the people meeting that moment happen to call themselves socialists. That’s the signal. Ignore it, and the party keeps drifting. Lean into it, and we might actually build something.

 

[superrific]

Again, nobody said Mamdani’s win is replicable everywhere. What I’ve said, and what you’re tiptoeing toward admitting, is that when voters believe a left candidate can win, they start paying attention. And when they do, the red-baiting doesn’t automatically work. That’s the point. That’s what this race proved.

It wasn’t just that Cuomo was a bad candidate. The institutional machine threw the kitchen sink at Mamdani. And he still won. That’s not a “meh” result. That’s a sign that something has changed.

1. I'm not begrudgingly admitting anything. I volunteered that consideration which I didn't see expressed elsewhere, because I'm intellectually honest and I do my best to be open minded about ideas and evaluate them on their merit. And there's some validity to this idea, in my view. I don't know how much.

2. To the extent that you perceive me as "tiptoeing" it's because I don't extrapolate trends from single data points. No matter how much you want to spin this as a great victory, it was a single primary against an extremely flawed -- maybe one of the most flawed candidates I've seen -- mainstream candidate.

To put it differently: this was a proof of concept. The vast majority of proofs of concept turn out to be nothing. If you want to use this to get some angel funding (to use an analogy), OK but you're very far from going public.

 

[Duke Mu]

Sure, Mamdani will have to govern well. That’s true of any candidate.

Now the argument has shifted: not that the label disqualifies you, but that one misstep in office could discredit the movement.

Yes, the left is held to a higher standard. But that’s not a reason to play small. That’s a reason to get serious about backing strong candidates and fighting for their success.

Because the alternative, retreating from anyone who might draw scrutiny, is how the party ends up with no vision, no energy, and no bench. Mamdani didn’t win by playing it safe. He won by organizing, speaking clearly to people’s needs, and refusing to let the label define him.

Memdani did what Jen O'Malley failed to do, when she ruined Harris and Walz' initially populist campaign. Memdani won through aggressive social media presence, not MSM...and he met the people. O'Malley squashed the rallies, and prevented Kamala from visiting NC and FL earlier when Hurricanes Helene and Milton hit. The Trump campaign was losing steam until Trump used social media and Rogan to spread a firehose of lies about FEMA, campaigns.

 

[Paine]

1. I'm not begrudgingly admitting anything. I volunteered that consideration which I didn't see expressed elsewhere, because I'm intellectually honest and I do my best to be open minded about ideas and evaluate them on their merit. And there's some validity to this idea, in my view. I don't know how much.

2. To the extent that you perceive me as "tiptoeing" it's because I don't extrapolate trends from single data points. No matter how much you want to spin this as a great victory, it was a single primary against an extremely flawed -- maybe one of the most flawed candidates I've seen -- mainstream candidate.

To put it differently: this was a proof of concept. The vast majority of proofs of concept turn out to be nothing. If you want to use this to get some angel funding (to use an analogy), OK but you're very far from going public.

Fair enough on the proof of concept. But that’s still more than we had before this race.

You say you don’t extrapolate trends from single data points, that’s totally valid. But let’s be honest: if Mamdani had lost, most of this thread would’ve treated it as confirmation that the “socialist” label is electoral suicide. The same people now downplaying the result would’ve pointed to it as proof that the left can’t win anywhere, even in NYC.

So yes, it’s one race. But it was a real test: big money, media smears, establishment pressure, and the usual playbook didn’t work. That doesn’t prove everything. But it proves something.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

they can win nationally by doing what Zohran did and will now have to do going into the NYC general - expanding and energizing the Dem voter base with a strong, worker-forward, populist campaign, and then forcing the "Blue No Matter Who" crowd to put their money where their mouth has been and vote for a candidate to their left instead of outing themselves as hypocritical diet conservatives.

They can’t win. Harris lost because of an ad on prisoners getting taxpayer funded surgeries. A socialist who has the positions this guy has (including calling himself a socialist) has no chance. The ads will write themselves.

 

[Duke Mu]

Exactly. That’s my takeaway too, not that the “socialist” label suddenly plays everywhere, but that voters are sick of business as usual. The appetite for populist, working-class politics is real. And right now, a lot of the people meeting that moment happen to call themselves socialists. That’s the signal. Ignore it, and the party keeps drifting. Lean into it, and we might actually build something.

I can't disagree with that premise. Populism as in actually dealing with the reality on the ground that the people are FEELING. Job insecurity, Housing prices that are getting out of reach, especially for the young. Bloated programs that don't need a chain saw (including Medicare, Medicaid, ACA - which all should be one program); they need pruning and restructuring. Also, establishment, CORPORATE Dems seem out of touch...and not a real alternative to the GQP.

 

[superrific]

I’ve never claimed to be an expert on NYC. What I have done is engage with the political implications of a well-documented race that drew national attention and $25 million in attacks. You don’t need to be a Park Slope native to see what that means for messaging strategy.

No, you really do need to be there. We have a poster here saying that he thinks the result was mostly reflective of Gaza/Israel. You've said that was wrong, but on what basis? I suspect that there were a lot of "never Cuomo" voters and that might be a complete explanation of the result. How many? Well, hard to say -- but it's easier to say if you're living there and surrounded by New Yorkers.

I'm not native to NYC. I was born in NC. I spent much of my childhood there. I didn't move to NYC until after grad school, and the city was different than my expectations. Here's one illustrative example: when we were getting ready to move there, I was talking with a NYer who had relocated. He said, "don't bring your shorts, nobody in NYC wears shorts." I figured he was exaggerating, because it just can't be that the rest of the country wears shorts but not in NYC. It was true. You wear shorts to play sports. Otherwise it's long pants. And I internalized that so much that I still don't like to wear shorts outside.

The point isn't that shorts versus long pants is important. It's that there are unknown unknowns: things you don't know about a place, and you have no idea that you don't know them. It would never have occurred to me that shorts are not a thing in New York. It was different in a way that I couldn't foresee. So maybe it's a good idea to have a bit more humility when making pronouncements about a place that is sui generis if you haven't been there. Hell, even if you have lived there your whole life . . .

P.S. I don't know if the "no shorts" thing is still true. But in the 90s and 2000s, it absolutely was.

 

[Paine]

No, you really do need to be there. We have a poster here saying that he thinks the result was mostly reflective of Gaza/Israel. You've said that was wrong, but on what basis? I suspect that there were a lot of "never Cuomo" voters and that might be a complete explanation of the result. How many? Well, hard to say -- but it's easier to say if you're living there and surrounded by New Yorkers.

I'm not native to NYC. I was born in NC. I spent much of my childhood there. I didn't move to NYC until after grad school, and the city was different than my expectations. Here's one illustrative example: when we were getting ready to move there, I was talking with a NYer who had relocated. He said, "don't bring your shorts, nobody in NYC wears shorts." I figured he was exaggerating, because it just can't be that the rest of the country wears shorts but not in NYC. It was true. You wear shorts to play sports. Otherwise it's long pants. And I internalized that so much that I still don't like to wear shorts outside.

The point isn't that shorts versus long pants is important. It's that there are unknown unknowns: things you don't know about a place, and you have no idea that you don't know them. It would never have occurred to me that shorts are not a thing in New York. It was different in a way that I couldn't foresee. So maybe it's a good idea to have a bit more humility when making pronouncements about a place that is sui generis if you haven't been there. Hell, even if you have lived there your whole life . . .

P.S. I don't know if the "no shorts" thing is still true. But in the 90s and 2000s, it absolutely was.

If local residency is now the new litmus test for commenting on high-profile political races, we’d all better pack it in.

Plenty of people who actually live in NYC, including those who cover politics for a living, have made the same points I’m making. Gaza played a role, sure, but it didn’t decide the race. Mamdani built a movement around housing, transit, care, and economic dignity. That’s why he surged from 1% to winning. And frankly, it’s condescending to assume that only locals are capable of interpreting publicly available data, polling, and political dynamics in a race that drew national attention and commentary.