Mamdani Wins -- But What Should We Learn From It?

State Rep. Zohran Mamdani's forceful primary win over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo signaled a progressive resurgence in New York City -- but what about across a divided USA?

The first high-profile intraparty clash in the post-Biden era has transpired, and the results are in.

The score?

Progressives: 1

Establishment: 0.

To be more accurate (final round tally):

State Rep. Zohran Mamdani: 56.39%

Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo: 43.61%

Of course, the story of the 2025 New York Democratic mayoral primary involves far more than a single battle between perennial enemy wings of the Democratic party in a never-ending series of them. It's the story of a career politician and dynasty scion, emblematic of the hated “swamp”, attempting to regain his political clout after a quick and humiliating fall from power and grace; it’s the story of a young, charismatic lawmaker who used a mix of savvy online networking and old-school ground campaigning (he traversed the vertical length of Manhattan by foot just before the election, conversing with New Yorkers every step of the way) to rally hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic supporters to the polls.

But for all the things the 2025 election could have been about, the bottom line is this: Cuomo targeted — and people perceived — Mamdani as a leftist; Mamdani targeted — and people perceived — Cuomo as a moderate. In the minds of the electorate and the candidates themselves, this was an ideological clash above all — and there was perhaps no recent iteration of the Democratic Party more divided than the one that remained, albeit tattered, after the cataclysmic 2024 election.

Progressives blamed “empty-suit” moderates for failing to attack Trump on his many weak points — whether policy or character-wise. Moderates blamed “idealistic activist” progressives for rifling divide and schism in the party on the grounds of contentious issues like the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the Biden administration’s perceived failure in acting many progressive agenda items — whether eliminating the filibuster or raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour.

Mamdani, who in the span of a couple months had undergone a metamorphosis from little-known state assemblyman in Astoria to a blazing star on the frontlines of a resurrected, furious left-wing movement, has cemented himself in the minds of many — and not just those on the far left fringes — as the future of the Democratic Party. More specifically, a Democratic Party that imbued with the spirit and direction necessary to fight President Trump — who, for all of his misdeeds, cannot be faulted for a lack of conviction. Who better to lead such a crusade than a man who effectively willed himself into political celebrity and more than likely, the executive office of the most important city in the world?

Now, if the 2024 election — and the consequences that awaited Democrats’ hasty decision to nominate Kamala Harris without a fully fledged primary simply because it seemed the most appealing option at the time — taught us anything, it’s that the appealing option isn’t necessarily the right one. At the very least, it’s worth considering the pros and cons.

What can Democrats learn from Mamdani’s win? What should they be careful to accept as mantra for a party that must win not only urban voters — a historically liberal voting bloc — but also suburban and rural ones?

KEEP: Highlighting the cost-of-living reality

If Mamdani’s campaign spoke one thing more than others, it was the daily grind of living in high-cost places like New York. Groceries that burn through a paycheck, rent that demands half a month’s salary, and basic necessities that feel like luxuries — these are the pressure points that likely resonated most deeply with voters. Mamdani kept his message laser-focused on affordability, drawing a clear contrast with the perception of establishment Democrats as out-of-touch with working families’ struggles. While many of his proposals were met with pushback by more moderate minds — the most glaring example being his rent-freeze plan, criticized by even liberals as impractical and idealistic — they succeeded in showing the voters, beyond doubt, where he stood. Boldness is a quality shown to have been increasingly rewarded by voters over the last decade of elections. When applied to the right message — in this case, one about a pressing issue at the top of many New Yorkers’ minds — it can be a game-changer.

It’s no coincidence that frustration with cost-of-living has driven large shifts to the right in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. In 2024 alone, New York City swung more than 10 points in the Republican direction, accelerating a trend dating back to 2020. Mamdani’s appeal worked precisely because he zeroed in on this issue while others danced around it.

DISPOSE: Leftism worked in New York, therefore it’s the path forward on the national level

While it may sound obvious, it’s important to remember that this was a Democratic primary. The voters who turned out were, by and large, overwhelmingly liberal. Just to hammer it home: New York has closed primaries, meaning only registered Democrats could cast a vote in the respective primary, eliminating the possibly of a Republican voting bloc significantly affecting the results. Declaring this a referendum on the American electorate is wishful thinking. Much of Mamdani’s support came from white, affluent, well-educated precincts; members of this bloc tend to identity with the far left end of the ideological spectrum. Andrew Cuomo, by contrast, performed better with working-class minority voters, and the highest-among-highly educated of voters¹ — these results are in line with his campaign’s dual focus of attracting working-class minorities who had shown clear signs of frustration at Democratic governance in 2021, 2022, and 2024, (the previous mayoral, gubernatorial, and presidential elections, respectively) and millionaire socialites who generally leaned fiscally conservative. While Cuomo’s coalition proved incapable of handing him the victory in New York, it (especially the working-class minority sect) is a demographic Democrats most need to win back if they hope to stop hemorrhaging support in areas they once considered safe.

The story here isn’t that progressivism is sweeping the nation. It’s that progressive messages resonate with a certain bloc in certain contexts. To extrapolate beyond that is to risk repeating the same mistakes of the past decade.

KEEP: Young faces win races

At the risk of perpetuating ageism, the honest truth is this: younger candidates are simply better at connecting with younger voters. Before Mamdani, it was Brandon Johnson — who won the 2023 Chicago mayoral democratic primary on the back of a similar coalition and platform. Before Johnson, it was AOC. Before AOC, it was Barack Obama, who at the time of running for president in 2008 was 47 years old (equivalent to being in your early 20’s by political standards).

This is not to say that younger candidates are more electorally viable. Take, 2024, for instance: Kamala Harris, 19 years Trump’s junior, certainly didn’t benefit from any sort of “youth boost”. But there are many elections where the name of the game is turnout — think primary elections held in the middle of summer, but also midterms, where turnout historically dips from presidential elections like ‘24. Youngsters aged 18 to 24 are arguably the most difficult voting bloc to enthuse, but also one essential to a winning campaign, and for this reason candidates like Mamdani, whose baby face — hardly at all obscured by his beard — along with his jubilant smile and physical and rhetorical vitality — not just the 10-mile trek but also his headline-grabbing, viral TikTok-inducing rallies — were a perfect match.

The end result speaks for itself.

DISPOSE: Unrealistic policies

A few paragraphs ago, I praised Mamdani for going big rather than going home with his policy platform. That praise must be accompanied with a few words of caution: by and large, voters reject ideas (and the people selling them) when said ideas sound too good to be true.

Zohran Mamdani’s agenda, while bold, has drawn heavy criticism — not just from those who had a stake in the election outcome, but also ordinary, skeptical citizens — for being impractical and potentially harmful to the very communities he aims to help. His push for a $30 minimum wage by 2030 risks accelerating automation and wiping out low-wage jobs — not to mention the ever-present but equally valid question: how do we pay for it? — while his plan for city-run grocery stores—one per borough—has been slammed as symbolic at best and a logistical nightmare at worst. His rent freeze and promise of 200,000 new affordable units echo failed de Blasio-era policies that neither slowed rent hikes nor curbed homelessness, with real estate experts warning they could further deteriorate housing quality. Similarly, his call for fare-free buses, though popular with riders, would saddle the city with an annual $650 million bill without a clear funding source. To pay for all this, Mamdani proposes steep tax hikes on corporations and millionaires, sparking fears of capital flight and economic decline. Even beyond economics, his rhetoric—such as defending “globalize the Intifada”—has inflamed cultural and political divisions. Taken together, Mamdani’s proposals look less like a pragmatic roadmap for New York’s future and more like a collection of expensive experiments that could undermine the city’s stability.

I am no expert, nor am I a seasoned campaign strategist, but here are my two cents: a good policy is one that sounds good enough to inspire real support, but not so good (good meaning trade-off-less, or absolute in scale without of the any qualifiers or caveats that our necessary in an imperfect world) that it makes you wonder if it has any basis in reality. Mamdani erred on the side of too good, and while the results panned out in his favor, the too-good-to-be-true policy platform has seen a less favorable reception on the national level. Think: defund the police (blanket statement); Medicare for All (who pays?); and tuition-free public college (more of the same).

KEEP: Star rookies over seasoned veterans

Experience, once considered the cornerstone of credibility in American politics, has increasingly become a double-edged sword. Far from guaranteeing respect or authority, a long track record in government can make candidates appear jaded, compromised, or simply out of touch with the urgency voters feel in their daily lives. For many, decades of experience are no longer proof of wisdom but evidence of entrenchment within a system widely viewed as broken. The 2016 election was a watershed moment in this regard: Donald Trump’s victory underscored that charisma, outsider energy, and a raw sense of authenticity could eclipse traditional measures of competence. Since then, the trend has only accelerated. Younger, less-seasoned candidates are able to present themselves as fresh alternatives untainted by backroom deals or political baggage, and that very lack of experience becomes part of their appeal. To voters grappling with soaring costs, stagnant wages, and failing institutions, “business as usual” is a liability, not a comfort. In this environment, experience doesn’t just fail to inspire — it actively alienates, reinforcing the sense that career politicians are not just incapable of, but actually opposed to delivering the transformation that many voters crave.

Andrew Cuomo’s political pedigree should have been an asset, but in the current climate it likely worked against him. Decades of experience, from his tenure as governor to his years navigating New York’s political machinery, made him the embodiment of establishment politics at a time when voters were actively rejecting it. For many, Cuomo’s résumé was less a testament to steady leadership and more a reminder of missteps, scandals, and a governing style that felt outdated and heavy-handed. Against a younger opponent like Zohran Mamdani, who positioned himself as a fresh face unburdened by baggage, Cuomo’s deep experience became a liability. It reinforced the perception that he was part of the problem, a figure shaped by the very system people feel is broken. In politics today, bad experience is worse than no experience at all—because it ties a candidate not just to a history of decisions but to a sense of stagnation, compromise, and mistrust. Mamdani didn’t need decades of service to make his case; he needed to embody something different, something new. That contrast alone was enough to tip the balance.

DISPOSE: The notion that progressivism is on the rise again, circa November 5th, 2024

One final point: I’ve seen many in progressive circles celebrate the election results as irrefutable evidence that the progressive movement has experienced a surge of support — similar to what was seen in 2016 thanks to Sen. Bernie Sander’s insurgent and wildly successful primary campaign — since the 2024 presidential election. For context: 2024 wasn’t just a bad year for progressivism — it might have been its worst year since entering the national conversation a decade ago.

During the primary season, far-left Squad members Rep. Cori Bush and Rep. Jamaal Bowman were defeated in their reelection bids with relative ease by more moderate primary challengers. On Election Day, while progressive leaders Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib overperformed in their districts NY-14 and MI-12, respectively, compared to Kamala Harris (though gold-standard analyst Lakshya Jain has explained why AOC’s sunny numbers might be overrating her electoral viability² ), others like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren turned in poor performances, despite being longtime political institutions in their respective states of Vermont and Massachusetts.

With this in mind, the idea that 6 months and a single local primary race — albeit a high-profile one in the largest city in the nation — could reveal a large-scale shift in the public perception of progressivism is quite unlikely.

Here’s an example. 2021 was another disappointing year for progressives. In the 2021 New York mayoral democratic primary election, progressive candidate and New School Prof. Maya Wiley only placed third. The top two candidates, Sanitation Department Commissioner Kathryn Garcia and Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams were both moderate Democrats, with the more conservative of the two, Eric Adams, eventually taking it all. Come Election Day, in the city of Buffalo — New York’s second largest beyond the Big Apple — the Democratic nominee for mayor, progressive activist and nurse India Walton, was defeated in the general election. Not by a Republican, but by the incumbent Democratic mayor she had defeated in the June primary and who was now running a write-in campaign, Byron Brown. Similar woes transpired in mayoral races in Seattle and Cleveland, as well as with a progressive-supported ballot initiative which attempted to replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a proposed Department of Public Safety.

Needless to say, 2021 wasn’t a pretty sight, and I’ve previously shown how dire things had gotten — even rising to the level of federal races — in 2024.

But between 2021 and 2024, Brandon Johnson, a member of Cook County Board of Commissioners and rising progressive star in Illinois, upset moderate Democrat and former Lt. Gov. Paul Vallas in the 2023 Chicago mayoral democratic primary election. Viewing this single election in isolation, you might (and many at the time did) assume that progressivism was on the rise again after faltering in 2021. Of course, the general trend across the 3-year timespan suggests anything but.

The lesson here is to never is to never extrapolate from single elections in isolation — rather, it’s more important to rationalize them in context of their surroundings. I am not going to argue that progressivism hasn't grown incrementally in popularity since November 2024. Considering Trump’s laundry list of controversial and posssibly-destructive actions committed or proposed since taking office, I would lean towards the viewpoint that progressivism is more popular than 6 months ago. That being said, a single election in the middle of summer decided by a population incredibly unrepresentative of the United States at large is unlikely to be a useful indicator nor answer.

The bottom line

In general, I believe that 2025 New York mayoral democratic primary provides much more insight about the changing formula behind a winning campaign rather than indicating specific shifts in the electorate at large — most notably, the state of progressivism. To generate an accurate picture of large-scale change, you simply need a bigger sample — bigger geographically, greater amounts of voters, and a wider variety of demographics that reflect the ideological and cultural diversity of our entire nation.

1. https://x.com/ZacharyDonnini/status/1937979116411883547

2. https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1879716677975519354