The rise of socialist Zohran Mamdani is concerning for many reasons. None less than that numerous establishment Democrats endorsed the candidacy of an extremist. But the praise of Mamdani’s political powers seems odd considering how weak his victory was.
No one in their right mind would contend that Kamala Harris is the future of the Democratic Party. Yet, the former vice president significantly outperformed Mamdani across the board. Harris won New York City with nearly 70% of the vote in 2024. Mamdani won just over 50% in one of the most liberal cities in the country while running against one of the most corrupt politicians in the state. Kamala outperformed Mamdani in every borough. No Democrat running for president has captured less of the NYC vote since George McGovern was trampled by Richard Nixon in 1972.
Eric Adams won 67% of the vote in 2021. Did anyone argue that he was the template for the future? Bill DeBlasio, whose policies were largely indistinguishable from Mamdani’s (sans the terror cheerleading) won with 73% and 66% of the vote. The last Democratic mayoral candidate to win a lower total was David Dinkins when he ran against Rudy Giuliani in 1989. The last time a Democrat didn’t clear 50% was in 1977, when Ed Koch ran against Cuomo’s father Mario.
Now, if your argument is that many of those candidates didn’t have to face notable opposition, that’s not definitely true. The notable opposition emerged because of Mamdani’s extremism and relative unpopularity. Among native New Yorkers, Mamdani lost by a wide margin. It should be noted that Mamdani ran against the over-the-hill disgraced Andrew Cuomo and publicity hound Curtis Sliwa. Not exactly 2002 Rudolph Giuliani.
Fortunately, NYC is barely governable, and there is only so much damage Mamdani can inflict. But, if a century of history is any indication, there’s a strong chance that the programs he implements — “free” this, that, and the other — will fail. Socialism’s popularity is always predicated on high-minded quixotic unattainable promises. A large part of Bernie Sanders’ popularity is grounded in the fact that his ideas haven’t been implemented.
Mamdani’s adoration is also confusing because he was significantly outperformed by other Democrats. I’m no fan of Virginia’s next governor, Abigail Spanberger, but she just won an impressive victory in a state with a popular Republican governor with over 57% of the vote. You could barely tell which party Spanberger belonged to by watching her ads. Her campaign leaned towards law enforcement and the economy.
Five years ago, Spanberger warned Democratic Party leadership that the left would “get f—-ng torn apart” if they continued to allow The Squad and other progressives to dictate their positions. “And we need to not ever use the words socialist or socialism ever again,” she reportedly added. Last week, Spanberger referred to Mamdani’s socialist promises as “dishonest,” which is a nice way of saying unhinged.
DON’T LET TUCKER CARLSON GASLIGHT YOU ABOUT FREE SPEECH
In New Jersey, Democrat gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherrill ran a similar campaign, focusing on economic issues and bashing Donald Trump. John Fetterman, who embraces working-class aesthetics better than any politician in the country, also argues that Mamdani-style socialism is “certainly not the future of my party.” Maybe he knows something? Right now, Fetterman’s approval rating is above 50% with members of both parties in a state that Donald Trump won. Does anyone believe a Mamdani type could win a state like Pennsylvania or Virginia? Yet, Fetterman is the favorite target of “democratic” socialists, though holds rather left-wing economic and social views. His greatest sin, it seems, is not joining the pro-Hamas mob that’s captured the progressive left. Democrats are reportedly plotting to primary him.
Why aren’t these candidates the templates for the Democrat’s future?