Thanks to the rise of Mamdani and other DSA-adjacent progressive insurgents running for local office across the land, the group is once more being taken seriously as a political force (a sinister one among conservatives). But it shouldn’t be. In truth, the largest socialist organization in America is a paper tiger. The convention that wrapped up in Chicago over the weekend didn’t showcase an ascendant and aggressive Left. Rather, it offered more proof that Leftists remain hopelessly weak and are mostly content to eat each other, rather than the rich.

There’s little scary about DSA conventions on the ground. (These days, it’s the Right’s CPAC gabfests that look more like a freak show, what with Elon Musk prancing around the stage while brandishing a chainsaw.) When I attended a Chicago DSA convention in 2017 — full disclosure: I was a dues-paying member back then — it confirmed Oscar Wilde’s famous quip: “The trouble with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings.”

It’s a lot of meetings with squabbling over arcane rules and procedures broken up by panel discussions and parties, like a mix of an academic conference, a parent-teacher association meeting, and a pep rally. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s what DSA didn’t do this time that’s the problem.

For one, the DSA still can’t seem to control its weirdos. There was fighting over the fact that Covid masks were “strongly encouraged,” rather than required like in 2023. For the Left’s Covid dead-enders, the change in policy was tantamount to “eugenics for the disabled.” A few weeks earlier, the DSA-adjacent Socialism 2025 convention hosted a discussion on abolishing marriage and the family, with one panelist saying, “the only real difference between marriage and prostitution is the price and the duration of the contract.” Why not keep such cringe locked up in the basement of a hipster bookstore in Portland?

More From This Author

We’re still distracting ourselves to death

By Ryan Zickgraf

Mamdani’s victory offered a sane blueprint to the DSA: he largely backed away from his maximalist Abolish Everything! stances from the peak-woke era and ran unapologetically on practical economic issues. Since winning the Democratic mayoral primary in the Big Apple, he has remained focused on New Yorkers’ struggle to make ends meet, while taking aim at the the party’s gerontocracy.

A credible DSA would take the hint and rally against President Trump’s attacks on organized labor and his dismantling of parts of the safety net, thus building a counterweight to mainstream Democrats’ do-nothingness. The convention offered some of that, to be sure. But it was overshadowed by grandiose internationalist moralism, especially over Gaza. The delegates voted almost 9-to-1 in favor of “a movement that will be able to fight against genocide and war across the globe.” But how do you fight war when half your members can’t change a tire?

Meanwhile, matters got ugly over a rancorous vote on declaring DSA an explicitly anti-Zionist organization. Online, there was debate over whether to purge the 40% of members who voted against it. “I couldn’t live with myself if I were funding and mingling with so many genocidal Nazi halfwits,” one agitated person tweeted. “You’re living amongst monsters. You do realize that?”

This is not to say the Palestinian cause lacks moral urgency. The situation in Gaza is, to put it mildly, a horror show. But the convention’s treatment of it as the overriding priority in Trump’s America — at a time when the Left has a genuine shot at expanding its small footprint — attested to a deeper pathology. It’s the politics of powerlessness: the belief that if you can’t change an outcome in material terms, you can compensate by making your rhetoric more extreme and obsessing about the topic that you have the least control over.

The organizer Bayard Rustin, reflecting on similar Left foolishness in Harper’s in 1970, observed: “Since real victories are thought to be unattainable, issues become important in so far as they can provide symbolic victories. Dramatic confrontations are staged which serve as outlets for radical energy but which in no way further the achievement of radical social goals.” Rustin saw no value in symbolic victories. He called such symbolic achievements a “politics of escape rooted in hopelessness.”

Yet the post-Oct. 7 period has only deepened this instinct on the Left. After the collapse of US Left-populism with Bernie Sanders’s loss in 2020 and the drift of The Squad, the DSA suffered. In early 2024, Maria Svart, the organization’s national director, stepped down with a grim parting shot: the DSA was $1 million in the hole and had no realistic plan to climb out. Paid membership cratered by nearly 30 percent nationally, down to just over 52,000, and most chapter meetings drew fewer than 15 people — hardly the socialist mass movement of Sean Hannity’s nightmares.

The Western Left got its groove back by simplifying yet expanding its moral framework to make everything about Gaza. Today, Palestinians aren’t just engaged in a struggle with Israel. They’ve been recast as the tip of the spear in a global war against “the West,” “the Global North,” or “the colonizers” — pick your villain. “The Global South” has displaced the working classes of old as the imagined revolutionary subject, and the antifada has become the new class struggle. It’s as if the messy prism of intersectionality that defined the Left of a few years ago was replaced with something more elemental, almost biblical: a moral universe of pure good and pure evil, where every battle anywhere slots neatly into the same epic. Which is why one panel at the DSA convention was titled — for some reason — “From Mexico to Gaza.”

It’s a seductive framework, because it makes the Left feel powerful in its own mind, as if tweeting about a student protest in London is part of the same chain of resistance as a worker’s strike in Argentina or a Gazan family’s struggle to survive the next eight hours. In the US context, this posture is a political cul-de-sac. It makes the difficult work of coalition building, labor organizing, and contesting elections take a back seat to a permanent foreign-policy morality play.

Inside the DSA, factionalism magnifies the problems. The group is split into what amount to three informal “wings”: the Right (old-school social democrats focused on winning elections); the Left (revolutionary, anarchist, and anti-state types who view electoral politics as a sellout); and the center, which borrows from both but mistrusts compromise. All are far to the left of the median American voter. Yet instead of finding proper common ground, they launch miniature cold wars within the organization. Energy that could go into making more Mamdanis gets burned in procedural fights over who’s “truly” socialist. Fox News and the like may love to bash socialists, but you won’t find many people who despise DSA more than its own members and other Leftists.

Suggested article

So Trump nixed your bullshit DEI job

By Ryan Zickgraf

Last year, Eric Blanc, a labor-studies scholar at Rutgers University, posted that “DSA is at a crossroads. It can become another marginal far-Left group with a narrow program, rigid formulas, and tight discipline — or it can remain a big tent, flexible, and welcoming organization oriented to mass working-class politics.” Spoiler alert: the group chose the former. Now the DSA can’t organize a Valentine’s Day dating event without it imploding into a brouhaha over whether trance is a Zionist genre of music (no, really, this happened).

All this is tragic from an authentically socialist perspective. The United States remains a country in decline: its public infrastructure is crumbling; its for-profit health system plunges more than half of Americans into medical debt; working-class life expectancy is declining; and real wages remain stagnant for the bottom half. Yet the activist energy that once might have gone toward reviving the labor movement or Medicare for All is now absorbed by an abstracted, performative global struggle; the battlefield is always somewhere else, even as the home front decays.

Meanwhile, just to the south, Mexico shows what disciplined Left-populism can achieve. President Claudia Sheinbaum, the successor to Andrés Manuel López Obrador (popularly known as AMLO), won the presidency with nearly 60% of the vote and delivered her party, Morena, a congressional supermajority. She and AMLO did it by combining populist anti-elite messaging with concrete policy delivery: raising the minimum wage, making it easier to organize workers, expanding social welfare, and investing in neglected regions.

Morena translates slogans into legislation and legislation into tangible improvements in ordinary people’s lives. The party, to be sure, isn’t without its share of problems, internal contradictions, and ideological disputes. But these finally don’t eclipse Morena’s core mission. The Mexican Left treats electoral power as something to be built and wielded; the American DSA treats it as a side hustle to its internal culture wars and moral theater.

Mamdani’s win could have been the start of a similarly successful revamp: proof of concept that disciplined, class-based campaigning still works in America. Instead, the DSA has shown it’s still more comfortable as a subculture than a political force. That makes the conservative scaremongering about the DSA all the more farcical. These are liberal-arts grads who can’t free their faces from Covid masks, much less free America from capitalism.

Correction: An earlier version of this essay incorrectly suggested that a family-abolition discussion took place at the DSA convention.

This is the state of the Democrats in 2025. Bereft of ideas and riven by internal division, the party is no longer in control of itself. That has left it open to challenges from the ideological fringes, with a new wave of socialists and progressives emerging in America’s cities, from New York to Minneapolis to Albuquerque. Led by a new generation of young primary challengers, a broader realignment may be taking shape in the party — one that is more progressive, economically populist, and unapologetically pro-Palestine.

The forceful return of the Left has exposed the fecklessness of centrist Democrats, whose efforts to reclaim the party after President Trump’s victory last year have utterly failed. Back in November, moderates promised a sober reset: a return to pragmatism, competence, and electability. But they have since been out-organized, out-communicated, and increasingly out of step with a base that no longer sees triangulation as a virtue. With the midterms looming, it’s clear that the center isn’t holding, and the Left is on the march.

Over the last two months, a pair of Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates, Zohran Mamdani and Omar Fateh, have surfaced as contenders for mayor in two blue cities. In June, Mamdani — a democratic socialist who campaigned on city-run grocery stores, rent freezes, and free buses — won the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City. His victory was followed by that of Fateh, who received a major boost when the Minneapolis Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (the state’s version of the Democrats) endorsed him over incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey. It was the Minneapolis DFL’s first endorsement in 16 years.

Like Mamdani, Fateh’s pitch to voters focused almost exclusively on cost-of-living issues. He promised to implement widespread rent control, raise the city minimum wage to $20, and implement free transit. He is now well-positioned to win the general election later this year — even if Gov. Tim Walz has endorsed his rival Frey.

Progressives elsewhere are taking note. In Seattle, Katie Wilson looks set to defeat Mayor Bruce Harrell in a Democratic primary by promising affordable housing and better public transit. In a written statement, Wilson sounded almost like a MAGA Republican with her promise to take on “career politicians backed by corporate interests,” who have “presided for years over skyrocketing costs of living and out-of-control homelessness.” Similarly, in Albuquerque, NM, Alex Uballez is challenging Democratic Mayor Tim Keller on a progressive platform to combat income and housing inequality.

“Cost of living has for several years in a row now been top of mind for voters at all levels of elections,” says Michael Baharaeen, chief political analyst at the Liberal Patriot newsletter. “For better or worse, this new contingent of socialist and progressive candidates has a message on this stuff. They are speaking about things — whether they’re workable ideas or not — that people really care about.”

Many remain skeptical. Citing Mamdani’s plan to tax “whiter” neighborhoods harder or Fateh’s pledge to expand city funding for progressive causes (including a “Trans Equity Summit”), they claim that these figures merely represent a “new phase” of wokeness — not a rejection of it. To them, the populist gloss is just that. “When I hear a politician being described as economically populist, I want to see if the working class is actually voting for them or not,” says the political economist and UnHerd contributor Michael Lind. “The public grocery store idea does not come from the working class — it comes from the nonprofit sector. It’s a classic case of ‘pity charity liberalism.’”

Given that former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo beat Mamdani by a wide margin among lower-income and black voters — the only two groups he won — it is difficult to cast Mamdani as a tribune of the working class. Still, there are signs he is trying to address that weakness. After the Midtown Manhattan shooting, for example, the Democratic nominee went directly from the airport after his wedding trip to Uganda to visit the family of a slain police officer. Later that day, he walked back past posts calling to defund the police, which he admitted were “out of step.” This may not sound entirely convincing, but it is a significant, if cautious, course correction.

Suggested reading

It’s springtime for progressives — again

By Ross Barkan

Cuomo, for his part, tried to run a conventional campaign focused on public safety in the primary. But Mamdani, despite starting with almost no name recognition, succeeded in shifting the conversation. He reframed the race around housing, affordability, and the cost of living, which proved so effective that Cuomo, in his campaign relaunch, mimicked both Mamdani’s visual style and his economic focus. What was meant to be a law-and-order referendum has since become a debate on rent, wages, and whom the city is for.

The fact that Mamdani remains a viable candidate speaks to a deeper shift in the Democratic Party. Ten or even five years ago, it is doubtful that figures like him or Fateh would have emerged as serious contenders for office. In any other Democratic leadership contest, a candidate who refused to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada” or who declined to support then-President Joe Biden in the 2024 primary — over his stance on Israel — would have been dead on arrival.

But these are different times. Democratic voters have undergone a dramatic shift on Israel — so much so that even former senior Barack Obama advisers are now calling for a re-evaluation of the party’s position. Chris Van Hollen, a US senator from Maryland, declared it was a “big lie” that Hamas has systematically stolen UN aid, while 24 Democratic senators supported blocking the sale of more than $675 million in arms sales to Israel. Meanwhile, in the House, 13 progressive lawmakers have signed onto a letter urging the Trump administration to recognize a Palestinian state, and at least one plans to introduce a pro-statehood resolution.

It would be a stretch to credit Mamdani and his fellow progressives for this shift, but their refusal to tone down criticism of Israel’s conduct of the Gaza war has forced once-taboo positions into the mainstream. This dynamic was in full display during a mayoral debate, at which the candidates were asked to name the first foreign country they’d visit upon being elected mayor. Nearly all the other candidates named Israel, offering effusive praise for the Jewish state. Mamdani, however, indicated that he would stay put in the Big Apple, visiting local synagogues to connect with Jewish New Yorkers. The stance won him applause from the Left — and even many on the MAGA Right.

In fact, Israel’s blocking of aid to Gaza has twisted centrist Democrats into knots, with fears spreading that the war in the Middle East could become a litmus test for next year’s midterms and the 2028 presidential primaries. In the face of mass starvation and an IDF push to take over the entire Gaza strip, the only consensus the party’s moderate wing has managed to reach is this: criticize the Netanyahu government, but not the Jewish state.

This stance has produced some painfully tin-eared moments online. Challenged on a popular YouTube show on why she wasn’t taking a stronger position on Gaza, Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan deflected, insisting, “I would offer that Democrats own nothing in Washington,” before shifting the conversation to the difference between sending offensive and defensive weapons to Israel. Even on that point, she struggled. Asked whether she would support a ban on offensive arms to Israel, she meekly responded: “That, to me, would certainly be a place to look.” In the end, she skipped the vote on the offensive-weapons resolution for an appearance on the Stephen Colbert talkshow.

The center, then, is no longer setting the terms of the debate; it’s struggling to keep up.

More from this author

Steve Bannon is ready for war

By James Billot

The upheaval is playing out at the ballot box, too. In safe blue districts across the country, a new generation of candidates — almost all under 40 — is mounting primary challenges against long-serving Democratic incumbents. In New York, a 26-year-old Jewish democratic socialist is taking on Rep. Dan Goldman, drawing inspiration from Mamdani’s high-profile run. In California, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is facing a challenge from a onetime aide to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In Illinois, a progressive content creator is running to unseat a 14-term congressman. And in a pair of open Senate races, Gen X and Millennial Democrats have launched bids to fill seats vacated by retiring Boomers in New Hampshire and Michigan. As Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive physician endorsed by Bernie Sanders who is running in Michigan, told Politico, his position on Gaza is a “symbol for something greater. Gaza, unfortunately, has become a Rorschach test for values. Do your morals apply anywhere and everywhere?”

What these races show is that the anti-establishment feeling that fueled Trump’s return is moving in both directions. As polling analysis by the election-data site Split Ticket illustrates, Democrats now view their party about as negatively as Republicans viewed theirs from 2009 to 2015, when Bush-Romney neoliberal dogma ruled the GOP. That insurgency reshaped the GOP from the ground up, dragging the party toward populism. A similar dynamic may now be unfolding on the Left. Polling in June found that roughly half of Democrats are “unsatisfied with current leadership,” with 62% calling for the “party leaders to be replaced” — a level of disaffection that suggests something bigger is stirring inside the party.

The Democrats have yet to find their own answer to Trump. But the most obvious contender is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She has successfully straddled both wings of the party, serving as a bridge between the establishment and progressives. She has the highest net approval out of any Democrat not running for president, and she is still young enough to position herself as an outsider candidate.

Unlike most of her colleagues, AOC has also cultivated a political identity that operates largely independent of the Democratic Party’s institutional machinery. But the real test will be whether she can break through beyond the progressive base and win over moderates and independents — the very voters needed to beat Trump’s successor.

She is also exactly who, like Mamdani, Republicans want front and center in the Democratic Party. Just as Trump painted her and The Squad as the face of the party during his first term, the president is now targeting Mamdani in a similar fashion. This could have a deleterious effect on Democratic efforts to win back independents and moderates ahead of next year’s midterms. As Karl Rove aptly put it on Fox News last weekend, “the more that we get people like this representing the face of the Democratic Party, the harder it is [for them] to win back voters in the middle of American politics.”

For that to happen — to win back a national majority — these progressive challengers actually need to win their races first. Beyond that, a lot will also depend on the progressives’ ability to stay singularly focused on issues like the cost of living and Republicans’ attacks on hugely popular entitlements, while eschewing “peak woke” slogans like police abolition and “queer liberation.”

Still, their success so far signals a deeper shift underway in the party. What once looked like fringe discontent is beginning to coalesce into a coherent, organized revolt. Far from being isolated local phenomena, their victories would legitimize a new template for Left-wing politics: one rooted in economic populism with a deep skepticism of the party establishment. In a few years’ time, it may not be Mamdani, Fateh, and others who seem like outliers — but the party leadership, scrambling to catch up.

It’s tempting to focus on what unites the populist energy on both sides of the aisle: a shared hostility to a ruling class that has overseen the downward mobility of labor and the shrinking of the middle class. But what divides today’s Right-wing populism from its Left-wing counterpart is equally important. If either side hopes to craft an agenda that appeals beyond its base, it will have to grapple with what it’s missing.

Both camps diagnose the same problem: a corrupt elite that has disinherited the American working class and lined their pockets with the proceeds. But when it comes to the solutions to that problem, the Left and Right have different answers. Yet each side is missing a piece of the puzzle.

Before Trump, the GOP was defined by social conservatism, free-market economics, and foreign interventionism. It was for war and free trade, and against gay marriage and abortion. But Trump took an ax to every one of those commitments.

He abandoned free trade and questioned foreign entanglements, believing that America should mind its business and focus on US interests, rather than the Sisyphean task of spreading liberal values across the globe. And, while gesturing toward a moderate social agenda, he made economic populism his true platform. In his second term, he’s only doubled down: mass deportations, tariffs, and a revived industrial policy. He made illegal immigration a centerpiece, launching nationwide deportation campaigns that have drawn both condemnation and praise. He escalated a global trade war, levying tariffs across America’s trading partners. He issued executive orders to expand AI training to help blue-collar workers access good-paying technology jobs, and claims to have brought in more than $10 trillion in manufacturing investment.

More from this author

Michelle Obama podcasts for the rich

By Batya Ungar-Sargon

This is the core of why he won the majority of working-class Americans: his economic populism got to the heart of what they felt they had lost thanks to disastrous trade deals like NAFTA, or disastrous immigration policies endorsed by the elites of both parties that allowed the foreign-born population of the United States to balloon to 15 percent. In industries that swelled their ranks with illegal migrants, wages stagnated. Immigration and the economy were the top concerns for voters in the 2024 election — two issues which often overlap for workers on the lower rungs of the labor market. Trump’s promise to deport every illegal migrant won him votes from workers who had never supported a Republican before, including millions of Hispanics. His populism — call it Protectionist Populism — spoke directly to them. Because this promise is so central to his success, his recent comments about allowing illegal farm and hotel workers to stay has engendered immense pushback from the base.

But this is not the only populism on offer now. The Left has its own version — one equally hostile to what it calls “the oligarchy,” but proposing different solutions. Sanders campaigned for president on free college, free health care, and a higher minimum wage — funded by taxes on the rich. AOC and Mamdani have adopted this model, too.

Rather than limiting the supply of labor or foreign goods to drive up wages, the populist Left proposes taxing the rich and beefing up the welfare state. Instead of empowering workers to demand more from employers, it would redistribute wealth through subsidized housing, health care, transit, and childcare.

This marks a turn away from the identity-first politics of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, who leaned on the historic nature of their gender and race in their campaigns for President. Left-populists today offer something more universal: class war. The rich, they argue, are too rich — and they should “pay their fair share” so that the working class and the poor can receive more benefits from the government, given that their low-paying jobs aren’t likely to represent anything close to a living wage. Let’s call this redistributionist populism.

But here’s the surprising twist: despite its economic focus, redistributionist populism appears most popular among the young and the educated. Voters without college degrees preferred Cuomo; those with advanced degrees preferred Mamdani. Mamdani beat Cuomo with New Yorkers earning more than $100,000 a year, but Cuomo crushed him among those earning under $50,000. Mamdani also lost decisively in neighborhoods with the highest concentration of black voters.

The redistributionist message, paradoxically, was unpopular with the very people it was supposed to help, while it was most popular with young, disillusioned, overeducated urbanites.

That’s not to say their preferences are illegitimate. They vote, too, and have become the Democrats’ new base since the working class drifted to Trump. But their overwhelming support signals that Mamdani’s success in New York City isn’t likely to translate much further, not least because of the position Mamdani has taken on immigration. Mamdani opposes ICE raids and was seen in a widely circulated video attacking Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar. It was a revealing moment.

The Democrats once opposed immigration on the very grounds that the Right now does: It depresses workers’ wages. But now that their base is educated professionals — the consumers of low-wage labor — it is very much in their financial interest to increase the number of workers allowed illegally into the country. They mostly talk about immigration in moral terms, stressing things like compassion for the global indigent and due process. But the economic logic remains — and lately, they’ve become less shy about saying so, fully admitting that they oppose mass deportations because they are taking away a pliant workforce. As Gov. Gavin Newsom recently bemoaned during the riots over ICE raids in LA, Trump’s “agents are arresting dishwashers, gardeners, day laborers, and seamstresses.” Or think of the outrage from Democrats when ICE agents raided a meatpacking plant in Nevada where dozens of illegal migrants were using forged papers. (Weeks later, the waiting room to apply for jobs was full of American applicants.)

Meanwhile, the MAGA movement’s Protectionist Populism really does resonate with many workers. Interviewing working class Americans across the country recently, I found a consistent message: they overwhelmingly preferred Trump’s protectionism to neoliberalism or redistribution. They rejected the paternalism in the Left’s ideas about how to help them, and appreciated the autonomy baked into Trump’s vision. A better wage meant independence. A closed border meant a job worth keeping.

Suggested reading

Democrats are wasting a populist moment

By Justin H. Vassallo

It is not just anecdotal. In poll after poll, the majority of Americans support deporting undocumented migrants. The Democrats’ attempts to reclaim their status as the party of the working class will fail until they stop fighting against the wishes of the majority of Americans — especially on immigration.

Yet there’s a glaring blind spot in Protectionist Populism: namely, health care. It’s the one issue where working-class voters are still aligned with the Left over the Right. As political scientist Ruy Teixeira has pointed out, the two most popular demands among working-class Americans are less immigration and more access to affordable health care. There is huge overlap between Americans who want a much more populist approach to health care and those who want a much more hawkish approach to immigration. Teixeira’s reporting showed that stricter proposals on illegal immigration also aligned with support for Medicare negotiating drug prices. He wrote, “these pro-Medicare populists favor the idea that we should simply, ‘Round up undocumented immigrants, detain, and deport them to their home countries’ by 24 points.”

Trump himself seemed to grasp this. He has shown a willingness to force drug companies to negotiate prices, yet his Big Beautiful Bill showed Republican lawmakers willing to drop millions of people from the Medicaid rolls and endanger rural hospitals. The GOP seems to be acting on muscle memory, ignoring that its base is no longer the rich but the working class. The base has changed, but in too many ways, the party hasn’t. Republicans in the House and the Senate are still committed to giving tax cuts to the rich (wildly unpopular) and treating health care like it’s a commodity.

It’s no surprise that health care is the only area where the Left holds the advantage, because the Right won’t seize it. Whether it’s the protectionist populism of the Right or the Redistributionist Populism of the Left, each has recognized a piece of the puzzle. A broader perspective that combined much less immigration with much more access to affordable health care could lead to a windfall for whichever party seizes it first. If either side were willing to embrace the complete wishes of the hardest working Americans and embrace a platform that pushed both for expanding health care access and for radically reducing immigration, they would have a ruling majority for a very long time.

Few recent stories illustrate this better than Zohran Mamdani. A 32-year-old democratic socialist, born in Uganda and raised in Queens, Mamdani last week won the Democratic Party primary for New York’s mayoralty. In doing so, he’s well on his way to validating what astute observers could feel for weeks: the man could become the “real Obama”, even as he dodges the 44th president’s vacuous “nation-of-immigrants” mythos in favor of progressive policies from housing to transport. Yet if Mamdani has the charisma, vision and social media savvy to be the future of American politics, he first needs to prove his Americanness.

That’s proving to be a struggle. Last week, Congressman Andy Ogles of Tennessee drafted a formal letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi demanding that Mamdani — an elected official representing a district over 850 miles away from his own — be denaturalized and deported because he is a potential “terrorist supporter”. Earlier this week, when White House officials were asked about that possibility, none offered a clear denial. All of them, including President Trump himself, seemed quite open to the possibility. And though, of course, they were loath to bring up Mamdani’s background explicitly, The New York Times has proved itself similarly suspicious, its editorial board arguing that the candidate didn’t even “deserve” a spot on the ballot. It all speaks to the struggles politically active Americans outside the Protestant, small-state mainstream continue to face — and how identity and economics conspire to impede alternatives to the status quo.

One of the odder features of American political self-perception is that Americans, both Left and Right, wholly believe the myth that the country is “multicultural”. But multiethnic and multicultural are not the same thing. Even by 1830, more than two centuries after the Puritans landed at Plymouth, roughly 90% of American society remained Anglo-Protestant. This included denominations like Congregationalist, Anglican and Baptist, alongside various Puritan offshoots and an emerging network of black churches. As late as the Civil War, the population was still roughly three-quarters Protestant — over nine-in-10 of whom were some variation of Anglo-Protestant.

The mythology surrounding the country’s post-Sixties embrace of superficial “multiculturalism” has, in many ways, become a conceptual prison. It greatly hampers Americans’ ability to understand the true character of their own nation, so much so that few seemed to notice the actual religious composition of the 118th Congress, elected in 2022: where over 55% of its members identified as Protestant, about a third as Catholic, 6% as Jewish, and just 1.6% as Mormon. Today — over 400 years after the 1619 date The New York Times so loves to reference as our national start date — more than 93% of Congress generally comes from just four religious groups, with Anglo-Protestants still comfortably dominant.

From the vantage point of 4 July, this is unsurprising: Anglo ethnopolitics still greatly define the identity of this former British colony. Yet our demographic story is hardly a relic of history. From a political culture standpoint, the United States is the most ideologically policed nation in the liberal democratic world, and it’s not even close. It is a nation that’s been controlled by a two-party cartel for going on two centuries. This cartel rigorously works in harmony with allied media operations, and the higher-education apparatus, to prevent any ideas outside the Anglo-liberal consensus from ever being understood, much less taking root. Mamdani directly challenges this consensus — particularly its Anglo-liberal deification of markets, individual responsibility, and limited-government concepts that make citizens feel like they must beg for welfare state programs like a street panhandler.

Mamdani’s Muslim faith, Indian ancestry, and Ugandan birth combine to expose what might be called the “LASP” nexus — the “Liberal Anglo-Saxon Protestant” framework that has shaped the American political imagination since the Mayflower. The United Kingdom, of course, has also been heavily influenced by Anglo-liberal and Anglo-Protestant thought. But, unlike its wayward colonial offspring, it at least has a major political party with roots in the labor movement, not to mention the historical influence of the Fabian Society. In contrast, the United States has never had a major political party whose formation can be tied to labor organizing.

The Democratic Party, after all, dates back to the founding of the republic, when it was still called the “Democratic-Republican Party”— the party of Thomas Jefferson and, later, Andrew Jackson. It reflected their love affair with the “yeoman farmer”, and a democracy of smallholders. This ideal was totally incapable of reconciling itself with industrialization, as evidenced by the fact that the Democrats fought a civil war clinging to slavery long after much of the rest of the world, including Britain itself, recognized its abomination.

Due to the legacy of slavery, colorist concepts of ethnicity — along with the enduring “nation of immigrants” folklore — have so thoroughly dominated our historical narrative that modern Americans operate with almost no awareness of the cultural homogeneity that defined their country for the first 300 years of its existence. The reality is that non-British immigrants did not begin arriving in numbers that threatened the country’s Anglo supremacy until the second quarter of the 19th century. By then, the so-called American “experiment” was already two centuries old, and well on its way to congealing into a rigidly Anglo-Protestant and Anglo-liberal nation. Yet when waves of Irish and German Catholics — as well as proto-socialists and abolitionists fleeing the failed revolutions of 1848 — began arriving by the hundreds of thousands, the Anglo-Protestant majority swiftly rejected them as fundamentally un-American, just as today’s establishment routinely recoils in horror at people like Mamdani.

More from this author

Is the NBA draft rigged?

By B. Duncan Moench

All across the US, nativist mobs formed to prevent Irish and German immigrants from voting or holding office, meeting them at polling stations with bats and brass knuckles. They assaulted nuns and clergy, torched Catholic churches, and vandalized immigrant schools and meeting halls. What was happening was simple: white Protestants threatening non-Protestant whites, demanding they assimilate politically and morally into the country’s dominant LASP worldview — or face severe violence. These now-infamous but poorly understood “Know Nothings” operated as the shock troops of the American Party. Initially known as the “Native American Party”, at its peak it controlled nearly a third of Congress, either openly or covertly, as well as six governorships, all at a time when the union included only 31 states.

When this white-on-white violence is acknowledged in modern scholarship, it’s often framed as a racial problem — based on the now-common claim that the Irish weren’t yet considered “white”. As it is, though, that’s the assessment of the blinkered modern mind. So consumed with colorist conceptions of ethnicity — and ignorant of comparative political ideals, not to mention the history of intra-Christian prejudices — that it completely misses the Anglo supremacism that 19th-century nativists sought to protect religiously, politically, and culturally. After all, Irish and German immigrants were initially deemed unfit for office for the same reasons Mamdani is now: not just because they were foreign, but because their ethnopolitical ideals threatened an entrenched framework elites openly claimed as exclusively American.

Historically, indeed, politicians outside the LASP mold have only gained acceptance by first affirming the cultural dominance of Anglo-liberalism and Anglo-Protestantism — as Obama himself did, early in his career, by fighting to establish his bonafides in the mainline Protestant United Church of Christ in Chicago. Even then, suspicion and coded nativism remained thorns in the side of this decidedly conformist (and careerist) former Harvard Law Review president. Obama’s lengthy efforts to prove his Protestantism were still not enough to prevent him from having to fend off the “secret Muslim” label that dogged him for much of his first term.

Despite the paranoia of “Birther” nativism, which Trump helped lead, no openly Muslim candidate has ever been elected to the Senate. The same goes for Buddhists and Hindus. The lower chamber has been only marginally more inclusive. Just three Muslims have ever entered the House, all in the last 20 years: Keith Ellison, André Carson, and Ilhan Omar. The latter, in particular, has faced relentless xenophobia, with members of the GOP regularly smearing her as “un-American” and “terrorist sympathizer” — very similar to the alienating labels Mamdani has faced today.

Muslims and non-Western religions aren’t the only groups that have been met with prejudice by the country’s Anglo-Protestant majority either. Even the Mormons, arguably the whitest — and most Middle American — of heterodox religious groups had to abandon its practice of polygamy and dismantle their vast communal economic system before the Utah territory could be admitted as a state. Yes, Catholics, Jews, and Mormons were eventually welcomed into the American mainstream during the 20th century. But that only happened after a full century of cultural, and political, Anglo-centric assimilation. Each group had to prove they embraced Republican versions of democracy, Anglo-liberal “free” market economics and, no less important, Anglo-Americans’ unique take on the Protestant work ethic, which equates state support with personal failure.

Suggested reading

The last days of American power

By Jonathan Kirshner

Mamdani, though, is clearly cut from a different cloth, and is about as far from the Wall Street-friendly Obama as you can imagine. Even so, would Mamdani be considered “radical” outside the rigid Anglo-liberal boundaries that still define American politics in the 21st century? Whether it’s his proposals for rent control, his plan for free public transit, or even the idea of state-owned grocery stores — nearly all of these proposals would be politically unremarkable in much of the developed world and, increasingly, many parts of the global south too.

In American political culture, however, the establishment has eagerly worshipped “wealth creators” while demeaning wage workers as lazy or entitled. This occurs regularly despite the fact that the US has, by far, the weakest labor protections and stingiest welfare state among wealthy industrialized nations. This mentality emerged early in the industrial era, as elites embraced a Robber Baron-style capitalist triumphalism, intertwined with the survival-of-the-fittest ethos promoted by Social Darwinists like William Graham Sumner. The only serious resistance ever mounted against this ideology was the New Deal coalition, built on Franklin Roosevelt’s political genius and relentless popular appeal. The American establishment hysterically condemns Mamdani because they can sense he might have that same potential.

Despite Roosevelt’s unparalleled four-term popularity, when the New Deal coalition collapsed in the Seventies, the role of labor unions and the state in building up middle-class stability began to disappear from the national narrative. In its place, identity politics rose up to become the face of American “Leftism”. As the language of identity replaced the language of class, the establishment’s long-standing worship of wealth and material success became stronger still. That ultimately paved the way for Wall Street plunder and modern Silicon Valley hyper-feudalism where, since 1975, approximately $79 trillion has been redistributed from the bottom 90% of American workers to the top 1%.

This astoundingly regressive wealth redistribution must, of course, be justified by ideology. That’s where the Social Darwinism of thinkers like Sumner come in, offering a uniquely American cauldron of disdain for the needy and indigent, what Dead Kennedys frontman Jello Biafra once dubbed our “kill the poor” mentality. To put it differently, New Yorkers can’t have the free childcare that much of Europe takes for granted — not because the city lacks resources but because, as Sumner would argue, they don’t “deserve” it.

Many Americans, especially among the poor and working class, have internalized these low expectations. Mamdani, as some have noted, performed the worst among voters with little or no college education. So yes, his recent electoral success might be due primarily to an influx of college-educated groups. Yet that hardly explains why Donald Trump received 30% of the Big Apple’s presidential vote in 2024 — nearly double what he received in 2016.

Even in New York, then, wokeness seems to have crested. It may still dominate faculty rosters in America and many parts of the media landscape, but it doesn’t explain Mamdani’s rise. Despite the bemoaning of Mamdani as nothing more than a spoiled woke socialist, his surprising political success derives from his rejection of identity-victimhood fixations and — like FDR before him — his refusal to accept the elite dogma that the state is powerless to improve the economic conditions of everyday people.

Mamdani is routinely portrayed as a demonic immigrant antichrist for the same reason the German 48ers were declared an existential threat, despite their small numbers and political irrelevance. These early rebels openly challenged America’s LASP norms and dared to advocate for a different — multicultural and multi-ideological — vision of the country. Mamdani seems set to do the same. Whether or not you support his policies, the intensity of the reaction from the national media and Right-wing influencers toward a mayor’s race, in a place most of them openly hate, reveals something deeper, almost unconscious.

Rather, the ritualistic scapegoating of Mamdani across the US press arises because everything about the man stands outside America’s now-entrenched LASP boundaries: he’s not Anglicized morally and doesn’t pretend otherwise; he’s not Anglo-liberal in the “classical” free market sense; nor is he “Protestantized” in terms of the moral economy. Instead, he’s an open critic of Anglo-liberal politics, unapologetically pro-statist in his economic vision and a Muslim — a westernized one, yes, but a Muslim nonetheless.

Taken together, Mamdani is an avowed non-LASP — or indeed an anti-LASP. That doesn’t just make him a “radical”, it makes him an outsider, a contaminant, and a threat to the body politic. Should he ultimately win the mayor’s office of the nation’s largest city, it will be seen by many as a breach in the national fortress, a challenge not merely to our latently Anglo vision of multiculturalism, but also to the Anglo supremacist nexus that still dominates the American mind — nearly 250 years after declaring independence from Britain.

He hasn’t tweeted the word “queer” since 2023, nor “defund the police” since 2020. (Except for a 12 June post that read: “Don’t believe the MAGA billionaires funding Andrew Cuomo’s fear-driven campaign: I will not defund the police.”) But back in 2020 Mamdani insisted that “Queer liberation means defund the police.” This would have been toxic to a citywide campaign in pandemic-era NYC, but Mamdani isn’t running on it now. He’s running on one thing and one thing only: affordability. And it has captured the disenfranchised Millennials that Democrats have ignored.

Back in November when we chatted, as Democrats were reeling from Donald Trump’s culture-war comeback, Mamdani’s populist streak actually positioned him well to meet the moment. When I asked what his message was to Trump-supporting New Yorkers, Mamdani said he’d just spent the weekend in Queens and the Bronx chatting with voters about why they backed Trump or stayed home from the polls.

Trump, they told him, spoke to their “desire for a more affordable life and bringing peace back to the world.” So Mamdani said his path to victory was clear: talk about “tangible, deliverable policies” for the working class, not about “values or ideas.”

“There are far more New Yorkers who feel left out by the economic policies of Mayor Eric Adams and the Democratic leadership,” he told me, “Than identify with any one political persuasion.”

This turned out to be the key to Mamdani’s primary win. For most voters, in New York City or anywhere else, elections are always a matter of choosing between two imperfect choices. To read Andrew Cuomo’s loss as the Democratic electorate’s embrace of defund-the-police socialism is to underestimate the toxicity of the party establishment and how much voters have turned against it.

More from this author

How woke doomed Dems on the border

By Emily Jashinsky

People are viscerally angry at Cuomo. And they are right to be, they project understandable grief onto him for Covid-era nursing home deaths. They see him as a figurehead for the party that led the city ever deeper into an affordability crisis, and the party that went to comical lengths covering-up the president’s mental decline. That’s enough to motivate many voters to actually go to the polls, and enough for them to take a chance on the guy who only ever seems to talk about one thing: the cost of living.

Mamdani was the perfect foil to a terrible candidate. It’s really that simple. If Democrats are mad about voters electing a socialist, they should consider that consolidating behind Cuomo left a whole lot of New Yorkers determined to vote in a way to take the disgraced governor down at all costs. For some, it was more about affirmatively embracing Mamdani’s platform and for others it was more about rejecting Cuomo. You don’t have to be a democratic socialist to vote for one when the alternative is more Andrew Cuomo.

Consider how the conservative writer Rod Dreher likened Mamdani’s win to Trump’s, writing that New York’s Left-wing voters “lashed out against what they regard as a failed liberal establishment, electing a charismatic populist who promised a clear break with the past.” Just as voters did for Trump nine years ago. “We on the Right can shake our heads and laugh at how dumb New York liberals and progressives were to choose a candidate as politically inexperienced and radical as Mamdani,” he argued “but don’t miss that this was also a referendum on the Democratic Party itself.”

The question, then, is why voters are animated and desperate to reject the Democratic Party, so much so that some were willing to vote for the erstwhile host of Celebrity Apprentice or a millennial socialist. I think Peter Thiel might have the best answer.

Cuomo is, of course, repulsive in many ways that have nothing to do with his economic policies. His fall from gubernatorial grace was particularly humiliating and shameful. But Thiel, the techno-libertarian billionaire, articulated socialism’s pull with millennials in a 2020 email to Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, among other tech heavyweights. “I would be the last person to advocate for socialism,” he wrote. “But when 70% of Millennials say they are pro-socialist, we need to do better than simply dismiss them by saying that they are stupid or entitled or brainwashed; we should try and understand why.”

“And, from the perspective of a broken generational compact,” he added, “there seems to be a pretty straightforward answer to me, namely, that when one has too much student debt or if housing is too unaffordable, then one will have negative capital for a long time and/or find it very hard to start accumulating capital in the form of real estate; and if one has no stake in the capitalist system, then one may well turn against it.”

In Thiel’s framework, it is no surprise then that Mamdani outperformed Cuomo in boroughs with the highest concentration of young voters, who are facing extreme rising costs and unaffordable housing in New York City. Andrew Cuomo’s own campaign website observed the cost of living has “risen faster than the growth in incomes.” New York’s state comptroller reported that food costs rose by 56.2% over the last ten years, which is 10% more than the national increase. And rents in the city “grew more than seven times faster than wages last year, the largest gap in the country.”

But this is not all Cuomo’s fault. It’s the result of structures that transcend the city’s borders. Places like New York City struggle, in part, because they’re such desirable places to live, with abundant economic and cultural opportunities. It will always be a hardscrabble city for the ambitious and artists. But it needs a healthy middle class and it can have a middle class — at least if politicians hope to neutralize the appeal of populism.

Mamdani’s biggest vulnerabilities in the general election in November are the two issues that fall in the middle of the Venn diagram between culture and economics: immigration and crime. They’ll either be his salvation or his downfall. The #defundthepolice record will be hard to run from in a general election, but Mamdani has backed away from it and the city is recovering from the pandemic-era crime spike, meaning it’s not as sensitive for voters right now as it was several years ago.

Immigration could be even tougher. Like many Democrats, Mamdani is leaning into the culture war angle by aggressively opposing the Trump administration’s crackdown as a fight against “fascism.”

“We are going to protect our immigrant communities and not collaborate with ICE,” he pledged this month. The campaign will have to convince wary New Yorkers, who also connect immigration with jobs and housing, that his opposition to Trump’s crackdown won’t be a package deal with the policies that flooded hotels and shelters earlier in Eric Adams’s term.

Suggested reading

Could a socialist take New York?

By James Billot

The likeliest case is that any time Mamdani is asked to defend his cultural record, he’ll pivot to affordability as fast as Adams jumps on business class flights to Turkey. When Mamdani says people in New York are “struggling to afford even a shred of dignity in their lives,” it resonates, and makes people more willing to take a chance on something new. His bet is that they care more about decreasing the cost of living than whatever he may or may not do in the cultural arena. If he can signal that queer liberation is a lower priority than affordable housing or universal childcare — and his opponent is a scandal-stained centrist — he can keep overperforming expectations, and win.

For Mamdani, the key to achieving that in the primary was a “relentless focus on an economic agenda,” as his communications director Andrew Epstein told me on Election Night. When I asked Epstein what the campaign’s message is now that Mamdani is running in the general election, he replied, “One thing Zohran has said throughout this whole campaign is there is not an ideological majority in New York City but there is a majority of people who feel disillusioned with the political system and alienated from the economic system and feel the strain of the cost of living prices.” The alienated and disillusioned — Thiel’s millennials — showed up full throttle for Zohran.

“I don’t think the message really changes,” said Epstein. “I think it continues to be this relentless economic agenda.”

Democratic voters are clearly not the only New Yorkers ready for change. Mamdani’s opponents, be they Bill Ackman, Curtis Sliwa, or Eric Adams, will need to make Mamdani look like a riskier bet than the painful and precarious status quo if they have any hope of preventing his win in November. Like the broader Democratic Party, Mamdani is now winning voters’ trust by focusing on kitchen table issues without fully disavowing the progressive cultural policies he prioritized before Peak Woke started receding. If he’s successful, then the party might have found its path out of the wilderness.

In a normal race, the prospect of a Muslim-American socialist (not to mention anti-Zionist) candidate running America’s largest city would be seen as fanciful. But these are not normal times. The incumbent, Eric Adams, has been forced to run as an independent amid corruption allegations. Andrew Cuomo, the former governor, is the unloved frontrunner. And the city, which has experienced sweeping demographic changes over the last 10 years, has become Trumpier. This has fuelled an anti-establishment feeling that could, paradoxically, benefit outsider candidates like Mamdani.

As voting starts on 14 June in the Democratic primary, the result of this race will ripple far beyond the city’s five boroughs. Should Mamdani pull off an upset, progressives elsewhere in the country may challenge incumbents in their own states, using the victory as a chance to reshape the national party and pull Democrats to the Left. Meanwhile, if Cuomo wins, it will be seen as proof that voters don’t want radicals — just a “return to normalcy,” to borrow Warren G. Harding’s 1920 campaign slogan.

As things stand, the odds remain stacked in Cuomo’s favor. Despite the sexual-harassment allegations that led to his resignation as governor in 2021 and a federal investigation into his handling of nursing-home deaths during the pandemic, the 67-year-old maintains a prohibitive lead over his opponents. The latest polls put him around 10 percentage points ahead of second-placed Mamdani, and in a projected run-off, he would win with 56% of the vote to Mamdani’s 44%.

The gap, however, has been narrowing. In March, Cuomo enjoyed a nearly 30-point lead over Mamdani, but as that advantage has shrunk, fears are growing that he may be getting complacent. Instead of hitting the campaign trail, the former governor has adopted a Bidenesque basement strategy, eschewing the media in favor of a few limited public appearances across the city.

More by this author

Test article

By James Billot

Mamdani, meanwhile, has run a sophisticated grassroots campaign that bears an uncanny resemblance to AOC’s original bid for the House of Representatives. Through a combination of intensive door-to-door canvassing and buzzy policy proposals like Medicare for All, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and a Green New Deal, the then-28-year-old bartender pulled off a huge upset by unseating 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary back in 2018.

Taking a leaf from her book, Mamdani touts free buses, city-run grocery stores, and universal childcare. He promises to fund these initiatives with higher taxes on the extremely wealthy and corporations, even though there is little sign that the state’s governor, Kathy Hochul, is receptive to such plans. Yet even so, Hochul is up for re-election next year. If Mamdani does win, she may feel obliged — or even pressured — to offer something up.

Cuomo, by contrast, has made public safety the centrepiece of his campaign. In his announcement video, he gravely indicted the city’s leadership for its anti-anti-crime stances: “We know that today our New York City is in trouble. You feel it when you walk down the street and try not to make eye contact with a mentally ill homeless person, or when the anxiety rises up in your chest as you’re walking down into the subway.”

It is a strong message — but one that might have landed more effectively during the 2021 election than today’s. For while those concerns persist, they aren’t felt as acute as they once were: the migrant crisis is subsiding, violent crime is down, and tourism has rebounded. “Cuomo is running a crisis campaign when people don’t feel that way,” says Dan Turrentine, a Democratic strategist. “New Yorkers want a more positive message.”

The relative improvement in the city’s mood has created space for Mamdani’s more expansive (or panglossian) economic proposals. Ironically, his Left-populist message may have been bolstered by Trump’s win last year. “Trump has actually made things easier for a democratic socialist,” says Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. “When the president says Walmart can eat the cost of tariffs, it makes Mamdani’s idea of government-run grocery stores seem less crazy. Trump says things no one from either party has dared to, which gives the extremes on both sides license to go further.”

That a city as blue as New York increased its support for Trump consistently over three election cycles shouldn’t be mistaken for a broader conservative shift. Rather, it is a sign of growing frustration with the establishment, which has hurt Cuomo’s campaign more than the others. Even though he has never been mayor, progressives have framed Cuomo as the incumbent and tied the city’s failures to him. During last week’s debate, the 67-year-old faced relentless attacks from his opponents about his decade as governor. At times, he was left on the backfoot.

“Cuomo has been battered — the Left is determined to break him down,” says Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran strategist who worked on the campaigns of Bill Clinton and Michael Bloomberg. “It’s a bad time to be an establishment centrist Democrat because everything is changing. And when everything changes, that hurts those in the middle the most.”

Recognising Cuomo’s weakness, progressive candidates have been doing something they almost never do: cooperating. Learning from their mistakes in the last mayoral election, progressives have launched a concerted ABC (Anyone But Cuomo) campaign, which could negatively impact the former governor under the primary’s ranked-choice voting system. The push was epitomised by AOC, who told voters in her Mamdani endorsement: “do not rank Andrew Cuomo on your ballot at all. Leave the bubble next to his name blank.”

Mamdani’s late surge means that it’ll be more likely for progressive voters to coalesce around his candidacy. But his shortcomings are hard to ignore. His legislative record is thin — he has passed a grand total of three bills during his time in the New York state Assembly — and his free-bus pilot scheme was not renewed. Then there is his ferociously anti-Israel stance, which risks alienating many of the city’s 1.3 million Jewish residents. Asked about whether he supported Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in last week’s debate, Mamdani could only offer a mealy-mouthed response. “I believe Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights,” he said.

There is also another inescapable truth that becomes all too evident at Mamdani’s rallies. Ironically for an Indian-American born in Uganda, his supporters are almost exclusively white, largely concentrated in the gentrifying neighbourhoods of Queens and Brooklyn. This was confirmed by the recent Emerson poll, in which Mamdani leads white voters with 57% support, compared to Cuomo at 43%. Among black voters, however, he pulls less than 26%, and Hispanics are even colder on him.

Suggested reading

Why Gotham’s bad old days are back

By Michael Alcazar

For a candidate who claims to represent the city’s (largely nonwhite) working class, this is a glaring disconnect. It’s a testament to the tension between whom progressives like Mamdani claim to speak for versus who actually shows up to support them. After all, it was the city’s voters of color — long a moderating force on the Democratic Party — who handed former NYPD captain Eric Adams the mayoralty and who, by wide margins, tell pollsters they want the same or more policing in their neighbourhoods, not less. Mamdani, by contrast, supports community-led alternatives to public safety — a stance that very few working-class New Yorkers would likely support.

Cuomo’s base is far broader. He’s backed by Jews in Manhattan, black churchgoers in Brooklyn, Latino families in southeast Queens, and older homeowners across the boroughs — the coalition that forms the bedrock of the city’s electorate. He has also promised to add 5,000 additional NYPD officers, which would likely be well received by these communities.

Taken together, these factors give Cuomo a clearer path to victory than Mamdani, but the implications of this race stretch far beyond New York. For the rest of America, it could offer a revealing lesson about the Democratic Party’s unresolved identity crisis. Whichever faction prevails will claim a mandate: a Mamdani victory might embolden progressives like AOC to pressure establishment figures — including Sen. Chuck Schumer, who faces re-election next year — to shift further Left or risk a primary. A Cuomo win, meanwhile, would strengthen the hand of moderates arguing that the party must reclaim the centre to stay competitive. With party figures across the country jockeying for consideration in the 2028 presidential race, all eyes will be on how this one turns out.

In fewer than two weeks, voters will find out who will lead the Democrats into the general election at the end of this year. But as Hank Sheinkopf, who has worked on some 700 campaigns around the world, said, all bets on this race are off. “One given in New York politics,” he says, “is that nothing is predictable.”