Opinion - The New York City Mayoral Election Represents a Monumental Step Forward For the Democratic Party and New Yorkers

By: Luca Simián

Photo credit: Pixabay

On June 24th, 2025, I was 100 feet from my local polling station in Bed-Stuy. I had been there since 6:00 AM, and the heat was reaching its peak in the mid-90s. I was volunteering for Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani and, together with a few others, trying to engage those coming to vote in a conversation about the election to potentially sway their vote. A middle-aged man turned the corner onto the block and started walking towards the polling place. Intercepting him, I said, “Hi there, sir, are you on your way to vote today?” He looked at me, slightly annoyed, and answered that he was. Once I got his attention, I told him how I’d been out here for nine hours and wasn’t going home anytime soon because I firmly believed it was of the utmost importance that we had a mayor who was laser-focused on affordability. I told him about my experiences living in a rent-stabilized apartment and taking the bus every day. He seemed unsure about Mamdani, so I urged him to at least rank Mamdani somewhere on his ballot. He shrugged me off at the 100-foot line (after which I, as a campaign volunteer, had to stop) and headed into the polling place. On his way back out, I asked him out of curiosity if he had ranked Zohran. He said, “Yeah, I did. I respect the hustle of you guys being out here all day, and I like the energy of his campaign, so I ranked him. But I think he’s too young to win. Maybe next time.” After a few more hours of speaking to voters, I went home to watch the election results with my dad, cautiously optimistic that Mamdani might have a chance, but expecting a long and drawn-out count on top of many ranked-choice related complications. At 9:30 PM that night, Mamdani was declared the winner of the Democratic primary. 

Of course, a general election would follow, but at that point, it was practically a formality, due to vote-splitting between Republican Curtis Sliwa and Cuomo running as an Independent, and money for anti-Mamdani PACs drying up (PACs are political action committees, which can pay for advertising or field operations, and they are the main way that wealthy people donate money, due to limits on individual contributions directly to campaigns). Zohran Mamdani would be the next mayor of New York, defeating disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo, and making national and even international news. I believe this election deserves all the attention it has received and represents a foundational change in American politics. While many rush to disregard the outcome of this election as an example of a left-wing city choosing a left-wing mayor, this misses the profound differences between this election and that of previous Democratic candidates. 

To begin with the obvious, Mamdani is very young. As the gentleman I spoke with on election day said (and many assumed), Mamdani was simply too young and inexperienced to win such an important election, especially one against someone as experienced in government as Andrew Cuomo. Furthermore, despite some moderation on finer points of policy, Mamdani stuck to his left-wing populism throughout the general election and still beat a more moderate and “safe” candidate twice. There are many more reasons Mamdani should never have had a chance: he refused to waver from his support of Palestine, he started with virtually zero name recognition and polling at one percent, the Cuomo campaign was bankrolled by wealthy New Yorkers at an unprecedented scale, Cuomo started with the support of many key unions, Zohran was an unapologetic socialist. Yet, Zohran Mamdani won more than 50% of the votes on general election day, a figure that means he would have won even if Curtis Sliwa had dropped out. Why? There are many reasons, and they represent key lessons Democrats and any left-of-center Americans would do well to learn from:

Social Media and Mamdani’s Influence

Mamdani’s campaign was exceptionally successful on social media, creating a clear aesthetic and flooding algorithms with engaging, short, and populist-focused videos that made use of Mamdani’s natural charisma. These videos were excellent examples of “earned media” or ways of getting attention without spending money on ads. Democrats, and especially Democratic leaders in the last decade, have struggled to do this. While that’s partially due to many Democrats being older and not accustomed to social media in the way that a younger candidate might be, President Trump has been more effective at getting attention than perhaps any politician ever. Part of the reason for this success is simply that Trump says outrageous, and often horrible and offensive things. But part of it is that Trump has excellent political instincts and a natural charisma. Democrats, as of late, have been led nationally by politicians with little ability to naturally win over and connect with working-class voters (see: Hilary Clinton 2016, Joe Biden after inflation began to rise, Kamala Harris). Often, these candidates have been given an advantage (Biden getting to change the order of primary elections) or outright chosen (Harris being nominated without a primary) by the elite. The Democratic establishment tried to do this in the New York election through large donations to Andrew Cuomo and affiliated PACs, but failed. Allowing for more direct democracy in Democratic primaries will lead to more politically talented candidates like Mamdani to emerge, rather than the aforementioned less talented (and almost always unsuccessful) “establishment” candidates. It will also allow for candidates better at getting their message out in today’s media environment, like Mamdani, to rise to the top, and such candidates will go a long way in helping the Democrats at all levels.

Simple, Populist, and Focused Campaign

Secondly, Mamdani had a clear, popular campaign. His policies could be summed up easily in slogans (Freeze the Rent, Make Buses Fast and Free, Free Childcare for All, etc.). They were exclusively on affordability. This simplicity made it clear to voters what he cared about, and their focus on the most important issue to voters made his campaign instantly appealing to working-class voters. Democratic positions generally poll better than Republican ones nationally, but Democrats often muddle their campaigns with less popular positions they feel forced to take by advocacy groups and/or important, but not politically helpful, cultural issues. In contrast, Zohran’s website and platform feature almost no cultural issues, and instead heavily emphasize his popular economic positions. This unwavering focus on affordability spoke to the very voters that Democrats in other parts of America and government are losing ground with: non-college-educated working-class voters. This simple populism has been totally lacking in recent Democratic campaigns: how many Harris or Biden policies can you remember? How many of those appeal to working-class voters? That needs to change before Democrats can win significant power anytime soon.

Energizing Young People

Kamala Harris lost ground with young people in 2024. The Democratic brand is historically unpopular with young voters. Mamdani, on the other hand, saw historic engagement from young people at the voting booth and volunteering for him. Democrats need to re-engage young people to be able to piece together a successful coalition in any election, and they’d do well to learn from why Mamdani’s campaign was so successful with young people: Zohran represented the exact opposite of the spineless, old, and inactive Democratic elite. He’s young, not afraid to speak his mind, and in agreement with younger voters on issues like Israel-Palestine, which many Democrats were out of step with young voters on. 

Conclusion

In all, though Democrats can’t nominate a candidate with the policy positions of Zohran Mamdani in many places outside of the city, they must learn from his campaign by instituting clear populist campaigning, democratically nominating charismatic candidates, and taking steps to win back young people. Democrats cannot continue to field candidates from the past, lack engagement on social media, fail to appeal to young and working class voters, and be the party voters trust less on the economy.