Why the ‘Establishment’ Didn’t Get Mamdani

Candidates still matter

Despite claims of a mandate, Donald Trump has roused a large majority of Americans to disapprove of his signature positions, such as militarizing cities, exacting revenge on opponents, and conducting brutal mass deportations. Tens of millions seem to have voted for him despite, not because, of these policies. This should not be surprising.

Beyond Trump, Democratic consultants and political reporters alike seem confused about what matters to real voters in mayoral, governor, and presidential races. Certainly, the media obsessively pepper Democratic candidates about their detailed stances on a checklist of issues, although their answers have less and less to do with the candidate voters select. Voters overwhelmingly express views about Trump’s disastrous policies that match Kamala Harris’s critiques. (Since Republicans do not bother with problem-solving, the legacy media straining to normalize the MAGA party’s descent into nihilism do not interrogate them on policy specifics.)

We can attribute the declining relevance of policies at the ballot box to low-information voters or cynicism. (Politicians don’t do what they say, so why ask about policies?) Although policy activists bemoan or refute this development, anyone who thought the 2024 presidential race was a battle of policies must have been watching another contest.

Despite all contrary evidence, a great many Democratic insiders nevertheless stubbornly fixate on candidates’ positions, try to weed out whatever smacks of “extremism” or “unelectability,” and urge candidates to downplay certain issues. One group of Democrats wants to move to the center (less about LGBTQ+ rights!); a group of former White House staffers wants to move further to the left (less about crime!). Frankly, they have lost the plot, at least regarding mayoral, gubernatorial, and presidential races, where voters look for a standard bearer or champion (unlike legislative races, where votes want to know how candidates will vote).

Fixation with policy specifics and preconceived ideas about who is electable prompted a spate of establishment Democrats to freak out and entirely misread the electorate in the New York Mayor’s race, which Zohran Mamdani is expected to win easily on Tuesday. Despite millions spent by “moderates” and monied interests to demonize Mamdani, millions of New Yorkers seem not to care about Mamdani’s identification as a socialist or views on the Middle East.

Voters saw a dynamic, young outsider willing to confront the super-rich on “affordability.” Mamdani’s campaign was more than the sum of a list of policies. Voters frankly did not focus on whether each agenda item (e.g., free bus rides) made economic sense. Mamdani is someone eager to go up against the rich and powerful, who have flourished while fewer ordinary workers can afford to live in the five boroughs. That is what voters want.

Running corrupt, disgraced (but more moderate!) political hacks backed by billionaires was as dumb a move as the “establishment” could have made. It was exactly what Mamdani needed to make this a contest between two visions of the city.

Mamdani’s persona and background were pluses, not negatives—as big-spending donors assumed. The latter missed something more salient in recent elections: the generational factor.

Millions of voters think politicians are too old, too boring, and too phony. Mamdani is roughly half the age of his two main opponents. He talks about issues many younger voters care about; he is magnetic; and he is fluent on social media, just as they are. He is not only authentic, but relatable to people who have otherwise lost interest in politics and/or abhor cookie-cutter, platitude-spouting, consultant-shaped candidats.

Democratic stodgy insiders seem not to appreciate that Gen Z-ers and Millenials are also more diverse than older generations. (And many white people in these age brackets have grown up, unlike their parents, among people whose religions, races, ethnicities, and languages differ than their own.) Along comes Mamdani, speaking from an immigrant’s vantage point about the values that have allowed New York to flourish as one of the most diverse cities on the planet. Entirely without pretense, he relates effortlessly with a swath of voters in a way that older, white politicians simply cannot. And while he has a specific religious and racial identity, he has given voice to New Yorkers of all backgrounds who feel overlooked by the white, rich power structure.

This clash between insiders and outsiders came to a head in the campaign’s closing days. As the New York Times reported, Mamdani cut a mesmerizing video, which has gotten 25M plays. “Standing outside the Islamic Cultural Center of the Bronx, Mr. Mamdani spoke, sometimes tearfully, describing his experiences with his faith, identity and Islamophobia, and the tendency among Muslims, including himself, to feel they need to play down their identity to succeed,” the Times reported. Affirming he will no longer “live in the shadows,” he recounted his opponents’ escalating racism, which has become horrifyingly acceptable in political circles.

The video is gripping:

Emotional reactions to the video poured in, the Times reported: “It reminded me of Obama’s speech on race in 2008,” said one voter, an Arab-American professor. “He’s responding to a moment of prejudice in the campaign the way Obama did… [a]ddressing it head on, instead of taking the high road of silence.” Another Muslim voter said, “It wasn’t just political — it felt personal. His courage in calling out Islamophobia head on, while standing firm in his principles, was both inspiring and validating.”

You cannot poll-test that. And that is the point. If politics were just, or even primarily, about position papers, we could dispense with candidates altogether. But the person is what many, if not most, people vote for in mayoral, gubernatorial, and presidential races. Whose side are you on? Do you understand my life? Do you care? (And to bond with voters, a candidate certainly must hold eyeballs, cut through noise, transcend politics, and generate real enthusiasm.)

Those larger emotional questions, not perfectly modulated and poll-tested positions on dozens of issues, will determine many races, almost certainly the presidency. Insisting candidates massage ideas to offend the fewest voters is a recipe for low turnout and defeat. (Policy gurus: first find a winning candidate, prepare the brilliant agenda to govern later.)

In sum, winning candidates need not come from the same mold. Assumptions about “electability” needs to be rethought; voters decide who moves them. Particularly in a big tent party, forcing ideological conformity is self-defeating, if not impossible. Some winning candidates may happen to be progressive, others may happen to be moderate. But the key remains the candidate. Just ask New York voters.