A Word of Caution on the NYC Mayoral Race
Don't let pundits spin too many fantasies.
The week NYC voters go to the polls and the odds-on favorite to win is Zohan Mamdarni. Here is a sample of the most recent polls from the NYT. It stands to reason that the Democratic nominee would be polling ahead in the race, especially given that his opponents are a disgraced former Governor (Cuomo) and a sort of gimmick-based candidate (Sliwa). Even given Mamadani’s leftward politics and ethno-religious profile, this field of candidates should suggest he should be the favorite. The fact that it is a three-way race helps him with the math as well.
There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of speculative “analysis” laid down about what a Mamdani win means for national politics.
To which I would note the following blast from the past.
Not to pick on Nate Silver (and yes, it was foolish), it is just that this bit of punditry sticks in my head and was easy to quickly find. He was not the only person saying such things at the time.
Here’s a Politico piece along those lines: New York mayor offers national Dems a hand in 2024.
Nearly 18 months ago, after winning a crowded primary, Adams declared himself the future of the Democratic Party. And since he became mayor in January, Adams ratcheted up his role in national politics — hosting President Joe Biden to tout their shared vision on reducing crime, pushing for New York City to host the next Democratic National Convention and penning an op-ed advising Democrats on how to win back working-class voters.
[…]
Adams, a former police officer who was raised in a low-income household by a single mother, could prove a potent messenger for Democrats elsewhere in the country who struggle to talk convincingly about crime. And his broad support of policing and public safety dovetails with Biden’s and Jeffries’ stances.
And yet… (source).
Let’s all remember that Rudy Giuliani was going to build a national political following on the foundation of his mayoralty, having been “America’s Mayor” on 9/11. We all know how that turned out (and note his approval rating in the graphic above in 2000, his penultimate year in office). Michael Bloomberg and all his money weren’t able to turn his time in office into a serious presidential run, either.
Indeed, let’s note that most NYC mayors leave office with pretty poor approval. It is a hard job.
So, might there be something to learn from Mamdani’s youthful optimism or how he has used social media for campaigning? Perhaps. But be very, very wary of anyone who tries to tell you that he is the foregone future of the Democratic Party or some signal of a massive leftward turn.
It will be interesting to see how his term in office goes, but he is promising a lot that will be hard to deliver, and, as a general matter, New Yorkers seem to love to hate the Mayor over time.
There used to be a columnist and sports radio host in Dallas who, every Monday after a Cowboys loss or win, would declare “It’s overreaction Monday!” There is going to be a lot of overreaction this week; don’t fall for it.
Side note: it is kind of amusing, in a week wherein a lot of pundits are trying to tell us that the right move for Democrats is moderation, that the ostensibly more centrist candidate, Cuomo, is losing pretty badly. I don’t, for a moment, think that the median NYC voter is a Democratic Socialist, so maybe the simplistic analysis that many are engaged in is, I dunno, simplistic.
Come on. Last year at this time Mamdani was at 1% in the polls. People should overreact and read a huge amount into a young guy who came out of nowhere to beat a well-funded scion of a state political dynasty to be mayor of NYC. He ran an insanely good campaign and is an excellent candidate, and people who get paid to run campaigns or think about politics should be asking why and how, rather than pretending he’s just like Eric Adams, a long-term player in politics up to his eyeballs in the status quo and corruption.
Of course, his actual stint at mayoral is going to run into roadblocks at day one. From the sheer point of winning, who cares? Did he promise more than he’s going to deliver? That’s terrible. Can’t have that. Best be careful and get some useful advice from the source–pundits and billionaires.
@Modulo Myself:
Not my point.
Mamdani is ineligible to be president due to have been born in Uganda to Indian parents, so unless the Constitution is amended in a way no one’s expecting at this point, any “national” ambitions he may have are off the table.
The problem lies in the lazy pundit’s incessant search for the new future of the Democratic Party. The next mayor of NYC doesn’t need to be the next Obama, he “simply” needs to have some success enacting some progressive tax policy in the city with most millionaires in the US and undermining the myth of tax-related migration as an argument against soaking the rich.
Finding someone to run for POTUS as a Democrat in 2028 is a long-term project. Weakening the hold on power currently with the oligarchs can start sooner than that.
Pundits are going to pundit, after all, they need to write something.
Here is hoping that Mamdani avoids the trap that has ensnared too many progressives that have become mayors, district attorneys or achieved progressive majorities on city councils, forgetting that regardless of the grand plans which the voters bought into and elected you for, their first priorities are public safety, getting the trash picked up, the streets plowed (where appropriate) and the kids are educated. Do those things and make some progress on your plans and you’ll be successful.
I’m not following this, since there’s no suspense, but thank you for being the first “pundit” I’ve seen note the obvious awfulness of his opposition as the primary mover of his poll lead. If there are any lessons to be learned about campaigning, or positioning, or the dread “messaging”, they are, as @Modulo Myself: notes, in the primary. Where, per Steven Taylor, structure says the winner of the NY general was chosen months ago. And the awfulness of the GOP nominee also flows from the primary. Curtis Sliwa FFS?
Also, too, I wish the MSM would stop saying, “SOCIAL DEMOCRAT!! booga booga!!”. Maybe something like, “traditional Swedish style centrist”.
@gVOR10:
That R’s were so contemptuous of NYC that Sliwa, a joke of a candidate, has been the R nominee ton the last two mayoral elections. They run a joke, despite the fact that over the last 50+ years, a mayor elected as an R served for nearly half that time. In this election, a serious, moderate R wouldn’t be polling in the single digits as Sliwa is.
@gVOR10:
Yeah, Mamdani managed to defeat some very good candidates like Brad Lander in the primary. Cuomo was not only a bad candidate, he was somebody who should have been discouraged, in every which way, from running.
@Sleeping Dog:
De Blasio collided with the police when he halted stop and frisk. Crime didn’t go up, and that period now is like the golden age for hysterics terrified of crime. The police never forgave him for any of this and they attacked him non-stop in a way that’s much like Trump. I think the police propaganda arm and the hysteria brigade are in a far weaker position. Mamdani has made some minor gestures to the cops, and my hope is that it’s not going to be like de Blasio years with the police screaming about danger while crime rates go down. The rank-and-file is getting tired of this shit too.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I mean, I don’t even know what you’re point is. Lessons should be drawn when a guy comes out of nowhere to become (most likely) mayor of NYC. You can’t point to political structure or sports-fan logic as a factor in Mamdani winning the nomination.
There’s also a lesson in how Mamdani has dealt with MAGA-style disinfo and turned it to his advantage. This is what Clinton in 1992, by the way. Clinton was a draft dodger (in his own fashion), married to a feminist in a marriage with a public issue or two, and smoked some weed (also in his own fashion). Voters were excited with Clinton because they were tired of the lies about how dangerous it would be to have a guy who smoked some weed and had a wife with a real job. Mamdani has done the same in this campaign.
Has anyone seen the ads Cuomo has been running during this campaign? They’re literally indistinguishable from the ads Republicans routinely run against Dems, fear-mongering about socialism and Defund the Police (something Mamdani once defended but has since distanced himself from), and the other day he openly attacked the phrase “diversity is our strength.” He really doesn’t seem to be making the slightest effort to appeal to centrist Dems with reservations about Mamdani; instead he’s aiming for Republican voters who understand he’s more viable than Sliwa, all the while hoping certain low-info Dems will prefer him to Mamdani for pure surface-level reasons of his being a recent Democratic governor and Mamdani being a self-described socialist.
I’d caution against making all sorts of grand messaging or positioning conclusions, as New York City is special and this election is very special (running a sex pest former governor who resigned in disgrace really makes people pause to consider candidates who are less establishmenty), but Mamdami has some really good qualities that should translate everywhere:
1. Stands for something
2. Mostly positive
3. Fun
4. Pets bodega cat
It’s all very authentic seeming. Being young and attractive also helps.
@Modulo Myself:
Feeling defensive? I never mentioned nor considered De Blasio.
@Modulo Myself:
I suspect Doc Taylor is saying that the lessons to be drawn should not be policy lessons. A Mamdani win does not signify a great leftward shift in America. Doesn’t even necessarily signify a great leftward shift in NYC.
The way I see it is that Mamdani is unapologetic.
Perhaps more Democrats should try it.
@Kylopod: Also not my point.
I guess I was too unclear
I am warning against inferring so long-term, national political trend or movement from the NYC mayoral race.
@Scott F.:
Yup.
@Modulo Myself: Clinton was simultaneously a generational talent as a politician; ran against an incredibly thin Democratic primary field because GHW Bush was seen as unbeatable coming off the Gulf War; and then ran against a much-weakened Bush owing to a major primary challenge, the Ross Perot candidacy, and a recession. I don’t think it was an ideological referendum.
@Modulo Myself:
I honestly didn’t think I was all that unclear:
That and showing how Giuliani, Bloomberg, and Adams were all seen as telling us something about national politics, and ended up telling far less than many pundits thought.
Serious question: was it really that unclear?
@Modulo Myself:
Do you see any attempt in this post to explain much of anything about Mamdami in this post?
Also: I could talk very much about the role of ranked-choice voting in the primary (and of primaries in general and some commentary on fusion voting and its role in all of this), and the way partisanship affects the fact that Sliwa is the best the GOP is willing to offer.
Any particular reason you’re being so confrontational?
@Modulo Myself:
I am a wee bit skeptical that those are the lessons to take away from Clinton’s win in 1992.
Any particular reason you’re being so confrontational?
Sure, I can see it coming a mile away: national Democrats disowning this victory as fast as they can in favor of endless drudgery about median voters worrying about crime in the cities because they aren’t configured to do anything except talk about median voters, crime in the cities, and why 70-something candidates offer the vibrant new blood America is looking for. There’s also the fact that Mamdani represents the clear national consensus of Democrats on Israel and they’re freaked out about that. Schumer’s like an old society lady (with a husband in a different house far away) who will be friends with a divorced woman but will never let her through the front door.
And re: Clinton–pushing past Reagan-era social hypocrisies was a huge reason for voters turning out. Voters were tired of the hypocrisy and the consequences for being caught. Was it the sole reason he won? Of course not. Gay people turned out for Clinton even after DOMA and the military because at least they could say they were gay in public. Look how crazy the Republicans went over Hillary and the plot to kill Vince Foster because of an Arkansas coke ring. That’s why they went crazy.
@Modulo Myself: I guess my honest reaction is: what does any of that have to do with me or my post?
Mamdani will win in NYC. Spanberger and (let’s hope) Sherril will win their races.
And then all the pundits will be screaming at each other that either one or the other is the True Way Forward.
And of course both sides will miss the obvious — that having both a real liberal and some moderates win in different districts is exactly the True Way Forward. You put up candidates who appeal to voters in a particular area and then don’t burden them with consultants who turn them into cookie cutter politicians.
Election results in New York City, or California should never be used as a barometer for National politics/sentiment. It’s a mistake.
@Steven L. Taylor:
With respect, it wasn’t totally clear given that you mentioned the ill-fated campaigns of Rudy and Bloomberg without clarifying that this could never happen with Mamdani (barring of course changes to the Constitution none of us is expecting anytime soon). But even with the point you were trying to make, I think it was worth mentioning because I’ve run across more than a few people who are unaware of it, and who discuss the significance of the race in terms of Mamdani’s supposed national ambitions.
@Kylopod: Fair enough.
It just seemed obvious, but no doubt it is not obvious to everyone.
@Steven L. Taylor: Billionaires like Bloomberg disagree with you on this. They are spending millions to shut down the type of rhetoric that Mamdani has been so successful with.
“Eat the rich” style politics has never really gained ground in the United States, because our oligarchy and state-controlled media have effectively shut it down before it could gain momentum.
That’s why he is so dangerous to the oligarchs. Mamdani has the ear of the ordinary people. And his message resonates particularly well in an era of a billionaire president and his friends holding Great Gatsby parties at a Florida beach resort known for child sex trafficking.
He doesn’t need to be president in order to be very, very disruptive to the status quo.
@Tony W: Sigh.
I am not saying he is insignificant.
I am not saying that monied interests aren’t opposing him.
I am saying that the mayor of NYC is not as important to shaping national politics as we constantly act like it is the case.
Exactly how disruptive to the status quo he can be is going to be directly linked to how successful he can be in office, and the general track record of even less ambitious mayors does not bode well for him.
Should he end up being transformative in some way, that will be very interesting, but I have my doubts, and I have some strong evidence to stand on.
We probably wouldn’t get this excited about this office if the timing were different. It gets outsized attention because it is an off-term, and not even a mid-term, election.
Quite frankly, I think some of the push-back I am getting in comments here is kind of making my point: people are getting more invested in this election than I think is warranted.
If he sparks some kind of governance revolution over the next year that reshapes the midterms or helps propel AOC to the leadership of the Dems heading into 2028, or some other outcome of significance, I will certainly write a post as to why I was wrong.
The more likely outcome is that he is going to face significant obstacles and will lose popularity over the course of his tenure in office. This pattern is pretty consistent.
And BTW, billionaires have spent huge sums against normie Democrats as well. Billionaires spending money against political opponents is not a sign of much of anything except the political preference of the billionaire doing the spending in the given race.
@Kylopod:
Aren’t there a lot of national positions short of actual POTUS..?
Sort of?
@Steven L. Taylor:
Depending of course, in what manner and towards what effect they are so “invested.” Because the other two candidates, Cuomo and Sliwa are total creeps, and and all Mamdami has attached to his name (other than xenophobic slurs) is “democratic socialist.”
@Scott F.:
Essential.
@Rob1:
I am not taking about preferring Mamdani wins (I do as well, FWIW).
I am talking about reading too much into said victory.