
Washington Democrats don't know whether to panic or surrender to left-wing Mamdani's playbook after NYC race shocker
Democrats in Washington and the media were falling over each other on Wednesday and Thursday to insist that the party as a whole should not follow the democratic socialist bent of Zohran Mamdani after the 33-year-old pulled off an upset victory in the New York mayoral primary. Defying the polls, Mamdani beat former governor Andrew Cuomo in the first round of voting — even as Cuomo's camp went into the day boasting of being ahead.
Mamdani, they argue, does not provide a policy mold for other Democrats to fit themselves into, given New York's status as a deep-blue stronghold where a Republican is largely assumed to have no shot of winning in November.
They're correct about the electorate itself not being representative of the country as a whole. But the panic among a certain generation of Democrats, especially in the days leading up to Mamdani's victory, is indicative of a party elite with some glaring vulnerabilities that were once again laid bare on Tuesday.
Eleven months after former President Joe Biden stepped down from his re-election bid and forced his party into an accelerated catch-up sprint with around 100 days to go, the party's centrist establishment once again pinned all of their hopes (and cash) on an unpopular, aging statesman beset by ethical concerns.
Guess what happened next?
Not even a massive onslaught of Michael Bloomberg's wealth could save Cuomo, who remained well behind Mamdani throughout the night as votes were counted. None of the multitude of Democrats who once called on Cuomo to resign over sexual misconduct allegations could give a clear explanation for their change of heart — or why they weren't backing one of Mamdani's numerous other rivals.
Axios's Alex Thompson, speaking on After Party with Emily Jashinsky, described the mindset of party leadership, whom he said told voters: 'This is the best candidate. Eat your vegetables.'
For the second time in as many years, it didn't work.
With a new reality setting in, the party's caucuses in Washington are split over how to view Mamdani, who now is very likely to become one of the most prominent Democratic politicians in the country. Progressives, of course, are openly embracing him. A few members of the party's establishment have come around as well, like Rep. Jerry Nadler, who endorsed him on Thursday.
Others have not.
Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, both from New York and the two highest-ranking Democrats on the hill, have not made official endorsements of Mamdani's campaign for the general election (yet). Both are facing calls from prominent progressives to be challenged in their own primaries next year. Tom Suozzi, a Democrat in a front line district in the state, openly tweeted his reservations about the state assemblyman after his victory.
The coverage of the race clearly plays a role here. Even as Mamdani himself was laser-focused on the issue of affordability in New York City, his association with the Democratic Socialists of America and his opposition to Israel's war in Gaza received an intense focus from a controversy-hungry mainstream political press. Even Mamdani's joint interview with cross-endorser Brad Lander on Stephen Colbert's Late Show was dominated by talk about Israel and Palestine.
Front-line Democrats still fear any association with their party's far-left, whom they mainly view as a punching bag in tough election years. And party leaders in Washington still feel they have to cater to those representatives and senators, whose fates are so closely tied to the party's ability to fundraise in future cycles.
A larger coalition, however, is taking some non-controversial lessons from Mamdani's victory — or, at least, lessons that would be non-controversial anywhere besides the Democratic Party.
Voters, they argue, were certain to back the younger candidate less tied to the party's establishment in a year when more and more voters (especially millennials, who were a leading part of Mamdani's voter coalition) have lost faith in the party's establishment to lead themselves, let alone anyone else.
They were also less likely to pick a candidate with such obvious baggage as Cuomo under the argument that a former governor who resigned in disgrace under a cloud of allegations was somehow the stronger pick come November. Especially when the city's voters were already weary of the evolving scandal around Mayor Eric Adams, who dropped out of the Democratic primary while under a corruption probe.
Progressives and moderates cease their agreement after this point. The party's centrists will argue that the successful characteristics of Mamdani's appeal can be replicated in a candidate outside of the party's left wing. Progressives disagree, claiming that the kind of personal connection to voters only exists among more populist candidates, especially younger ones. They also point to Mamdani's massive army of volunteers, which they argue is directly tied to lefty organizations like DSA.
And they argue that Cuomo, like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris before him, couldn't articulate a vision for their governance at all
If nothing else, Tuesday's election results in New York sent one clear message to party leaders. Their efforts to shut out the progressive wing by throwing big-name endorsements and the crushing weight of big donor money behind weak candidates who have seen too many election cycles will increasingly be met with failure, unless the party can actually convince voters that the center-left has an exciting bench of charismatic younger leaders to pick up the torch.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Record
15 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Time to park our fears over Trump and use trip to smooth relations with UK
Record View says Trump won't be President forever - so we must play a long-term game to secure a key international relationship. Nobody should be surprised that President Trump's trip to Scotland will generate protests throughout the country. Now in his second term, Trump is a menace who has caused chaos at home and abroad. His inability to accept defeat to Joe Biden in 2020 undermined US democracy and his support for the January 6th insurrectionists was nauseating. He callously undermined President Zelensky on live TV and his fawning over Vladimir Putin is disgusting. The fact he is a convicted felon is another justification for Scots to take to the street. But we also have to separate the man from the office he holds. Scotland and the UK have strong ties with the US going back centuries. The UK and the US have fought wars together and share security intelligence in a way that keeps both countries safe. Trump was elected by over 70 million Americans and we must respect that. Furthering our economic interests is another reason for Keir Starmer and John Swinney to meet Trump. His tariffs are akin to a wrecking ball and if positive relations with Trump reduce the levies, so be it. Starmer seems to have the ear of the President and using leverage with him on Gaza and Ukraine would be sensible. Trump is a difficult man with a volatile temper who doesn't like being challenged. But the UK is adept at soft power and the five-day trip should be used to smooth relations with the UK, not aggravate them. He won't be President forever so we must play a long-term game to secure a key international relationship. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. Sort out compo The eye-watering sums paid out by Police Scotland in employment tribunal cases should give cause for concern at a time when it's strapped for cash and making savings. The non-disclosure agreements signed by both parties just adds to the air of secrecy surrounding these claims. The robust nature of police work means there will always be staff grievances and complaints from the public. However Scotland's opposition parties are right to raise concerns that monies paid in compensation mean less cash for frontline policing and crime fighting. While the Scottish Police Federation, which represents most of the claimants, says the force needs to act quicker when they come to it with complaints. The Scottish government in turn insists it brought in new legislation to improve the complaints system. Politicians and police should get round the table and fix this once and for all. We are sure the public would not complain about that.


Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Victory for Christian foster mom agency tried to ban after she said she wouldn't give trans child hormones
A widowed Christian mom-of-five scored a major legal victory after a federal appeals court ruled that the state of Oregon violated her constitutional rights by barring her from adopting foster children because of her refusal to support gender transitions. Jessica Bates, who says her faith prevents her from using preferred pronouns or facilitating hormone treatments, was blocked by the state after she said she could not affirm an LGBTQ + child's identity. She sued - and now, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with her, calling the state's policy a violation of her free speech and religious freedom. 'This is a win not just for me, but for people of faith who want to help kids without compromising their beliefs,' Bates said after the ruling. In a 2-1 decision issued on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) policy that effectively barred Bates from becoming a foster parent. Bates was refusing to comply with the state's requirement to 'respect, accept and support' a foster child's gender identity and sexual orientation. 'We hold that Oregon's policy violates the First Amendment as applied to Bates,' wrote Judge Daniel Bress in the court's majority opinion, joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins. The court ordered a preliminary injunction blocking the state from using its current policy to prevent Bates from moving forward with the adoption process. Bates, who lives in Malheur County, said she felt 'called by God' to care for additional children after losing her husband. The five children she already has are her biological kids. She had hoped to adopt two siblings under the age of nine but was disqualified after refusing to sign a commitment to fully affirm an LGBTQ+ child's identity, including using chosen names and pronouns or providing access to gender-related medical treatments. 'I believe God gives us our gender/sex and it's not something we get to choose,' Bates wrote in her application. 'I have no problem loving them and accepting them as they are, but I would not encourage them in this behavior.' The state of Oregon argued that its policy is essential to ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable children in its custody. But the appeals court disagreed, finding the regulation was overly broad and imposed an unconstitutional burden on Bates' free speech and religious liberty. 'It is not narrowly tailored to impose on Bates an extreme and blanket rule that she may adopt no child at all based on her religious faith,' Bress wrote. The court emphasized that the state could simply avoid placing LGBTQ+ children with Bates while still allowing her to foster or adopt. The lone dissent came from Judge Richard Clifton, who warned that Bates was seeking to foster 'only on her terms,' and that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting children from potential rejection or harm. 'Parents would not be expected to entrust their children to caregivers who volunteer that they will not respect the child's self-determined gender identity,' Clifton wrote. The case has drawn national attention and praise from conservative groups, including the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented Bates. 'Because caregivers like Jessica cannot promote Oregon's dangerous gender ideology to young kids and take them to events like pride parades, the state considers them to be unfit parents,' said ADF senior counsel Jonathan Scruggs. 'That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home. The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state's ideological crusade.' In an interview with KGW8, Bates reiterated her commitment to loving all children in her care, but said she would not affirm an LGBTQ+ identity or allow permanent medical interventions like hormone therapy. 'I'm still gonna love them deeply,' she said. 'But just like my biologicals, I probably will not allow them to do any, like, permanent... hormone injections, anything that's going to rob them of their God-given body.' Bates said she would not use a child's chosen name or pronouns and would instead steer the conversation toward her Christian faith. 'God makes our identity,' she said. 'It might not feel like a gift right now... but that's something actually really special, and you are beautiful and perfect, just how you are right now.' Asked whether she would reject an LGBTQ+ child, Bates said she would never kick a child out - except in cases of 'sexually aberrant' behavior. 'The Christian sex ethic is very narrow and simple... any of the sexual activity that's outside of God's defined institution of marriage is something I would not be OK with in my house,' she added. The court's decision now sends the case back to a lower court in Oregon, where Bates' constitutional claims will be reconsidered under strict scrutiny - the most rigorous standard in constitutional law. Historically, policies that fail this test are rarely upheld. ODHS has not yet said whether it plans to appeal the decision, but a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Justice acknowledged the setback. 'We are disappointed in the ruling but are reviewing to determine next steps,' said Jenny Hansson. Meanwhile, Bates says she intends to continue the foster care certification process - and insists that her position is about faith, not hatred. 'I would hope that we would have open communication,' she said. 'But I would probably, you know, remind them of Christ, my Christian faith that... God makes our identity, and that's something sacred and holy.' The ruling is expected to have wide ramifications for how states balance nondiscrimination policies with religious freedom in the child welfare system and is already being hailed by Christian conservatives as a landmark win in the culture wars.


Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Why Candace Owens claims Brigette Macron was born a man, her 'war against perverts who run the world'... and why that's not even the most controversial part
The Duchess of Sussex is 'despicably racist', the Covid-19 vaccine is 'pure evil' and 'secret Jewish gangs' are doing 'horrific things' in Hollywood. Followers of the firebrand Right-wing commentator Candace Owens have become accustomed to endlessly outlandish opinions.