
Does Zohran Mamdani's surprise victory in the New York mayor race prove that progressive ideas can win elections?
America is used to political drama, but a Democratic Party upset in New York has stunned some life into even the most cynical insiders.
Zohran Mamdani – a self-described democratic socialist (the 'S-word' is long considered kryptonite in US politics) and a relatively inexperienced member of the New York State Assembly – has defeated former state governor Andrew Cuomo to be the Democrats' chosen candidate for the mayoral election in November.
Cuomo was ousted in a sexual harassment scandal four years ago, and had been working towards a comeback. But in securing this win, 33-year-old newcomer Mamdani hasn't just shut out a titan of New York politics – he's given the Democratic Party its first real jolt of energy since it lost the White House last year.
Mamdani's victory wasn't an 'ABC' (Anyone But Cuomo) victory. For those outside the US – or even outside New York – Mamdani is a new name. He's the son of Ugandan academic Mahmood Mamdani and filmmaker Mira Nair, and grew up partly in East Africa before settling in the city. Elected to the state Assembly in 2020 – New York's lower elected house, closest to the UK's devolved governments, Mamdani is part of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and represents a gentrifying slice of western Queens.
He speaks the language of renters, immigrants and low-income workers – not in abstract policy terms, but with urgency and clarity. And that's what made this campaign take off. His platform focused on freezing rent, expanding tenants' rights, offering free buses, mostly paid for by a hefty new tax on the wealthy – solutions often dismissed by the establishment as too radical.
Mamdani ran a serious and organised campaign that beat its opposition with door-knocking, community trust and conviction. It's a sign that the progressive movement is finally maturing: no longer just shouting from the sidelines, it's now winning tough fights with party machinery.
The race also confirms my theory about something deeper in the current political mood. American voters, across ideological lines, are desperate for someone to 'flip the f***in' table'.
I came up with that phrase while working on Kamala Harris' presidential campaign last year, and I keep returning to it. People didn't vote for Donald Trump because they admired his criminality, racism or misogyny – they voted for him, despite all that, because he was the only candidate who promised to break the system.
Working people don't care who flips the table – Trump or Mamdani – as long as someone does.
I'm incredibly proud to have worked on the Harris campaign, but we struggled to articulate a path to improving the lives of voters who feel locked out, left behind and lied to. The system isn't working, and they didn't see change in our campaign. Whether it's the populist right or the democratic left, these people will rally behind whoever makes them feel heard. In 2024, that was Trump. Now, it's Mamdani.
Of course, Mamdani is not without controversy. He drew national attention for his past support for the Palestinian cause, including a 2021 protest chant to 'globalise the intifada'. In a city with more Jewish residents than Tel Aviv, this would typically be politically suicidal. But Mamdani has made a sharp distinction between opposing Israeli government policy and antisemitism – a feat that seems to have eluded practically every left-wing politician on the planet (see Jeremy Corbyn). He's spoken forcefully and repeatedly that Palestinian liberation must also mean protection for Jewish New Yorkers.
As Brad Lander – the Jewish comptroller of New York City, who ran a collaborative campaign with Mamdani to make the most of ranked-choice voting – told Stephen Colbert: 'No mayor is going to be responsible for what happens in the Middle East, but there is something quite remarkable about a Jewish New Yorker and a Muslim New Yorker coming together to say: 'Here's how we protect all New Yorkers. Jewish New Yorkers and Muslim New Yorkers are not going to be divided from each other.''
So what did Democrats just do? Whether they realise it or not, they might have finally chosen a direction. Mamdani's victory won't sit easily with the party's corporate donors or centrist strategists – but then we tried their way in 2016 and 2024. Instead, it offers something they've lacked for months: a vision.
Mamdani's win is proof that progressive ideas can win elections, that authenticity beats mediocrity, and that voters want more than messaging – they want someone who lives their struggles and means it when they say they'll change it. Mamdani has finally done what I've advised, hoped and craved someone would: Flipped the f***ing table.
New Yorkers rightly crave a representative who understands what it is like to live in cramped, overpriced apartments and make long commutes on a struggling subway. A Ugandan-born socialist millennial Muslim may just have given the Democrats the shot in their arm that the national party needs.
Hashtags

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


BBC News
15 minutes ago
- BBC News
Trump on a high after 'tremendous' wins at home and abroad
Donald Trump's week began with an on-air expletive as he lost his cool over his mounting frustrations with Iran and Israel's shaky ended with a beaming US president holding court at the White House - not once, but twice - as he celebrated a series of significant political victories at home and was in a triumphant mood, answering questions for more than an hour at a news conference that turned into a meandering boast of his a look at four big wins from this week, as well as a reminder of some things that didn't go entirely the president's way. 1. An 'unbelievable' strike and a ceasefire The successful US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on 21 June was followed just three days later by Trump's announcement of a "complete and total" ceasefire in what he termed the "12-day war" between Israel and Iran. It had a rocky start. Not long before the announcement, Iran fired off ballistic missiles at a US airbase in Qatar, sparking fears of a wider war across the Persian Gulf. Even after the ceasefire, things seemed tenuous. Both sides were quickly accused of breaking it, prompting an angry, expletive-laden tirade to reporters on the White House lawn. By his own admission, Trump only narrowly managed to convince Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call off further attacks on Iran. But ultimately the ceasefire held, allowing the president to proudly claim that his military gamble of an "unbelievable" strike on Iran worked, and point to evidence that he is a "peacemaker" - a sorely needed win as peace continues to elude him in both Gaza and Ukraine. Hegseth talks up strikes in Iran in push for public approval 2. Nato's commitment to 'Daddy' Trump was on his way to the Netherlands for the Nato summit when he got a text from Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, lavishing praise on him for the strikes on Iran - texts the president was more than happy to make his whirlwind visit to the summit, US allies committed to 5% defence spending, something the president had repeatedly and vocally called during a joint press conference, Rutte referred to Trump as "Daddy", a reference to the president being able to broker a ceasefire between Israel and has seemed to embrace the moniker. "I think he likes me. If he doesn't...I'll come back and hit him hard," Trump said at a news conference, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio laughing beside him. "He did it very affectionately." Soon after, the White House posted various videos of a victorious-looking Trump with the caption "daddy's home". Trump takes victory lap at Nato - but questions remain 3. A 'giant win' at the Supreme Court Trump's week ended on a high note with the news that the Supreme Court issued a ruling that will curb judges' power to block his orders nationwide. While the ruling stems from a case regarding Trump's ability to end birthright citizenship for children of some immigrants, it has sweeping implications. It will be harder for lower courts to challenge Trump's domestic agenda through what Attorney General Pam Bondi described as an "endless barrage" of injunctions. At an impromptu news conference, the president hailed the ruling as a "monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law". The decision allows him to pursue a number of other policy items that had been thwarted by injunctions, including freezing funds to so-called "sanctuary cities" that stand in the way of his mass deportation drive, suspending refugee resettlement, and preventing tax money being used to fund gender surgeries. The president smiled and cracked jokes, inviting reporters to ask more and more questions, as his aides - including Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt - sat smiling beside him. "This was a tremendous win, and we've had tremendous wins," he said at the end. "But this was a tremendous win today." Court ruling expands Trump's power - he intends to use it 4. A peace deal in Africa Some potential worries for the White House The week hasn't been all victories and roses for Trump. The president's biggest legislative priority - a massive tax bill he's dubbed the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" - has hit some roadblocks. Trump has repeatedly urged lawmakers to get it on to his desk to sign into law by 4 July, Independence Day in the US. But earlier this week, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough said that certain provisions violated Senate rules, throwing billions of dollars of cuts into doubt."This is part of the process. This part is part of the workings of the United States Senate," Karoline Leavitt said earlier this week. "But the president is adamant about seeing this bill on his desk here at the White House by Independence Day." And while Trump has hailed the ceasefires in Iran - as well as those in central Africa and last month between Pakistan and India - as victories, he has so far faltered on two of his biggest promises for peace: in Gaza and Ukraine."We're working on that one," Trump said of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine at Friday's news conference, where he did not mention the end of US military involvement in Iran is not guaranteed. During the news conference, Trump was asked by the BBC if he would consider bombing Iran again if he believed they were re-starting their nuclear programme. "Sure, without question, absolutely," he responded.


Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
REVEALED: America's most powerful judges who protect the Constitution locked in a toxic, secret battle...
A fiery dispute between two of America's most powerful judges was on public display on Friday as the Supreme Court handed down a bombshell opinion on birthright citizenship. The nine justices who sit on the court frequently tout that relationships between them, despite deep ideological divides, are cordial. But as they wrestle with issues that have left the US bitterly divided, not all of the spats between them fall directly along their political party lines - hinting that they might just not like each other on a personal level. The justices' secret personal feuds have seemingly become so fraught that they are counting down the days until the SCOTUS summer recess - which will be a welcome respite from both work and colleagues, according to Chief Justice John Roberts. This week, the court's liberal wing erupted in spectacular fashion against the six-judge conservative alliance during the biggest ruling of the year thus far. Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett, 53, ripped into liberal dissenter Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's arguments in her 6-3 majority opinion in a major birthright citizenship case, with comments that come close to mocking her intellectual rival. Writing for the conservative majority of the court, Barrett hit back at both Jackson and fellow Justice Sonia Sotomayor who dissented. Barrett's scorched earth reply took aim at Jackson mostly, spending 900 words to repeatedly rip into the Biden appointee and the court's most junior member. At one point, Barrett's comments came close to mocking her intellectual rival. She wrote: 'Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.' Barrett accused Jackson of mounting a 'startling line of attack', which in her view was no 'tethered to any doctrine whatsoever'. Some lines resemble jabs from a political debate. 'Justice Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands 'universal adherence,' at least where the Executive is concerned,' goes one. In perhaps the most sneering comment, Barrett writes: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Jackson had issued ominous warnings in her own blistering dissent. 'Disaster looms,' she said. 'What I mean by this is that our rights-based legal system can only function properly if the Executive, and everyone else, is always bound by law. 'Today's decision is a seismic shock to that foundational norm. Allowing the Executive to violate the law at its prerogative with respect to anyone who has not yet sued carves out a huge exception—a gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound,' she wrote. 'What is more, to me, requiring courts themselves to provide the dagger (by giving their imprimatur to the Executive Branch's intermittent lawlessness) makes a mockery of the Judiciary's solemn duty to safeguard the rule of law,' she added. Jackson, 71, cited a ruling about the 'accretion of dangerous power, and wrote that the Court has 'cleared a path for the Executive to choose law-free action at this perilous moment for our Constitution—right when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints.' She warned of a 'rule-of-kings governing system' compared to a 'rule of law regime.' 'At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government's self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.' Jackson even began the opening section of her argument by dispensing with the traditional saying that she 'respectfully' dissents. 'With deep disillusionment, I dissent,' she wrote. So did Sotomayor, who wrote simply, 'I dissent.' The decisions handed down this week have continued a trend of the liberal judges in the court often losing rulings in the most impactful cases. Sotomayor dissented in the court's 6-3 decision that public school parents must be allowed to take their kids out of lessons involving LGBT books. In her dissent, she warned of a nightmare for schools, saying the ensuing 'chaos' and 'self-censorship' would threaten to 'end American public education as we know it'. She said: 'Today's ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The reverberations of the Court's error will be felt, I fear, for generations.' It is not always as clean cut however, with a decision issued on Friday that endorsed a multibillion dollar fund to expand telephone and broadband services being passed through by a coalition of three conservatives and three liberals. The fund has been used to expand service to low-income Americans and people living in rural areas and Native American tribal lands, as well as other beneficiaries such as schools and libraries. The 6-3 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) funding mechanism employing mandatory contributions from telecommunications companies had effectively levied a 'misbegotten tax' on consumers in violation of the U.S. Constitution's vesting of legislative authority in Congress. The fund has been used to expand service to low-income Americans and people living in rural areas and Native American tribal lands, as well as other beneficiaries such as schools and libraries. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the ruling, wrote that Congress had provided ample guidance and constraints on the Federal Communications Commission operation of the fund. 'We hold that no impermissible transfer of authority has occurred,' wrote Kagan, who was joined by her two fellow liberal justices, as well as conservative Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three conservative justices - Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. The birthright citizenship ruling was hailed by President Donald Trump on Friday, who told reporters: 'This was a big one. Amazing decision, one we're very happy about. This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it's all about.' Basking in his victory during an impromptu appearance in the White House briefing room, the president vowed to push through 'many' more of his policies after the court win, including curbs to birthright citizenship. The president said he would 'promptly file' to advance policies that have previously been blocked by judges. He said: 'This morning the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.' Friday's case stemmed from an executive order Trump signed as soon as he took office that ended birthright citizenship - the legal principle that U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to individuals upon birth. Under the directive, children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens, radically altering the interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment for over 150 years. The Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of Trump's order purporting to end birthright citizenship and left open a legal path to challenge it.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Will I get deported for sharing this meme of JD Vance?
I have a very important public service announcement to make. Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, make fun of Vice-President JD Vance by sharing one of the millions of unflattering memes dedicated to him. Don't you dare chuckle at the images of him looking like the 'lollipop kid' in Shrek (the resemblance is uncanny) or a chicken nugget. And, whatever you do, do not share the meme that you can find here, where he looks like a big bald baby. You risk hurting the poor man's feelings and, also, you might get kicked out of the country. So says a 21-year-old Norwegian called Mads Mikkelsen, anyway. Mikkelsen recently accused American border officials of denying him entry into the US because he had a meme of a bloated baby Vance saved on his phone. Mikkelsen, who had travelled to the US to visit friends, told the Norwegian paper Nordlys that immigration officers at Newark airport interrogated him, forced him to give fingerprints and blood samples, and went through his phone. After they found the Vance meme, as well as a picture of Mikkelsen holding a homemade wooden pipe, they sent him home. 'Both pictures had been automatically saved to my camera roll from a chat app, but I really didn't think that these innocent pictures would put a stop to my entry into the country,' Mikkelsen told Nordlys. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has rejected Mikkelsen's claim that he was kicked out of the country for disrespecting the vice-president. 'FACT CHECK. Claims that Mads Mikkelsen was denied entry because of a meme are unequivocally FALSE,' they posted on Facebook earlier in the week. 'TRUTH: Mikkelsen was refused entry into the US for his admitted drug use.' A homeland security assistant secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, also called the story 'BS' in a post on X. Mikkelsen, meanwhile, insisted to the fact-checking website Snopes that the meme played a role in getting him denied entry. The 21-year-old claimed border officials told him he was getting sent home because of 'extremist propaganda [the meme] and narcotic paraphernalia'. However, that claim hasn't been verified. We may never know if the Vance meme really did play a role in getting Mikkelsen kicked out of the country. While I don't normally side with border officials, one imagines the pipe picture was probably the actual culprit. Still, the story, which made headlines around the world, won't help America's tourism industry. International visitors are staying out of the US after a spate of stories about tourists getting sent to Ice detention centers without any explanation. The World Travel & Tourism Council has said the country could lose $12.5bn in international visitor spending this year. The story has also reignited interest in JD Vance memes, which have been circulating for months now, peaking at end of February after the vice-president scolded Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an exchange that launched a million memes. Indeed, the Irish lawmaker Ivana Bacik recently held up the Vance baby meme while speaking in the Irish parliament about the Mikkelsen story. While claims that making fun of Mr Hillbilly Elegy may get you deported might be exaggerated, the fact that so many people immediately believed Mikkelsen's claims is a sign of just how badly the US's international image has been damaged and how dystopian the country has become. The US is heading very quickly towards authoritarianism. It is cracking down on dissent and protest. Book banning has surged and the Trump administration has instructed the Department of Education to end their investigations into these bans, calling them a 'hoax'. Free speech rights are being shredded. And the people responsible for all this? They're not evil geniuses, they're embarrassing dweebs with massively meme-able faces. 'I knew that one day we might have to watch as capitalism and greed and bigotry led to a world where powerful men, deserving or not, would burn it all down,' Rebecca Shaw said in a Guardian piece earlier this year. 'What I didn't expect, and don't think I could have foreseen, is how incredibly cringe it would all be.' 'The Alliance for Immigrant Survivors, a national network of advocates for those hurt by domestic violence, found that 75% of the 170 advocates they surveyed across the country said the immigrants they serve fear they'll face arrest or deportation if they contact authorities,' reports USA Today. Meanwhile the Fox News host Jesse Waters seems to think all this is hilarious. 'I bet a bunch of guys that are dating illegal alien Spanish girls are like Ice, here's the address! She hasn't been very good,' Watters recently said. In related news, a man was recently arrested for allegedly impersonating an Ice officer and sexually assaulting a woman, saying he'd deport her if she didn't comply. Mark Rutte made a weird statement in which he referred to Trump as 'Daddy' and then quickly walked it back. Speaking at an office hours event, the Michigan representative Karl Bohnak (a Republican), said 'I don't' after a constituent asked him, 'So you don't support a woman's autonomy over her own body?' The case, Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, 'is part of a longstanding effort by anti-abortion activists to 'defund' Planned Parenthood by cutting it out of Medicaid', the Guardian reports. 'Of the 2.4 million people treated at Planned Parenthood each year, almost half use Medicaid.' The prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, told his Facebook followers that he was prepared to expose himself to the head of the Armenian church, to prove they were wrong that he had been circumcised. This is just the latest development in an ongoing spat between Pashinyan and the head of the Armenian Apostolic church. And they say women are too emotional to lead! Sign up to The Week in Patriarchy Get Arwa Mahdawi's weekly recap of the most important stories on feminism and sexism and those fighting for equality after newsletter promotion As the title suggests, the game involves a male protagonist who is looking to get revenge on 'gold-digging' women. After a lot of controversy it's been renamed Emotional Fraud Simulator, but the content is the same. 'I cannot go into further detail about the number of victims in the case beyond confirming that it is a double-digit number,' the Oslo police attorney said. Mel Owens, a 66-year-old former NFL player, who is the new star of ABC's senior-focused dating show, has said he is only looking to date women between 45 and 60. 'If they're 60 or over, I'm cutting them.'' The handful of attenders included a local podcast host who praised the city's lack of Black residents. '[A] job title isn't everything, and it's more important to stay true to your values,' Judge Karen Ortiz, who worked in the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's New York office, said. That's according to a brilliant advertising campaign which aimed to destigmatise herpes via a spoof tourism advertisement. Israeli officers and soldiers said that they were ordered to fire at unarmed civilians waiting for humanitarian aid, Haaretz reports. Here's something to mews about: is it disgusting to kiss your partner after kissing your cat? You still have time to vote on this very im-paw-tant question via a Guardian poll.