
The Democratic Party's Mamdani moment: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.
I n today's edition, Ben Kamisar sifts through the fallout from Zohran Mamdani's surge to the top of the Democratic primary field for New York mayor. Plus, Andrea Mitchell examines the impact of President Donald Trump's questioning of the post-Iran strike intelligence reports.
— Adam Wollner
What Zohran Mamdani's rise means for the Democratic Party nationally
By Ben Kamisar
Zohran Mamdani's dramatic, strong showing in New York's Democratic mayoral primary, in which he forced a concession from former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, amounts to a massive shot in the arm for progressives and other Democrats who have been imploring their party's elder statesmen to step aside for a new generation of leaders.
Mamdani ran his campaign as an unapologetic progressive against an established favorite who argued his pragmatism would best meet the moment, a 33-year-old fresh face against a field of experienced candidates, a democratic socialist at a time when many Democrats worry whether that moniker alienates them from swing voters and a critic of Israel's conduct in its war against Hamas, despite criticism from moderate Democrats who accused him of stoking antisemitism.
Tuesday night's primary was far from a clear test case for any one of those factors, with Cuomo's 2021 resignation as governor amid allegations of sexual harassment and Covid mismanagement also in play. And New York City voters are hardly representative of the swing-district and swing-state electorates that determine who holds power in Washington — one reason Republicans are already using Mamdani as a rhetorical foil to swing-seat Democrats.
But Mamdani's surge — putting him on the precipice of the Democratic nomination, with the results of the ranked choice tabulation scheduled to come next week — is putting the rest of the Democratic Party on notice.
Democratic divisions: Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., a Brooklyn native who endorsed Mamdani, told Ryan Nobles that Tuesday's results are an indication of where the energy is in the Democratic Party — primarily because candidates like Mamdani are focusing on the cost-of-living issues that voters care about.
'He talked to the needs of the working class,' Sanders said. 'He was prepared to take on the billionaire class and their super PACs, mobilize people at the grassroots level who knocked on hundreds of thousands of doors. That's how you win elections.'
Democrats' top leaders in Congress — Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, both New Yorkers — offered more muted responses. They released statements congratulating Mamdani, but they didn't explicitly call for the party to fall in line behind him in the general election.
And Reps. Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi, two New York Democrats who are veterans of battleground congressional races, put out statements criticizing Mamdani. Gillen called him 'too extreme,' and Suozzi said his 'concerns remain' about Mamdani.
Trump is on a slippery slope as he disputes intelligence on Iran strikes
Analysis by Andrea Mitchell
'Obliterated' is the way President Donald Trump has described Iran's Fordo nuclear facility, both within hours of Saturday's complex B-2 strike and again today. At the NATO summit, he and his national security team are furiously disputing a preliminary Pentagon intelligence analysis that the destruction of the nuclear program was less than complete.
The conflict betrays a continuing misunderstanding by the White House of the nature of intelligence.
The Defense Intelligence Agency is one of 17 agencies intensely studying the results of the extraordinarily precise bombing mission. The pilots did their jobs: They flew for 37 hours and hit their targets, for the first time dropping 14 massive 'bunker buster' bombs in combat.
Now analysts, using complex measuring devices of soil disturbances, atmospheric dust, debris from bomb craters and electronic intercepts of Iranian conversations, among other data, are assessing the remaining risk of a reconstituted nuclear threat. It could take months — or forever — to have absolute confidence or unanimity in a conclusion. Their job is to provide a continuous flow of intelligence to the commander in chief and his advisers so they can decide what to do next.
The slippery slope here is for the president and his team to jump to conclusions that the strike 'obliterated' anything. Today Trump also said of Iran: 'I don't see them getting back involved in the nuclear business anymore. I think they've had it.'
But the independent International Atomic Energy Agency reports Iran most likely moved its highly enriched uranium to other underground locations before the U.S. strike. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told me last Friday the United States could bomb Iran's nuclear program but not its knowledge. And now Iran is still insisting on its right to continue enriching uranium, despite never having explained why it needed to enrich nuclear fuel to near-weapons grade 60% purity — far beyond what is required for peaceful use.
Late Wednesday, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, in what appeared to rebalance the debate, issued a statement that the CIA can confirm 'credible intelligence' indicating Iran's nuclear program has been 'severely damaged' by the U.S. strikes, destroying several nuclear facilities that would take years to rebuild. He did not say Iran had given up its nuclear aspirations or could not rebuild.
If Trump and his team want political spin instead of honest, if preliminary, intelligence, they will end up getting sources like the agent code-named ' Curveball,' who said Iraq had developed biological weapons, leading the CIA director to call it a 'slam dunk.' That is how presidents mistakenly launch forever wars.
, by Dan De Luce
🎙️Here's the Scoop
This week, NBC News launched ' Here's the Scoop,' a new evening podcast that brings you a fresh take on the day's top stories in 15 minutes or less.
In today's episode, host Yasmin Vossoughian talks with national security correspondent Courtney Kube about the intelligence assessments after the United States' strikes on Iran.
Listen to the full episode here →
Hashtags

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


The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump dropped an F-bomb this week – and just for a moment, I warmed to him
I did not get out of bed this morning expecting to praise the public use of an expletive, but such is 2025. If any president was going to break this presidential norm, as NPR put it, it was always going to be Donald Trump. 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing,' the president told a group of reporters this week. 'Do you understand that?' he asked, before storming off. It appears to be the first time a president has deliberately used the F-word live on camera to a press scrum or in a public forum, instead of being 'caught' using the term accidentally on a hot mic (even that has only happened a handful of times). Cue plenty of puns from journalists about the 'dropping of the F-bomb'. For the record, Trump actually used the F-word about Iran in 2020, but the slightly delayed radio broadcast bleeped it out. Plus, as this 2016 video compilation shows, it's not unusual for him to swear. But what was different about this time – coming as it did at a moment of heightened global anxiety about military escalation – is that it came across as … authentic. Many people watching will have felt, heard and even shared that frustration about Israel and Iran's alleged breaking of the ceasefire. Trump's swearing made the point more forcefully than any diplomatic 'disappointment' could have done. It wasn't eloquent, but I believed it. We know other presidents – such as Lyndon Johnson, and especially Richard Nixon – swore in private. They wouldn't have dreamed of risking the reputational damage to do so in public, and would have had to apologise if they did. No British prime minister has ever said 'fuck' publicly to my knowledge. Few world leaders ever have. Which is potentially part of the problem. The most common complaint about the political elite is that they're out of touch; that we can't trust a word that comes out of their mouths because it's all untrustworthy scripted spin. Yet at the same time we believe they're swearing like sailors – and saying what they really think – behind closed doors (a perception bolstered by iconic roles such as Peter Capaldi's Malcolm Tucker, the foul-mouthed spin doctor in The Thick of It, or the blue-mouthed Roger Furlong from Veep.) Of course, swearing doesn't equate to honesty. And, in Trump's case, the obscenity only masked his own complicity in creating the situation that frustrated him – from pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 to his 'monumental' airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. But my point is that the public clearly doesn't trust the polished and sanitised scripts that characterise so much political speech. I'm not suggesting world leaders all suddenly disrespect the gravitas of their office. Can you imagine Keir Starmer being encouraged to swear? He'd sound like a headteacher attempting to rap. What I am saying is there's power in judicious swearing. You want to appear more human to voters? Act more like one. YouGov polling reported in April revealed that just 8% of Britons never swear. Perhaps an occasional curse or two would allow politicians to ally themselves with the 92% of us who do. Linguistic norms are always changing. For six years, I wrote a regular column for the Guardian's Mind your language section. During that time, I saw changes that would incense any purist. For instance, the BBC made even less use of those with received pronunciation accents and started broadcasting more voices that really sound like people across the country. Such 'real' accents are supposed to make the institution seem less remote and more trustworthy. The same is true of the institution of politics. Sounding more like real people does nobody any real harm. If the stakes are literally life and death, and people aren't listening, a well-placed, truly meant expletive will wake everyone up. At time of writing, the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran is holding. Maybe the F-bomb did the job after all. Gary Nunn is a freelance journalist and author


North Wales Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
At least 49 killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza as ceasefire prospects inch closer
The strikes began late on Friday and continued into Saturday morning, among others killing 12 people near the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital where the bodies were brought. Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital. The strikes come as US President Donald Trump said there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, the president said: 'We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of.' An official with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press that Israel's minister for strategic affairs, Ron Dermer, will arrive in Washington next week for talks on Gaza's ceasefire, Iran and other subjects. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media. Talks have been on and since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the dire humanitarian crisis. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half of them believed to be still alive. They were among some 250 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 2023, sparking the 21-month-long war. The war has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and children. There is hope among hostage families that Mr Trump's involvement in securing the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran might exert more pressure for a deal in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding a wave of public support for the Iran war and its achievements, and he could feel he has more space to move toward ending the war in Gaza, something his far-right governing partners oppose. Hamas has repeatedly said it is prepared to free all the hostages in exchange for an end to the war in Gaza. Mr Netanyahu says he will end the war only once Hamas is disarmed and exiled, something the group has rejected. Meanwhile, hungry Palestinians are enduring a catastrophic situation in Gaza. After blocking all food for more than two months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May. Efforts by the United Nations to distribute the food have been plagued by armed gangs looting trucks and by crowds of desperate people offloading supplies from convoys. Palestinians have also been shot and wounded while on their way to get food at newly formed aid sites, run by the American and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Gaza's health officials and witnesses. Palestinian witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire at crowds on the roads heading toward the sites. Israel's military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites.

South Wales Argus
23 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
At least 49 killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza as ceasefire prospects inch closer
The strikes began late on Friday and continued into Saturday morning, among others killing 12 people near the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital where the bodies were brought. Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital. The strikes come as US President Donald Trump said there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, the president said: 'We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of.' A man carries the wrapped body of a child who was killed along with others in an Israeli strike that targeted a school in northern Gaza, at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City (Jehad Alshrafi/AP) An official with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press that Israel's minister for strategic affairs, Ron Dermer, will arrive in Washington next week for talks on Gaza's ceasefire, Iran and other subjects. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media. Talks have been on and since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the dire humanitarian crisis. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half of them believed to be still alive. They were among some 250 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 2023, sparking the 21-month-long war. The war has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and children. There is hope among hostage families that Mr Trump's involvement in securing the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran might exert more pressure for a deal in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding a wave of public support for the Iran war and its achievements, and he could feel he has more space to move toward ending the war in Gaza, something his far-right governing partners oppose. Hamas has repeatedly said it is prepared to free all the hostages in exchange for an end to the war in Gaza. Mr Netanyahu says he will end the war only once Hamas is disarmed and exiled, something the group has rejected. Palestinians carry humanitarian aid packages near the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution centre in Khan Younis, southern Gaza (Abdel Kareem Hana/AP) Meanwhile, hungry Palestinians are enduring a catastrophic situation in Gaza. After blocking all food for more than two months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May. Efforts by the United Nations to distribute the food have been plagued by armed gangs looting trucks and by crowds of desperate people offloading supplies from convoys. Palestinians have also been shot and wounded while on their way to get food at newly formed aid sites, run by the American and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Gaza's health officials and witnesses. Palestinian witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire at crowds on the roads heading toward the sites. Israel's military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites.