Dem 47
image description
   
GOP 53
image description

Cuomo Comes from Ahead to Lose

There was a fairly lengthy period of time when it looked like the New York City mayoral ballot would offer voters the choice of three different flavors of sleazeball:

Andrew Cuomo, the presumptive Democratic nominee, was found to have sexually harassed 11 women after an investigation by New York state officials, and then spent millions of the state's money defending himself before resigning the governorship.

Eric Adams, the corrupt current mayor, and Democrat-turned-independent, who would be facing federal bribery charges right now but for the good fortune of having someone even more corrupt in the White House.

Curtis Sliwa, the only Republican in the race, who founded a group called the Guardian Angels, which is made up of private citizens who patrol the streets of New York City, trying to combat crime. The propriety of a group that skirts the line between "neighborhood watch" and "vigilantism" is up for discussion, and reasonable minds can disagree. However, there is no question that, to promote the group, Sliwa faked incidents where people were "rescued" from "criminals" by the Guardian Angels. And there is also no question that Sliwa falsely and illegally claimed he was kidnapped by three undercover police officers. He is also, depending on your judgment, either an out-and-out xenophobe or else xenophobia-curious.

One imagines that NYC's bodegas were doing a brisk business in clothespins, as New Yorkers braced themselves and got ready to pinch their noses and vote for which of the three is least odious.

Under these circumstances, it's not too surprising that an alternative choice surged at the end, in the form of state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic socialist who ran an energetic campaign that actually got people excited. As the polls tightened, the establishment tried very hard to rally Democrats behind Cuomo. That includes Bill Clinton, whose days as a Democratic influencer are clearly over. Also Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), who may be able to move the needle in the Palmetto State, but not the Empire State. And Michael Bloomberg, who joins Elon Musk in the "money can't buy elections" club. Perhaps most notable was The New York Times, which gave what can only be described as an anti-endorsement, with the eddi board writing that they would not suggest which candidate New Yorkers should vote for, but they would suggest which candidate New Yorkers should not vote for, namely Mamdani:

Mr. Mamdani is running on an agenda uniquely unsuited to the city's challenges. He is a democratic socialist who too often ignores the unavoidable trade-offs of governance. He favors rent freezes that could restrict housing supply and make it harder for younger New Yorkers and new arrivals to afford housing. He wants the government to operate grocery stores, as if customer service and retail sales were strengths of the public sector. He minimizes the importance of policing.

That's actually only the first paragraph; it goes on for two paragraphs more, finding many different ways to say that Mamdani does not know how to govern.

We wonder what effect all of this had. Maybe voters ignored the old fogeys, as they waved their fists at the clouds. Maybe some New Yorkers had second thoughts about their ballots, and dropped Mamdani down the list (or off entirely). Or maybe, just maybe, the establishment push for Cuomo produced a political version of the Streisand effect, drawing attention to Mamdani and burnishing his bona fides as an outsider who would shake things up.

Whatever the underlying dynamics were, Mamdani surged in polling (and in the betting markets), with the last Emerson poll of the cycle (conducted June 18-20) even predicting a win for the Assemblyman. And Emerson turned out to be right, as Mamdani claimed the Democratic nomination yesterday, pretty easily outpacing Cuomo and the other contenders. Turnout was pretty strong, as roughly a million New York Democrats cast a ballot in their party's mayoral primary (independents do not vote in NYC primaries, while Republicans had nothing to vote for as Sliwa was unchallenged).

Note that Mamdani's victory is not yet official. But with 93% of the vote in, he's got 43.5% of the votes to 36.4% for Cuomo and 11.3% for Brad Lander. Mathematically, that is a hurdle that the former Governor cannot plausibly overcome; as long as about a third of the non-Mamdani/Cuomo ballots have Mamdani ranked above Cuomo, or don't have either candidate ranked at all, then Mamdani will cross the 50% threshold. Consequently, Cuomo conceded last night. He had dreams of assuming leadership of the anti-Trump resistance, and then using that as a springboard for a presidential run in 2028. Now, at the age of 67, with even New York City Democrats not buying what he's selling, his political career may have reached its end.

We do not know how effective Mamdani will be as mayor of New York City. It could be that the Times' concerns are legitimate, and that he's in over his head. On the other hand, the media and the establishment didn't think too highly of people like Fiorello LaGuardia and Michael Bloomberg when they assumed that office, and yet things turned out OK. Truth be told, it is probable that, no matter what Mamdani achieves, voters will be disappointed. He's promised the moon and the stars, and even if he's able to deliver the moon, people will ask "What happened to the stars?" Remember, Joe Biden delivered on a sizable chunk of his (less ambitious) promises, and was rewarded with Herbert-Hoover-during-the-Great-Depression-level approval ratings. Such is the nature of politics these days.

We also do not know whether Mamdani will become a leader of the anti-Trump resistance, though we will guess it will not happen. It might have happened with Cuomo, given his name recognition, vast experience with the media, and presidential ambitions. But Mamdani will probably have his hands pretty full learning his new job (assuming he wins in November). Plus, when was the last time a New York mayor was actually a figure of national importance (beyond the one who just happened to be on the job when the 9/11 attacks happened, and so was handed national importance on a silver platter)? We would say that the last NYC mayor who used that platform to become a national player was Ed Koch, and he left office nearly 40 years ago.

There are two things that we think will happen, however. First up, Mamdani is of Indian descent, was born in Africa, is Muslim, is an outspoken liberal, and is supportive of Palestinian civilians. He was also a featured speaker at the Resist Fascism Rally in New York City, so he's literally Antifa. That checks a lot of boxes on the Republican bugaboo list, and so the GOP is going to try mightily to make him the face of New York Democrats and, ideally, Democrats nationwide. This has already started, in fact. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who has completed her turn to the dark side, sent out a fundraising e-mail last night in which she said that Mamdani's win makes her "sick," and that he's a "terrorist sympathizer." She also implied that he might be an actual terrorist. Charlie Kirk, who has been on the dark side so long he keeps a toothbrush at Emperor Palpatine's house, concurred with Stefanik, sending out an overtly Islamophobic tweet in which he observed: "24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City."

The other thing that will happen, we would guess, is that every establishment Democrat in Congress is going to draw a challenge from someone who is younger, leftier, or younger AND leftier. Mamdani's win was powered substantially by voters under the age of 40. We don't much love political-analysis-by-generation, but it is the case that Millennials (people aged 29-44) are the largest generation in America right now, and what happened yesterday showed they can have the candidates they prefer, if they actually get to the polls and vote. Mamdani (himself a Millennial, at 33 years of age) even provided the playbook by which young insurgents can win. Undoubtedly, his campaign will be studied very carefully, by a lot of people, in the next 6 months. And by the way, for those who did not follow the campaign, Mamdani boiled down his message into a very memorable (and alliterative) soundbite: "Fast and free buses, freeze the rents, free childcare."

Next up for NYC, of course, is the general election, which will be held on November 4. There is one poll so far; the aforementioned Emerson poll also asked about general election preferences, should Mamdani be the Democratic candidate. At the outset, if you believe that poll, Mamdani is the favorite—he's the preferred choice of 35% of respondents, as compared to 16% for Sliwa, 15% for Adams, and 6% for independent Jim Walden. However, there are a couple of wild cards here. First, though Cuomo sounded last night like a man who has seen the writing on the wall, he could make a return as an independent candidate or as a candidate of one of the third parties. Second, 27% of respondents were undecided; if they break strongly for one candidate or another, that could be enough to swing things.

One thing that is NOT a factor is ranked-choice voting. While New York City uses RCV for primaries and special elections, it does not use RCV for general elections. So, even if those Adams voters preferred Sliwa or Walden as their second choice in November, it would not matter, as there is no way to indicate that on the ballot. If Mamdani loses, it will be because some significant chunk of the anti-Mamdani forces united behind one candidate. Should that come to pass, it will probably be Cuomo who pulls it off, assuming he does indeed get back in. If Cuomo makes a big pitch to independents and Republicans, saying not-too-subtly: "Do you really want to be governed by a radical left-wing Pro-Palestinian Muslim?" and to centrist Democrats: "Do you want to risk having Mamdani become the face of the Party?" he might still put together a winning coalition in a four-way field. It would be a sleazeball way to run a campaign, but, well, see what we wrote in the first paragraph.

We wanted to end here with a couple of reports from New York readers, which will hopefully help everyone understand what happened yesterday. So, first up, here is J.R. in New York City (we do not know which borough):

I want to point out that Andrew Cuomo does a good job of running as a progressive and then governing as a Republican.

You have written about the former governor's record a couple of times in the past week or so. What you have left out is: (1) He created the Moreland commission to root out corruption in Albany, but when the commission started investigating those close to Cuomo, he immediately shut it down; (2) He assisted in creating a bloc of Independent Democrats to caucus with the Republicans in the State Senate. When progressive legislation was raised, Cuomo would simply blame the Senate for voting down the legislation; (3) He cut hospital funding in areas that desperately needed it; (4) he signed his book deal after bypassing the Ethics committee; (5) He lied about the deaths in nursing homes and (6) He fired the very capable Andy Byford (a.k.a. "Mr. Subways") because he was too competent and popular for the Governor.

Then, of course, there is the sexual harassment. Cuomo spent the past 4 years suing his accusers, and using public money to do so.

As for Zohran Mamdani, yes, he is young and light on experience. But he is very sharp and a deep thinker. He has big ideas and the city is badly in need of radical change for it to survive. I think if he wins and hires very capable administrators such as Brad Lander, Kathryn Garcia, Adrienne Adams and Janette Sadik-Khan (to name a few), he will do very well. As for the claims about defunding the police, restructuring how police operate is not defunding. And criticism of Israel is most definitely not antisemitic. Many Jews do support Mamdani. And there are plenty of Jews who remember Cuomo singling out Haredi communities for violating the stay-at-home orders during the pandemic, rather than trying to work with these groups who largely live their lives in communal settings.

Based on the results, it looks like New Yorkers are wising up and do not want to suffer through 4 more years misrule by another corrupt bully. We have enough of those in office right now as it is.

And now, D.C. in Manhattan:

You've stated on several occasions that you are all distinctly not New Yorkers; I don't hold that against you. But perhaps an on-the-ground perspective of what happened yesterday would be helpful.

If you're not a New Yorker, you didn't see the dynamic of the primary race play out in the city. Polls had Andrew Cuomo up early, sure. But a few months ago, the city's electorate was disengaged, as we watched the Trump administration start laying waste to the principles we voted for in November. The only engagement pollsters had was clearly name recognition. And mayoral primary races are pretty wonky, and people were only paying attention at that point if they were into local politics.

Zohran Mamdani's sudden rise in the polls—he was a no-name a few months ago—is explained very simply. He ran a terrific campaign. National Democrats would do well to notice the tactics that made his run effective. He mobilized an army of passionate volunteers. My door was knocked on twice. He also very effectively employed social media. A crowning moment, in my opinion, was his appearance on the popular show Subway Takes, which has a 2-minute-long format designed for TikTok and Instagram. His take, of course, was "I should be the mayor." Watch that spot, if you can.

Meanwhile, Cuomo's campaign was nowhere to be found, except for what looked like a desperate scramble in the final 2 weeks. My mailbox was crammed full of flyers sent by all sorts of organizations, full of preposterous claims, fear-mongering—not in support of any candidate, just against Mamdani. I threw it all in the trash and resolved to vote even earlier.

In the end, Cuomo's name recognition advantage was totally undone, because Mamdani ran a campaign people could get excited about. New York Democrats needed someone inspiring, finally, after each of our last several mayors turned out more disappointing than the last. We know a lot of Mamdani's policies are unrealistic, and he's going to encounter some stiff resistance from the deeply entrenched powers of the city government. But we avoided electing a plainly venal politician; we have seen time and again mayors who put their own interests above his voters. Good riddance.

Mamdani demonstrated he could connect with the average New Yorker, one who takes the subway and sees the problems our city has every day. He walked from one end of Manhattan to the other. That's not something I could have ever imagined Cuomo, or members of the Democratic old guard, doing. They just came off as out of touch. They clearly wanted Cuomo, but if they wanted to win, they should have been doing what Mamdani was doing long ago. And they should be recruiting younger candidates who are from my generation (I'm 34), ones who understand 2025's problems and 2025's political outreach.

National Democrats should really study this, hard. Obama did it like this back in '08, too, and that's the campaign that Zohran's reminded me of the most. He was a relative unknown a few months ago, and took out a member of New York's political class who thought he was on his way to a coronation. Sound familiar?

Thanks to both of you! And now, time for a pretty long wait before there's another meaningful election. (Z)



This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news, Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.

www.electoral-vote.com                     State polls                     All Senate candidates