Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Zohran Mamdani’s rise from nowhere to City Hall

Opinion

Zohran Mamdani’s rise from nowhere to City Hall

New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani celebrates as he takes the stage at his election night watch party at the Brooklyn Paramount on Nov. 4, 2025, in the Brooklyn borough of New York City.

(Getty Images)

One of the wildest and most dramatic New York City mayoral elections in modern history finished with the flare of a presidential…and with the national attention to match.

“Hear me, President Trump, when I say this: to get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us,” said a defiant and triumphant Zohran Mamdani in a shot across the bow to his shadow opponent throughout this campaign.


Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist most people hadn’t heard of when this race began — and whose name even his fellow candidates struggled to correctly pronounce as late as last night — just became mayor of the biggest city in the country, the financial hub of the United States and the world, with a municipal employee base that’s bigger than some Fortune 500 companies.

Mamdani also becomes Gotham’s first Muslim mayor, first mayor of South Asian descent, first mayor born in Africa, and the youngest in more than a century.

He ran a marvel of a campaign. But it should also be noted that the conditions were helpful too — running against an incumbent mayor surrounded by corruption, a former governor who hardly campaigned, and a president who made him a constant target, thereby elevating him in stature.

Still, his campaign should and will be studied closely by Democrats, whose party was in desperate need of a win since 2024’s bruising defeats — and actually got three, in NYC, New Jersey and Virginia.

Here are the important takeaways:

Mamdani ran an old-school, grassroots campaign, the likes of which we’ve increasingly been abandoning for more high-tech, new media endeavors that rely less on face-to-face interactions, coalition-building and canvassing, and more on texts and social media. Mamdani did all of that, too — his social media game was unquestionably effective — but without pounding the pavement, visiting the churches and synagogues and mosques, canvassing the taxi lines at LaGuardia Airport, riding the buses, sitting with cops and developers and rabbis, and even hitting the nightclubs, the rest just look like cheap gimmicks.

It sounds counter-intuitive, but Mamdani also capitalized on his limited name ID when he began this race. He knew he’d have to introduce himself to voters in a way his most competitive opponent, former New York governor and Democratic dynasty scion Andrew Cuomo, didn’t. While Mamdani was in the streets, Cuomo was running a Rose Garden strategy that ultimately set Cuomo up to fail.

But Mamdani’s most important move was on the issues that mattered to New Yorkers. His laser-focus on affordability, housing, mass transit, child care, and quality of life met voters where they are, not where the left wants them to be — existentially worried about less tangible things like democracy, climate change, and social issues. It’s not that those things aren’t important, but they aren’t a top priority to a majority of voters when they are choosing between paying rent or paying for health insurance.

This race should also be a nail in the coffin for the left’s identity politics. While Mamdani’s win represents a number of important firsts, he didn’t run on them — he ran on solving problems, not filling quotas.

Dems should also know that Mamdani’s win doesn’t mean democratic socialism should be the national model. A candidate who’s talked about defunding the police, globalizing the intifada, and “seizing the means of production” probably isn’t going to win in Georgia, or Michigan, or other important swing states where Dems need to pick up seats.

If Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger’s wins tell us anything, it’s that Democrats still need moderates to appeal to voters in the middle of the country, in the suburbs, and even in the cities where crime and immigration are still motivating fears for plenty of people.

Mamdani’s win is also a warning to Dem leadership. He won largely without the help or backing of the national Democratic Party, and in many cases without their endorsements, and instead relied on the infrastructure of the Democratic Socialists of America. If the party isn’t necessary to get candidates elected, what is its purpose?

The biggest question now is, can Zohran govern? He may have run a nearly-flawless campaign, but that’s not the same thing as running a giant city like New York. This will test his relationship-building skills, both with the City Council and Albany but also with the NYPD and Jewish voters. It will test his organizational skills, his executive leadership, his ability to make good on promises, his commitment to transparency (even when the news is bad).

What will be tested most, however, is Mamdani’s idealism. In a city as cynical and hardened as New York, is hope enough to make meaningful change? Only time will tell.

S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.


Read More

The Gerrymandering Solution
person holding white and red box

The Gerrymandering Solution

The 250th anniversary of American independence should remind us what’s wrong with gerrymandering. Due to partisanship, however, it now not only persists but rachets tighter in a tit-for-tat cycle that threatens to strangle representative rule. There is a solution to gerrymandering, however, if only politicians will act.

Inspired by revolutionary Enlightenment Era ideals, the Declaration of Independence and the new state constitutions of 1776 call for representative rule. The people would be sovereign, they proclaimed, with governments drawing their just powers from the consent of the governed. Nothing of the sort had ever been tried on a large scale and the founders struggled with how to implement it. Everything turned on establishing a truly representative governing assembly for each newly independent colony or state.

Keep ReadingShow less
Voting rights groups hail SCOTUS decision on ballot grace period

California sends mail-in ballots to all registered voters unless they opt out.

(Adobe Stock)

Voting rights groups hail SCOTUS decision on ballot grace period

Voting rights experts are praising a U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday, which upheld a state’s right to set a grace period for counting mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day, as long as they were postmarked on time.

The challengers to Mississippi’s grace period argued accepting ballots after Election Day threatens election integrity. Supporters of the decision said the U.S. Constitution delegates election administration to the states.

Keep ReadingShow less
Violating Voting Rights or Protecting Polls? Breaking Down the Executive Order to Restrict Mail-In Ballots
A sign points the way to the polling station.

Violating Voting Rights or Protecting Polls? Breaking Down the Executive Order to Restrict Mail-In Ballots

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

On March 31, 2026, President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at reshaping how mail-in voting is administered in federal elections. The order directs federal agencies to compile state-by-state lists of eligible voters and restricts mail-in ballots from being sent to voters who are not on those lists. The order has already been met with lawsuits, setting the stage for a broader debate over executive power and the federal government’s role in elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Elks, Rotarians, and Both Party’s Lust for Control
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

Elks, Rotarians, and Both Party’s Lust for Control

When it comes to the issue of open primaries, DSA true believers like Brad Lander in New York and MAGA mouthpieces like Governor Abbott in Texas sing from the same hymnal: open primaries invites mischief and party raiding. If we let independents vote we’d get pandemonium. Democracy needs guardrails, and political parties need integrity. You wouldn’t want Elks voting in Rotarians’ elections would you?

There is a certain logic to it. Except Abbott, Lander and all their fellow partisan warriors have it completely backwards.

Keep ReadingShow less