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

Foreign Influence vs. Foreign Interference in Elections

Person wearing a hoodie, typing on a computer in the dark.

Xijian/Getty

Foreign Influence vs. Foreign Interference in Elections

Working alongside election denier activists, the Trump administration is reportedly exploring how to use the power of the federal government to take over elections from the states. One of the justifications for this takeover is based on allegations of foreign interference in the 2020 presidential race.

Experts agree that there is no evidence of foreign interference in 2020, although there were instances of influence by countries such as Russia and Iran. Subsequent elections have been subject to a range of foreign influence efforts. Influence and interference are not the same, but President Trump and his supporters conflate the two concepts when raising the specter of foreign meddling in U.S. elections. This confusion is evident in a purported draft executive order that outlines how the administration may seek to violate the Constitution and federalize the administration of elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Primaries Are Already Shaping the 2026 Election – Here’s What We’re Seeing So Far
a person is casting a vote into a box

Primaries Are Already Shaping the 2026 Election – Here’s What We’re Seeing So Far

Primary elections are already underway across the United States, and this year’s contests are giving early clues about what voters may prioritize in the general election.

Several states have recently held high-profile primary races that could influence the balance of power in Congress over the next two years, in both state-wide and local elections. Many of these races involve open seats or competitive districts, making the outcomes especially significant as parties prepare for November.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Trump and His Allies Are Trying to Make It Harder for Americans to Vote
two stickers with the words i vote on them
Photo by Mockup Free on Unsplash

President Trump and His Allies Are Trying to Make It Harder for Americans to Vote

President Trump and his administration have been working diligently to try to undermine Americans’ trust in our elections. The steady drumbeat of lies and disinformation is intended to give cover to their efforts to interfere in our elections and stack the deck in their own favor. Time and time again, we see them justify their actions by making false claims of widespread fraud from noncitizens voting (something that is exceedingly rare). Back in 2020, we saw secretaries of state from both parties hold the line and protect our elections from executive branch interference. However, this year, President Trump is prepared to go further. From deploying the FBI to raid local elections offices in Fulton County, Georgia, to the President’s repeated claim that the only way the opposing party can win is by “cheating,” the administration has been working overtime to sow doubt in our elections.

That’s bad enough. But now, the President’s allies in Congress are getting in on the act with a raft of new legislation that would trample Americans’ most basic right: the right to vote. As former members of Congress, we are deeply concerned.

Keep ReadingShow less