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

Nevada pro-democracy groups condemn SAVE Act

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., speaks at a press event about free and fair elections. A recent study from MIT ranked Nevada second in the nation for quality of election administration, based on measures of accessibility and security.

(Battle Born Progress)

Nevada pro-democracy groups condemn SAVE Act

President Donald Trump has made passing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act a top priority before the midterms but supporters of safe and fair elections in the Silver State said it would be a disaster for democracy.

The bill, which purports to combat noncitizen voting, would make it much harder to register to vote. It passed the U.S. House but is stalled in the Senate.

Keep ReadingShow less
How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act

A sign that reads: Voting

E4C

How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act

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.

Key Takeaways

  • The Electoral Count Reform (ECRA) of 2022 modernizes the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which governed how Congress counts Electoral College votes. The original Act has been widely criticized as vague and susceptible to exploitation.
  • The ECRA clarifies that the Vice President’s role is ceremonial, raises the objection threshold to 20 percent of both chambers, and designates governors as responsible for submitting elector certificates.
  • Supporters argue that the bipartisan reform prevents future election disputes and protects democratic stability, while critics contend that it was rushed, doesn’t address deeper election integrity issues, and raises concerns about federalism.
  • The Act reflects bipartisan cooperation but continues debates about federalism and the balance of power between states and Congress.

The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act (ECRA) was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in July 2022 and signed into law by President Joe Biden in December 2022. It is a reform to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA), a law that governs how Congress counts the Electoral College votes for president every four years. The Act is also a response to President Donald Trump’s efforts to dispute the 2020 presidential election results, which revealed several gaps in the law that could be exploited by a presidential candidate.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters

The Washington Post editorial board penned a bold piece (Bill Cassidy and America’s Increasingly Broken Primary System) in the wake of President Trump’s successful vendetta against the Louisiana Senator. They could have taken the easy route and pointed a finger at the Republicans. Instead, they took issue with both parties and their insatiable appetite to control the rules of the game and punish anyone who steps out of line.

In a media landscape dominated by partisan propaganda, it’s refreshing to read an opinion piece that encourages readers to actually look at what’s happening.

Keep ReadingShow less
Oregon Pioneered Vote-by-Mail. Its Ballot Access Laws Are Still in the Covered Wagon Era.
white printer paper on white table

Oregon Pioneered Vote-by-Mail. Its Ballot Access Laws Are Still in the Covered Wagon Era.

Oregon's primary election was on May 19. Neither of the two major-party candidates in Oregon's 6th Congressional District faced a primary opponent. They'll automatically advance to November's general election ballot, without a single voter really needing to weigh in, without collecting a single petition signature, and without knocking on a single door. The Democratic incumbent represents a party that accounts for 29.75 percent of registered voters in this district. The Republican nominee represents a party with 24.78 percent of the vote. Together, the two parties represent a minority of OR-6's electorate, and both of their candidates are already on the November ballot.

I represent the largest voting bloc in this district. Nearly 40 percent of OR-6's registered voters are unaffiliated, more than either party. These voters have never had a candidate who answers only to them—not to party bosses, party lines, or special interests. I am trying to be that candidate. And I am still on the porch, clipboard in hand, collecting the 5,500 hand-signed paper petitions I will need just to guarantee that my name appears beside theirs in November.

Keep ReadingShow less