The Democratic Establishment Is Petrified Of A Possible Mamdani Victory Over A Corrupt Careerist

This Dynamic Isn't Just Prevalent In NYC— Not By A Longshot

Would the Democratic Party establishment prefer to lose to a Republican— or a Republican calling himself a Democrat— than allow a progressive into office? It’s a question DWT has been asking since 2005 when we started this blog. And the answer always comes out depressingly similar: yes… at least most of the time.

We’ve seen this dynamic play out again and again: a corporate-aligned incumbent— or a corporate-aligned candidate in an open seat— faces a primary challenge from a progressive rooted in working-class communities, and suddenly the full weight of the Democratic Party machine comes crashing down— not on the Republican threat, if there is one, but on the insurgent who dares to call out the rot inside the party itself. That’s what’s happening right now in NYC, where Queens Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani— a democratic socialist who actually believes in taxing the rich, housing the poor, and confronting the police-industrial complex— is being targeted not by Republicans, but by New York’s Democratic establishment, real estate donors, and, most predictably, the AIPAC money laundering machine, basically a GOP operation.

Mamdani is exactly the kind of political leader the party needs more of— fiercely principled, courageous, deeply connected to his district, and unapologetically on the side of the dispossessed. But for the party elite, all that’s the problem. He threatens the cozy relationship with capital that props up the party’s donor class. He challenges the bipartisan consensus on endless war and unconditional support for Netanyahu’s apartheid regime. And worst of all, he exposes how little the establishment actually cares about the policies it claims to champion. So instead of celebrating his work, they’re pouring money into the spoiler candidate who talks like a suburban Republican and votes like a landlord.

On Wednesday, The Guardian ran a piece by NY-based Arwa Mahdawi, Why establishment Democrats still can’t stomach progressive candidates like Zohran Mamdani. Mahdawi’s alarming short version: “The anti-Mamdani mobilization is depressingly predictable, with a party that is allergic to fresh blood and new thinking.”

After it became clearer and clearer during the campaign that Mamdani is, by far, the likeliest candidate able to beat the establishment fave, Andrew Cuomo, the heavy establishment guns began firing relentlessly at the 33-year-old democratic socialist surging in the polls and netting endorsements from AOC, Bernie, the Working Families Party, Democratic Socialists of America, Move On, Sunrise Movement, Jewish Voice For Peace, Letitia James, Brad Lander, Nydia Velasquez, Jamaal Bowman, Yuh-Line Niou, Jabari Brisport, Jumaane Williams, Sarahana Shrestha, Maya Wiley, dozens of members of the state legislature and City Council, NY locals for AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Unite Here, Teamsters, UAW and all the big NYC LGBTQ organizations, from Stonewall to Jim Owles to Lambda Independent Democrats. All this “spooked the establishment, which is now doing everything it can to stop Mamdani’s rise. Take Michael Bloomberg, who endorsed Cuomo earlier this month and followed this up with a $5 million donation to a pro-Cuomo PAC. The largesse appears motivated not by admiration for Cuomo– during his mayoralty, sources told the NY Times that Bloomberg saw Cuomo as ‘the epitome of the self-interested, horse-trading political culture he has long stood against’– but animosity towards Mamdani and his policies. Mamdani wants to increase taxes on residents earning more than $1 million a year, increase corporate taxes and freeze rents: policies that aren’t exactly popular with the billionaire set.”

Nor with their shills. By far, the worst of NYC’s Members of Congress, AIPAC/crypto-cartel darling, Ritchie Torres “is another establishment Democrat trying to prevent a Mamdani win at all costs. Torres, who makes his pro-Israel positions explicit, has criticized Mamdani for pro-Palestine comments. Torres has even said he won’t run for governor in 2026 if a socialist like Mamdani becomes the mayor because it will “revolutionize the political landscape.” That alone— keeping a corporate whore like Torres out of the gubernatorial race— should almost be reason enough to vote for Mamdani!

The New York Times’ editorial board is also aghast at Mamdani’s sudden popularity. On Monday, it published a piece urging New Yorkers to completely leave the candidate off their ranked-choice ballot, arguing that the assemblyman is woefully underqualified for office and has a bunch of wacky progressive ideas that will never work including free buses and frozen rent. The Times, which announced almost a year ago that it will not make endorsements in local elections, did not officially endorse a candidate but it certainly didn’t tell people not to put Cuomo on the ballot. It seems being accused of sexually harassing multiple women and then going after those women in an aggressive and intrusive way (including demanding gynecological records) isn’t as disqualifying as progressive policies. And, of course, the sexual harassment is just one of many scandals that Cuomo has weathered, including allegations he covered up nursing home deaths during the pandemic.

The Atlantic also came out with an anti-Mamdani piece albeit one that was more subtle and which focused on the process rather than the personality. Staff writer Annie Lowrey argued that ranked-choice voting in a mayor primary, used by New York City since 2021, is not truly democratic: “Without ranked-choice voting, Cuomo would probably steamroll his competition. With ranked-choice voting, Mamdani could defeat him.” While there are problems with ranked choice (as there are with first-past-the-post systems), I think the bigger democratic threat might be a system in which a billionaire can swoop in with millions to prop up their preferred candidate at the last minute.

All of this is anti-Mamdani mobilization is depressingly predictable: the Democratic establishment is allergic to fresh blood and new thinking. Shortly after Trump won the election last year, and the Democrats also lost the House and the Senate, Ocasio-Cortez lunched a bid to become the lead Democrat on the House oversight committee, which is an important minority leadership position. Ocasio-Cortez has become a lot more establishment-friendly since getting into power in 2018 (New York Magazine even decreed in 2023 that she is just a “Regular Old Democrat Now”), but she’s still not centrist enough for the Democrats, it seems. Nancy Pelosi reportedly sabotaged the 35-year-old congresswoman’s ambitions and ensured that 74-year-old Gerry Connolly, who had esophagus cancer at the time, got the job instead. Connolly died age 75 earlier this year, becoming the sixth House Democrat to have died in office in 12 months.

… I am not a Mamdani evangelist, but while some of his ideas are a little pie in the sky, he’s authentic and ready to fight for normal people rather than corporate interests. Sure, he doesn’t have a lot of experience. But he has a huge amount of potential. He’s managed to get at least 26,000 New Yorkers to volunteer for him. And I don’t mean they’ve sent a couple of text messages: one week they knocked on almost 100,000 doors. Michael Spear, a professor of history and political science at a Brooklyn college, told Jacobin the degree to which Mamdani’s campaign has galvanized New York City voters is unprecedented: “I don’t think there is anything like it” in New York history.

Nobody in the Democratic establishment is quite so delusional that they think the party is doing great. Everyone knows there is a need for change and yet they seem keen to sabotage anyone who might bring that change. Instead of rallying around fresh talent like Mamdani that can clearly mobilize young voters, the Democrats are mulling a $20 million plan to try to manufacture a “Joe Rogan of the left” who can connect with young men, rather than support an authentic grassroots candidate who is already connecting with them.

Will centrist interests prevail in New York? We won’t know until, at the very earliest, late on primary night, 24 June. Whatever happens, though, you can bet that Democrats will continue to do their very best to kneecap anyone who wants to drag them away from their obsession with doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

And this is hardly just something happening in the NYC mayoral race. Iowa’s first congressional district in the southeast corner of the state is one of the most flippable in the country. Trump won it with 50.5% in 2020 and 53.5% in 2024. The extremely unpopular Republican incumbent, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, was reelected against a weak Democratic opponent in 2024 by just 799 votes out of over 413,000 cast, 50.1% to 49.9%. It was the second time the wealthy centrist Democrat, Christina Bohannan lost to Miller-Meeks. And, with a blue wave on the horizon, the Iowa Democratic establishment wants her to run again, someone who stands for very little other than women’s choice and, should she win, will be another uninspiring corporately-aligned careerist, who will lose, deservedly and inevitably, in the next red wave (scheduled by the Democratic Party for 2030).

Instead, they have the opportunity to get behind a working class candidate, a New Deal Democrat, who stands for everything that attracts people to the Democratic Party— or used to— Travis Terrell. I wonder how many times they plan to lose with Bohannan before they consider changing up the operation.

Long Island New Deal Democrat, Lukas Ventouras, who’s taking on Trump ally Nick LaLota told us that “The establishment of the Democratic Party has long been resistant to change, and my campaign is no different. I am a progressive in the sense that I want things to quite literally progress in this nation. Running a Republican-lite campaign is so cowardly, and out of touch. People yearn for a change and they deserve to have the option to vote for it. For too long, especially in Suffolk, establishment Democrats have resisted change, resisted new ideas, and cowardly catered their message to a right leaning audience, rather than a general audience. It is baffling, and this extends beyond craven politicians in DC who chase corporate cash. There seems to be a local effort to run a campaign consistently aimed at reaching and attempting to flip Republican voters, rather than win over independents and reinvigorate Dems who have stayed home previously. It is wrong, and part of being progressive, is being proactive, and pushing a message that resonates with voters.”