The Zohran phenomenon (from the inside)

That boastful headline is required because of the flood of commentary about Zohran Mamdani’s stunning upset victory as the Democrats’ nominee for New York City mayor. Everyone has an opinion; the only reason you might want to know mine is that I worked on the campaign. I also saw ZM in action as state assemblyman years ago and paid attention to his initiatives. I can’t claim that I spotted him as a unique talent, but I liked what I saw.

Here’s the part that is not controversial: Zohran came out of nowhere with 1% name recognition, put together a killer online campaign, assembled and inspired a massive volunteer army, and charmed the pants off the city—or parts of it anyway. He is a natural politician, quick on his feet, doesn’t get rattled, and engaged with all sorts of people in his tireless street outreach, which his team turned into clever and fun videos. He has such a sunny disposition that the Cuomo attack team couldn’t really find a photo of him scowling to run in their TV ads.

To everyone’s surprise (including mine), he didn’t just edge past Cuomo—he blew him out of the water. The whole thing was over an hour after the polls closed.

A lot of talk ensued about how that was just the Democrats’ primary, the full city can vote in November, all the independents are out there unconvinced, Republicans (there are some) will hate him, Cuomo’s still on the ballot. Yada yada. Mayor Adams is still on the ballot, too, and shows no inclination to drop his delusional re-election bid. The millionaires desperately casting around to decide where to put their next gazillion dollars to stop ZM are in a panic because they have only two real choices, both laughably awful.

Four months is a long time in politics, but Zohran is now a phenomenon, racking up union endorsements (including some who started out with Cuomo), pulling in some early Democrat machine figures who can feel the winds shifting, and crushing it with the mainstream media whose gotcha interviewers can’t lay a finger on him. He attracts crowds that cheer him like a rock star.

I think it’s too late—the establishment just got handed its fat ass. I anticipate that it will now shift to figuring out how to destroy Mamdani’s attempt to govern for the 90%.

To that end, a lot of people have fallen into nay-saying about what’s possible. They’re sure Albany will block him, the business class with boycott him, the cops will undermine him, and in short, all his fine plans are impossible. To which, Zohran says, Just what I was told when I started this run last year. As for the impossible, let’s just see.

The Debbie Downers have not grasped what it means to have an army of fired up backers ready to mobilize to support the new mayor’s program. Governor Hochul already has said no to any new taxes on billionaires. Okay, but she’s also facing a credible primary challenge next year. Does she want some of Zohran’s 50,000 volunteers to mobilize against her re-election?

Zohran has called for a rent freeze, and he can do that single-handedly. The mayor appoints the majority of the Rent Guidelines Board, which sets rates for over half a million stabilized apartments.

Child care now costs an average of $20,000 a year in New York City; Zohran wants to provide it for free. We’re talking some seriously motivating concrete benefits that are easy for voters to understand.

Zohran won on people power, which partly explains why the anti-Semitism label failed to stick (aside from it being ridiculous). Nobody dreamed that political figures in our city could fail to toe the Zionist line and survive. He did. In my view, that’s because the youth-led revulsion against the genocide in Gaza, which was crushed at the university level with repression, threats, and lawfare, got channeled into the Zohran campaign.

That’s not to say that people were explicitly motivated by his unwavering stance on Palestine though some undoubtedly were. But Zohran’s refusal to shade his views for mainstream acceptability turned him into a figure of faith and credibility for a generation that views current political leadership with plain contempt.

Some pundits have pointed out that Zohran did well among the college educated while lower-income and black populations liked Cuomo. Bernie started out the same way, then drew in a broader base over time. In my canvassing experience, younger black and Hispanic voters were open to Zohran while their parents and grandparents stuck with the machine. I think the kids will now start to persuade their elders.

And now for a granular look at the wide disparity in results. Here are the percentages broken out by congressional district:

                                  

*District 3 includes non-NYC areas of Long Island; vote reflects only NYC

Cuomo dominated ex-Congressman Jamaal Bowman’s Riverside district (16) in the Bronx, heavily Orthodox Jewish. Latimer was shoehorned in with millions in from AIPAC.

Cuomo also did well in Meeks’ east Brooklyn, heavily African-American district (5), and in Tel Aviv Congressman Ritchie Torres’ Bronx farm (15).

Other than that, Cuomo had no noticeable geographic strengths. They battled to virtual ties in the Asian sections of Queens (6) and Hakeem Jeffries’ mid-Brooklyn stronghold (8).

Party loyalist Adriano Espaillat couldn’t hold his Dominican Upper Manhattan district (13) for Cuomo—one of his allies even campaigned for Zohran in the neighborhood.

The big Hasidic/Orthodox concentrations in Borough Park in Brooklyn turned out as expected, handing Cuomo 90% in some precincts (District 9), but Zohran’s base right next door balanced them. The Williamsburg Hasids’ unanimity for Cuomo was buried by Zohran’s massive turnout in Velasquez’ district (7).

Perhaps the most significant shift in this election, however, is about turnout. Traditionally (and not just in New York City), older voters predominate. As a result, candidates tend to pander to them. This time, the age distribution was exactly reverse—the big turnout came in the 25–35 age bracket, followed by 18 to 24-year-olds. If that sticks, it’s a game-changer.

These results show what a patchwork of ethnicities and political leanings the city is, which makes it tough to roll up a consensus on any policy. For that, we need inspired leadership and a populace ready to hit the streets to neutralize the money power.

Zohran’s canvassing teams were a sight to behold for their sheer numbers and their determination and enthusiasm. I was pleasantly surprised, being a granddad among them, to be asked my opinions about things, given my usual invisibility in crowds. They seemed hungry to learn from experience and to be directed toward useful sources of information.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a principal driver of the volunteer turnout, has attracted 3,500 new members in the course of the Zohran blitz. It’s now a seasoned electoral force after a decade of steady successes (and plenty of failures). It uses the Democrat line in elections to devastating effect, but it’s not enmeshed in the party machinery—the bosses didn’t want us around and chased us off. Maybe they regret it—they should.

One last thought: some commentators wax on about how the Dems should “learn from” Zohran and shift their approach. They presume that the underlying problem is messaging or generational stagnation. It’s not.

The Democrats’ role in our polity is to crush social movements like Zohran’s to protect their base among the professional-managerial class and their own sets of billionaires. They might try to coopt his platform and even adopt a few of his measures. But they absolutely don’t want a mass movement to arise behind any of their own candidates because that would mean loss of control.

That they fear worse than a whole gallery of Trumps. Zohran has declared enemies (R) and treacherous allies (D). All he can really count on is the people, the organized and mobilized people. So far, he has them.