Across the political spectrum, elites from both parties are simultaneously panicked and perplexed by the success of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. Corporate media have come up with several speculations about how this “socialist candidate” seemed to amass such a large voter turnout.
They’ve pontificated on every aspect of the campaign from his social media presence to the reaction of everyday New Yorkers to generational politics. They can’t seem to grasp the fact that it is his relentless focus on a working-class economic agenda that has propelled him to political stardom.
Undoubtedly, Mamdani has a knack for social media as a charismatic individual with an excellent communications team. He had important viral moments on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube that allowed voters to hear, directly from him, in a genuine manner.
Moments such as his explanation of ranked choice voting using mango lassi and speaking in fluent Hindi, his appearance on Subway Takes, his interview with Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, videos with well-known comedians Stavros Halkias and Nick Mullen, and his walk down the entirety of Manhattan helped propel his campaign to victory.
This effective use of social media by Mamdani’s campaign has led many top Democrats to focus on these forms of communication. Eric Adams recently tried to connect with his supporters by posting his morning routine, though he was ridiculed for his “cringe-worthy details,” including lying about the time, revealing it as a clumsy, staged performance.
Hakeem Jeffries sought to portray himself as a fighter by posting a picture of himself with a baseball bat in rebuke of Trump’s “big ugly bill.” But he, too, was mocked by comedian Jon Stewart who said that “it sends a clear message to Republicans that Hakeem Jeffries and the Democrats… are waiting for their moms to pick them up from T-Ball.”
Even Andrew Cuomo has attempted to use social media in his campaign relaunch video on X by trying to copy Zohran Mamdani’s aesthetic and “vibes.” However, the video is completely void of authenticity, as he clearly fakes interactions with regular people. It feels like a focus-grouped production with a professional camera crew, rehearsed speech, and awkward, unnatural colloquialisms from consultants who clearly don’t engage with constituents.
Throughout the 2024 election, Kamala Harris employed social media to engage younger voters. Although the campaign had a coherent communications strategy that reached voters through a medium they preferred, it was not enough to drive voter turnout. Many young voters prioritized Gaza, ending deportations, and the cost of rent over memes and TikTok videos.
What these Democrats and much of the corporate media fail to understand is that social media, without bold working-class economic policies, is a losing strategy that invites both ridicule and disdain. No amount of podcasts or content will translate into genuine support from broad swaths of the population as long as Democrats serve the interests of the capitalist class.
When the social media explanation fails to account for his popularity, pundits pivot to another theory: age.
The right-wing outlets have taken a more critical line, accusing young people of ignorance or stupidity while the liberal outlets have insinuated that younger voters care more about generational politics than policy.
New York Post writer Chadwick Moore attributed the victory to young people’s “misplaced doomerism.” He condescendingly states that, “This bleak mindset, rooted in rising mental health struggles and economic illiteracy, drove under-35s to embrace Mamdani’s Marxist bombast — even if they’re unclear on what exactly they’re supporting.” He assumes that Mamdani voters are uneducated and have no understanding of political economy despite the clear data that college graduates overwhelmingly supported Mamdani.
Liberal media platforms like NPR have downplayed the importance of a working-class agenda by emphasizing candidates’ age as the primary reason for youth support. They claim that young voters “hope to bring a new generation of leadership to Washington”—as if young people simply gravitate toward politicians close to their age, rather than responding to a bold working-class platform.
At face value, both arguments fall apart. Young people care much more about policy than generational similarities. This is one of the main reasons 83-year-old senator Bernie Sanders is wildly popular among young voters
Both the conservative and liberal explanations for Mamdani’s popularity leave much to be desired. What drives his appeal is not just rhetoric, charisma, use of social media or age, but a working-class economic agenda paired with concrete action.
Notwithstanding the relentless barrage of propaganda, misinformation, and outright lies from super PACs and corporate media portraying Zohran’s platform as unrealistic and unpopular, these policies are both doable and broadly supported.
Gained credibility with hunger strike
He first gained credibility in the eyes of many New Yorkers by going on a hunger strike to help win debt relief for taxi drivers. This kind of real action goes beyond much of the empty symbolic gestures commonplace in the Democratic Party such as Hakeem Jeffries setting the record for speaking for the longest period of time on the house floor, or Chuck Schumer simply changing the name of the catastrophic omnibus bill. To the contrary, Zohran’s actions led to tangible results for working-class New Yorkers.
Though Mamdani’s campaign for mayor was branded as radical and extreme, he pushed for very popular policies that benefit working-class New Yorkers. Around 72% of New Yorkers support free MTA bus service including 58% of Republicans. The pilot program for free buses already showed that public transit can and should be safe, reliable and universally acceptable.
Zohran’s plan for municipally-owned grocery stores is widely backed by the people of New York City as well, despite the media onslaught and fearmongering about “socialist groceries.” A whopping 66% of New Yorkers and 54% of Republicans support the proposal to institute five city-run grocery stores.
His proposal to freeze the rent on rent-stabilized housing is perhaps the most popular position in a city dominated by big real estate and developers. According to a Data for Progress poll, a rent freeze received a whopping 78% support with a minuscule 17% opposed.
On childcare, 76% of all Americans agree the costs are a major problem, including 70% of Republicans. In New York City, nearly 80% support expanding childcare services to 2-year-olds.
Across the United States, 60% of respondents say they agree with the statement: “The government should take an active role in ensuring all families have access to reliable, affordable child care.”
To fund these popular proposals, the Mamdani campaign pledges to raise taxes by 2% on individuals earning over $1 million annually and to increase the corporate tax rate to 11.5%, matching New Jersey’s. Taxing the rich is widely supported by the American people. Roughly 2/3 of Americans support higher taxes on large businesses and corporations, and almost 4/5 of Americans support taxing wealthy individuals at higher rates.
Despite efforts by corporate media and much of the political class to portray Mamdani as an out-of-touch radical, his ideas are far more aligned with public opinion than those of the Democratic establishment. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows that only 19% of Americans approve of the job congressional Democrats are doing—even after the chaos of the Trump administration.
Policies like free public transit, a public option for groceries, a rent freeze, and universal childcare funded by taxing millionaires, billionaires, and corporations all enjoy majority support.
Unfortunately, many top Democratic leaders seem more committed to chasing social media trends, manufacturing vibes, and relying on empty gestures and generational optics instead of advancing the broadly popular economic policies that could actually help them defeat Republicans.
The ruling class and their corporate mouthpieces remain baffled by the source of Zohran Mamdani’s popularity. They fumble for explanations—social media savvy, generational divides—while ignoring the obvious answer. It’s working-class economics, stupid!
As with all op-eds published by People’s World, the views represented here are those of the author.
We hope you appreciated this article. At People’s World, we believe news and information should be free and accessible to all, but we need your help. Our journalism is free of corporate influence and paywalls because we are totally reader-supported. Only you, our readers and supporters, make this possible. If you enjoy reading People’s World and the stories we bring you, please support our work by donating or becoming a monthly sustainer today. Thank you!
CONTRIBUTOR
