After a historic victory last fall, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani celebrated 100 days in office earlier this month.
So far, it’s going well: His approval numbers are generally good, he’s started to follow through on some of his major campaign promises, and he weathered his first major challenge as mayor after NYC weathered two severe winter storms earlier in the year. (He has also managed to impress President Donald Trump immediately but twice.)
Mamdani’s track record also suggests some questions for the Democratic Party as it heads into the midterms. Among them: Is Mamdani’s success an image of the party’s future? How much can be replicated outside of New York or on a national stage? And how much is the party willing to listen to?
Ben Rhodes was the deputy national security adviser and a close aide to Barack Obama. Now he is a writer and co-host of Pod Save the Worldpodcast about world news and foreign policy. Today, It’s Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram, asked Rhodes what lesson the party can learn from Mamdani and which candidates are holding out for possible Mamdani-esque success.
Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s a lot more in the full podcast, so take a listen Today, It’s Explained wherever you find podcasts, incl Apple Podcasts, Pandoraand Spotify.
You are here to help us understand how (Mamdani) is treated within the party. How is he talked about in the Democratic tent?
It’s interesting because there are two divisions in the Democratic Party. One is between left and center. But the other is more about body language. Do you understand what is going on? Do you understand the magnitude of the danger that Trump poses? Do you understand the extent of the disgust that people feel for the Democratic Party and politics in general? Do you understand the need for generational change?
I think Mamdani has excited everyone who is either on the sustainable end of the spectrum in the party or who is eager to find a newer face, young people who understand what is going on, who do politics in a different way, who do not feel like bringing back the old conversation for the umpteenth time. And so there is a group of people who see him as an opportunity, a person to follow, a person to emulate.
Then I think there are Democrats who are very afraid of Zohran Mamdani because of all those things. Let’s take it Chuck Schumerwho is the main member of the big Democratic party that people are confused about – who didn’t even endorse Mamdani, even though he’s from New York. It is clear that he is conflicted about Mamdani’s politics regarding Israel and Palestine. He is reluctant to hand over the reins to the new generation in the same way we saw Joe Biden hesitate during his term of office. He has entered this battle between the left wing of the party and the center and is worried about the rise of the democratic socialist and the loss of control of the agenda that is usually dictated from Washington, not the other way around.
I think Mamdani has been – I don’t want to say divisive, because the Schumers of the world can’t speak out against Mamdani anymore because he’s so popular at this point. But I think there are people who are ambivalent and then there are people who are excited and the number of excited people is increasing.
If you look at her as close as Schumer, the difference is clear in two buckets: One, she’s a better communicator. And then two, he seems to be better at dealing with the president.
Are these the two buckets that Democrats who are in office or perhaps even aspiring to national office are most focused on?
Those are the two basic buckets. Obviously there are questions about what the Democratic Party stands for on certain issues.
But standing up for the president, let’s start there. Mamdani has confirmed what many Democrats suspect, which is that our leadership has completely failed to find a way to deal with Trump. Either they insult him in public and can’t do anything in private, or they try to cut a deal the old fashioned way.
“He’s just brilliant and has that unique quality that Obama had.”
That hasn’t worked, and so I think Mamdani is showing, “Hey, you can be smart about this and be totally uncompromising and Trump will respect you more.”
In terms of communication, it helps that Mamdani is a charismatic politician. It helps that he is a well-liked politician. He talks like a normal human being. And the Chuck Schumers of the world don’t have it. It’s always some sort of tried-and-tested phrase about the middle class that’s designed to offend a few people and so he doesn’t say anything, whereas Mamdani seems like a normal person, like a real person who’s just telling you what he believes, and I think people believe he’s telling you what he believes.
People have heard him take positions that were controversial. I actually think in this case, his positions on Gaza helped validate his positions on affordability because people are like, “Well, this guy is willing to go out and take on a really big fight and he’s not going to flinch. I’m more likely to believe that he’s going to fight to lower my taxes because he’s got principles that he’s going to stand by.” And people don’t trust most mainstream Democratic politicians to be around when war comes.
You worked for someone who was singular. Is Mamdani a singular form? I mean, he’s 34. He’s a former rapper. He likes sports, he likes culture. He understands social media. You can’t pin that on Schumer or even Schumer’s team, necessarily.
He’s just talented and has that unique personality that Obama had. Its nature is different. He presents the difference. Now, I definitely think that where it can be modeled, even if you don’t have the unique talent or background of Mamdani, is the authenticity and certainty of a generation: Young people who just look normal and look normal.
If you look at the Democratic Senate primary, some people have consistently overworked against the party’s choices: Graham Platner in Maine. Graham Platner looks like an ordinary person and is 30 years younger than Janet Mills, the governor of Maine, who is the preferred candidate of Chuck Schumer and the Democratic campaign committee. Looking at Michigan: Haley Stevens, a very ordinary politician, is the preferred candidate for the DSCC. There are two candidates, Mallory McMorrow and Abdul El-Sayed, who present as the most common.
And this is not a left of center thing. This is a younger and more accurate politician.
As someone who worked for a former politician of the Democratic Party, does it shock you that (Mamdani) being born in another country can reduce the level of the politician of the generation he gets to be?
It crossed my mind. I will say, it makes him an interesting figure. We have never had a figure, at least in my recent memory, who could end up becoming a prominent politician at such a young age and such a low ceiling for the presidency. And what he chooses to do with it is very interesting.
What? is, “I’m a New York City boy and that’s what I do. I go through the motions as mayor, and then I want to work in the city?” What? is “Have I become a New York state politician?” What? is “Am I becoming some kind of national figure as opposed to being president?”
It somehow relieves him of the burden in some way. Because you have seen this with AOC, and any young politician. I mean, they’re already talking about (Sen. Jon) Ossoff in Georgia or if (state Rep. James) Talarico wins (in Texas), they’ll start talking about the presidency the next day.
It frees him up where every move he makes is not like, “Is he putting himself in a position to run for president one day?” And so in that way, something is lost, but something can be found as well.
