Democrats Appear to Prefer Extinction Rather than Zohran Mamdani

For more than 24 hours, the U.S. Senate has been debating the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This so-called "reconciliation" legislation has the potential to radically change American society. Cuts to healthcare, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), will result in 16 million people losing healthcare. It will expand the Immigration and Customs Enforcement service so that it will have more employees than the Federal Bureau of Investigation and house more prisoners than the prison systems of all 50 U.S. states combined. The act will create dependencies on fossil fuels and potentially destroy the renewable energy industry, resulting in electricity costs as much as 30% higher. With all of this going on, what are leading Democrats discussing? Zohran Mamdani, the presumed Democratic nominee for Mayor of New York City.

For months, Democrats have been fretting about how to appeal to working-class and young voters. Now comes along a candidate who successfully motivated historic turnout among both groups, and rather than view him as the solution to their problems, Democrats have instead attacked him on spurious charges of antisemitism. This is worse than malpractice. This is the action of a party that prefers extinction to survival. If the Democratic Party continues down this path, it is doomed to failure. Worst of all, it is not fringe members of the Democratic Party who are engaging in the most self-defeating activities, but rather mainstays of the party. There are a few laudable exceptions, but generally, it has been exactly those who were thought to be the future of the party that have seemed most determined to make Democrats irrelevent.

Very quickly, because I addressed this in an earlier blog post, Mamdani has repeatedly been asked about the phrase, "Globalize the Intifada", a phrase that Mamdani had not used and does not use. Many are now insisting that this expression is antisemitic, despite no historic usage that would support that interpretation. The reality is that "Globalize the Intifada" has become a convenient "gotcha" issue. Focusing on the phrase distracts from the issues upon which Mamdani would rather focus. It provides a cudgel with which Mamdani's opponents can clobber him. Moreover, in the unlikely event that Mamdani changes tact and condemns the phrase, it will create division among his supporters and show that he can be intimidated. In many ways, what we have been seeing is an almost perfect example of the politicization of antisemitism. The fixation on these words — words that Mamdani doesn't even use — is not about protecting Jews, but rather about defeating a candidate who presents a threat to the status quo.

Semafor reporter Dave Weigel recently pointed out that current NYC Mayor Eric Adams received 289,403 first-preference votes in 2021 in the ranked choice voting system employed in New York City. This year, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo received 361,840 first-preference votes. While conventional wisdom in the aftermath of Cuomo's defeat is that he ran a terrible campaign, he actually succeeded in getting out his expected vote. The difference was that Mamdani turned out voters that were not expected to vote. That's the reason that all the public opinion polls were wrong. The New York Times has a list of 32 polls. All but two show Cuomo winning. One has Mamdani, but by a lower margin than his actual victory. The last poll was from a year and a half ago before the race seriously started and predicted that Letitia James would win. She ended up not even running. What is clear is that Mamdani broke the code and no pollster successfully modeled the electorate that came out. Therefore, Democrats should be trying to learn from Mamdani. Instead, they are attacking him.

In my earlier post, I described Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s ludicrous suggestion that Mamdani supports "global jihad" and glorifies the "slaughter of Jews". Since then, a number of other Democrats have come out of the woodwork to make similar unfounded criticisms. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that "'Globalizing the intifada' by way of example is not an acceptable phrasing. He's gonna have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward." Mamdani has repeatedly clarified his position. He rejects violence but is not going to get into the business of policing language. If Jeffries has hopes of becoming Speaker of the House rather than simply the minority leader, he should be happy about Mamdani's ability to bring more voters under the Democratic umbrella. Jeffries should be learning from Mamdani, not presuming to lecture him. Another Democratic Representative from New York, Laura Gillen, went on News Nation to declare that "His comments about intifada, calls for violence against Jewish people, it's really inappropriate for someone like that to lead the city of New York." Gillen is inventing things that Mamdani has never said. He has never called for violence against the Jewish people or anyone else. Moreover, she is not only not endorsing him, but actually saying that he should not be Mayor. What is inappropriate is her lying about a Democratic candidate. Gillen received nearly $100,000 in donations from the pro-Israel lobby, so I guess she knows where her bread is buttered. Even Representative Eric Swalwell, who, last I heard, represents a district in California and has nothing to do with New York, went on CNN to say that "I don't associate myself with what he has said about the Jewish people." Mamdani has not said anything negative about the Jewish people. So, is Swalwell disassociating himself from the positive things Mamdani has said?

The question that I have after seeing Democrat after Democrat misrepresenting Mamdani's position is whether they are all lying or simply misinformed? If they are misinformed, why? I assume that someone is providing them with talking points, but who? The damage being done is multifaceted. As I said above, they are taking time away from more important issues. Instead of embracing the new voters being brought into the fold, they are alienating them. This damage is not hypothetical. Recent polling by Priorities USA posted on X by Reporter Sam Stein shows that "Nearly half (48%) of Americans haven’t heard anything about the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill.’" and "Only 8% of all Americans name Medicaid cuts as a detail of the bill they have heard about." Our current fractured media environment has a lot to do with this — Fox News, for one, is not bothering to inform its viewers about cuts in healthcare funding — but this is a serious failure by Democrats. They are wasting time talking about a made-up issue involving Mamdani when they should be using every waking moment to defeat the Republican spending bill. They are failing to inform their constituents about the dangers represented by the reconciliation act and, instead, creating false fears of Mamdani.

Also not hypothetical is the potential damage that Jeffries is doing to his own future. Recently, CNN's Chief Data Analyst Harry Enten presented polling data that showed that 62% of Democrats nationally say that they want to replace their party leaders versus just 24% who say they don't. As Enten put it, "Democrats right now are out for blood — they want to take out their party leaders." Do Gillibrand, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and Jeffries believe that criticizing Mamdani and refusing to endorse him strengthens their positions? I guess in an environment in which the only thing that matters is the opinions of large funders, maybe yes. But probably not in the real world.

There have been a few, surprising in some cases, saving graces among Democrats. The first was Representative Jerry Nadler. Nadler is Jewish and a long-time supporter of Israel who has described himself as a "committed Zionist". At one time, I would have expected Nadler to be leading the charge against Mamdani. But in recent years, Nadler has become extremely reasonable on Middle East issues. During the primary, Nadler endorsed Scott Stringer. But as soon as Mamdani's victory was apparent, Nadler was quick to endorse him. Nadler was effusive in his praise, saying that the results were a "seismic election for the Democratic Party that I can only compare to Barack Obama’s in 2008." Nadler went on to say that "Voters in New York City demanded change, and with Zohran’s triumph, we have a direct repudiation of Donald Trump’s politics of tax cuts and authoritarianism." As for the issue of antisemitism, Nadler was frank, saying "I’ve spoken to him today about his commitment to fighting antisemitism, and we’ll work with all New Yorkers to fight against all bigotry and hate." Perhaps even more surprising was the reaction of current New York Governor Kathy Hochul. Directly criticizing Gillibrand's remarks that I discussed above, Hochul told Politico reporter Jason Befferman that "No one should be subjected to any comments that slur their ethnicity, their religious beliefs, and we condemn that anywhere it rears its head in the state of New York." In addition, Muslim Members of Congress Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, André Carson, and Lateefah Simon, issued a statement condemning the "vile, anti-Muslim, and racist smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle attacking Zohran Mamdani".

Antisemitism is a terrible affliction that knows no political bounds. All of us should work to stamp it out of existence. At the same time, antisemitism has been weaponized and cynically exploited for political gain. In the case of the New York City mayoral race, this was first attempted by Cuomo during the primary and failed miserably. It is no surprise that Republicans, who demonstrate no real commitment to combatting actual antisemitism, are quick to politicize it when it benefits them. More disappointing is when Democrats, who should know better, engage in similar behavior. The Democrats criticizing Mamdani are doing damage to the party as a whole, and by extension, the entire country. Moreover, they are likely doing damage to their own political prospects. At a time when it should be all hands on deck launching a 24/7 battle against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, many Americans remain uninformed about the contents of the legislation. Democrats are wasting valuable screen time talking about Mamdani and antisemitism instead of the real threats to our country.