THE 2025 NEW YORK MAYORAL ELECTION: DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST POLITICS AND URBAN GOVERNANCE

Zohran Mamdani’s Victory and the Future of Progressive Urban Politics

By Habib Al- Badawi

1. INTRODUCTION

The 2025 New York mayoral election represents a critical juncture in American urban politics. Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist state assemblyman, defeated well-funded opposition to become mayor of America’s largest city, challenging both right-wing populism and Democratic establishment centrism. This victory raises fundamental questions: Can democratic socialist politics achieve transformative governance within capitalist state structures? What strategic innovations enabled Mamdani’s multiracial working-class coalition to succeed where previous progressive campaigns failed? What structural constraints will limit his administration’s transformative potential?

We argue that Mamdani’s election illuminates both possibilities and constraints facing progressive urban governance amid neoliberal restructurings. His campaign exploited the fracturing of neoliberal hegemonic consensus through grassroots mobilization and authentic political communication—what we term “politics of presence.” However, his administration confronts systematic obstacles rooted in capitalist state structures: fiscal dependencies, jurisdictional constraints, and capital mobility that discipline progressive governments regardless of popular mandates.

The analysis proceeds in four parts. First, we establish our theoretical framework, synthesizing Gramscian hegemony theory, neo-Poulantzian state analysis, and critical urban geography. Second, we trace Mamdani’s political genesis and campaign strategy, identifying tactical innovations that enabled electoral success. Third, we analyze the ideological contrast between Mamdani’s solidarity politics and competing political visions, treating New York as both a geographical space and a political metaphor. Finally, we examine governing challenges that will test whether a democratic socialist administration can deliver tangible improvements while maintaining popular support.

New York serves as a theoretically significant case because its size, diversity, and economic centrality make it a testing ground for progressive governance possibilities. The city’s strong labor traditions, diverse working-class communities, and progressive political culture provide favorable conditions for democratic socialist politics, though generalizations to other contexts require careful consideration of contextual specificity.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
   1.  Hegemonic Crisis and Counter-Hegemonic Politics

Gramsci’s concepts of hegemony and organic crisis provide our foundational framework (Gramsci, 1971). Hegemony describes how dominant classes maintain power through cultural and ideological consent rather than coercion alone. Periods of organic crisis occur when ruling ideologies lose legitimacy without clear successors emerging—what Gramsci termed the interregnum, when “the old is dying and the new cannot be born.”

Contemporary Western democracies occupy such an interregnum, as neoliberal consensus fractures amid accelerating inequality, climate crisis, and democratic erosion (Streeck, 2014; Fraser, 2017). Neither traditional center-left parties offering technocratic gradualism nor right-wing nationalists scapegoating immigrants provide viable resolutions to systemic contradictions.

Mamdani’s campaign represents a counter-hegemonic project: an alternative political formation challenging both neoliberal centrism and authoritarian populism. His grassroots organizing exemplifies Gramsci’s “war of position”—long-term institution-building and consciousness-raising before seizing state power. The multiracial working-class coalition he assembled attempts to construct a historic bloc capable of achieving hegemonic dominance through solidarity rather than division. However, hegemonic crisis does not predetermine progressive outcomes. Right-wing authoritarianism also exploits neoliberalism’s legitimacy deficit, channeling genuine grievances toward reactionary ends. The critical question becomes whether Mamdani’s administration can consolidate counter-hegemonic potential or will be absorbed into what Fraser (2017) terms “progressive neoliberalism”—cultural progressivism combined with continued market fundamentalism.

2.  The Capitalist State and Structural Constraints

Poulantzas’s state theory illuminates why progressive urban governance confronts systematic obstacles within capitalist structures (Poulantzas, 2000). The state maintains “relative autonomy” from direct capitalist control while ultimately serving capital accumulation through institutional mechanisms favoring certain interests over others. This creates a “strategic field” where popular classes can win concessions without fundamentally transforming property relations.

Municipal governments operate within nested scales of state power. Federal and state levels constrain local autonomy through fiscal policy, legal frameworks, and regulatory structures. Progressive officials face “structural selectivity”—institutional mechanisms favoring capital-friendly policies through property tax revenue dependence, legal constraints on innovation, and capital mobility threats.

Three structural constraints prove particularly significant. First, fiscal limitations arise from municipal dependence on property tax revenue, creating systematic bias toward development interests. Progressive policies limiting property values or landlord profits directly threaten revenue sources. Second, jurisdictional constraints emerge from federal-state-local hierarchies. State governments can preempt municipal initiatives; federal authorities override sanctuary city policies. Third, capital mobility enables investment strikes. Businesses threaten relocation to lower-tax jurisdictions, disciplining progressive governments through implicit veto power.

These constraints are substantial but not absolute. As Harvey (2012) demonstrates, cities constitute critical nodes in capital accumulation circuits. Disrupting urban space through tenant organizing, labor actions, or political mobilization imposes costs on capital, creating leverage for winning concessions. The analytical question becomes whether sufficient space exists for transformative reforms or merely ameliorative measures improving conditions without challenging fundamental power structures.

3.  Urban Space and Coalition Politics

Harvey’s concept of the “right to the city” frames urban politics as struggle over spatial justice and collective control (Harvey, 2012). Neoliberal cities become sites of “accumulation by dispossession”—public goods privatized, working-class residents displaced through gentrification. These processes transform use-value (collective needs) into exchange-value (profit opportunities).

Brenner’s state rescaling theory demonstrates that urban governance cannot be understood in isolation from national and global processes (Brenner, 2004). Neoliberalization involves “glocalization”—simultaneously scaling up to supranational bodies and scaling down to entrepreneurial cities while hollowing out national welfare states. Cities compete for mobile capital through tax incentives and business-friendly policies. “Austerity urbanism” constrains municipal budgets while expanding responsibilities as higher government levels devolve social provision downward without corresponding revenue.

Progressive urban governance consequently requires building counter-scalar strategies coordinating action across multiple levels simultaneously. Mamdani’s administration must engage federal immigration policy, state fiscal regulations, and neighborhood organizing concurrently—a complex strategic challenge requiring sustained grassroots mobilization beyond electoral cycles.

Fraser’s recognition-redistribution framework addresses tensions within contemporary progressive coalitions (Fraser & Honneth, 1998). Post-1960s left movements emphasized cultural recognition and identity claims while de-emphasizing economic redistribution. This enabled neoliberalism’s rise through “progressive neoliberalism”—cultural progressivism combined with market fundamentalism (Fraser, 2017). Transformative politics requires integrating recognition and redistribution: acknowledging how racialization shapes class experience while building coalitions around shared material interests.

Mouffe’s work on left populism addresses strategic dilemmas of constructing “the people” as political subjects (Mouffe, 2018). Effective left politics requires identifying adversaries—real estate interests, corporate power, oligarchic wealth—without eliminating legitimate disagreement or threatening democratic pluralism. This agonistic approach rejects “post-political” consensus obscuring power relations.

Mamdani’s multiracial, multilingual working-class coalition attempts this synthesis. Rather than colorblind universalism obscuring racialized communities’ distinct experiences or identity-focused fragmentation preventing broad coalition-building, his approach centers racial justice while constructing solidarity through shared grievances: unaffordable housing, wage stagnation, healthcare insecurity, and climate vulnerability.

3. METHODOLOGY

This study employs critical case methodology (Flyvbjerg, 2006), treating Mamdani’s mayoralty as a theoretically significant case enabling analytical generalization rather than statistical inference. The methodological approach integrates five complementary strategies.

Process tracing reconstructs causal pathways linking campaign strategies to electoral outcomes, identifying critical junctures and decision points. We analyze campaign documents, public statements, and media coverage to understand how tactical choices shaped political dynamics.

Discourse analysis examines how Mamdani constructed populist narratives, identifying adversaries while building working-class solidarity. We code campaign rhetoric for agonistic framing, recognition-redistribution integration, and authentic communication strategies.

Comparative implicit method contrasts Mamdani’s democratic socialist approach with competing political formations and Democratic establishment centrism. This illuminates distinctive strategic choices and ideological positions.

Structural analysis situates the New York case within broader political-economic structures: neoliberal urbanism, state rescaling dynamics, capital accumulation patterns, and multi-scalar governance hierarchies constraining municipal autonomy.

Dialectical reading examines contradictions between competing political visions, understanding opposition as qualitative transformation of political ontology rather than mere policy inversion.

Data sources include campaign documents, policy platforms, public statements, media coverage, and academic literature on urban political economy and social movements. The analysis employs dialectical interpretation, examining tensions between structural determination and political agency, avoiding both structural determinisms foreclosing possibility and voluntarism ignoring material constraints.

Three limitations warrant acknowledgment. First, temporal constraints arise from analyzing governance at its inception, before policy implementation and long-term outcomes become assessable. Conclusions remain provisional, subject to revision as events unfold. Second, New York’s unique characteristics—size, diversity, and economic centrality—limit direct generalization to other contexts while enabling identification of transferable causal mechanisms. Third, reliance on publicly available information limits access to internal campaign decision-making processes.

4. POLITICAL GENESIS: FORGED IN OPPOSITION
   1.  The Sanders Moment and Political Awakening

Mamdani’s political formation occurred during Bernie Sanders’s 2016 Democratic primary campaign, which introduced democratic socialist discourse into mainstream American politics after decades of marginalization. Sanders exposed deep fractures within the Democratic coalition: working-class voters across racial lines experiencing economic precarity versus professional-class liberals dominating party leadership while benefiting from neoliberal arrangements.

Mamdani described his political awakening as recognizing that Sanders’s solidarity vision offered moral and strategic alternatives—addressing material grievances without scapegoating vulnerable populations. His identity as an immigrant’s son shaped his understanding of American politics as fundamentally about belonging and economic security, connecting immigration policy to broader questions of who claims collective resources and political voice.

This biographical detail carries analytical significance beyond personal narrative. Mamdani’s politics emerged not from institutional socialization within established party structures but from ideological conviction forged when dominant formations appeared incapable of addressing systemic crises. He functions as what Gramsci termed an “organic intellectual”—a leader articulating class interests in political terms, mediating grassroots movements and institutional politics (Gramsci, 1971).

2.  Post-2024 Diagnosis: Understanding Political Opposition

Following the 2024 presidential election, Mamdani reportedly conducted extensive street-level conversations with voters across the political spectrum, documenting these interactions as a diagnostic project. Rather than dismissing opposition voters as irredeemable or focusing exclusively on progressive base turnout—dominant Democratic establishment responses—Mamdani sought to understand material conditions and political frustrations making alternative messages resonant.

According to media reports and campaign communications, these conversations revealed patterns transcending partisan divisions. Voters expressed alienation from a political system perceived as serving elite interests, frustration with living costs outpacing wages, and skepticism toward politicians offering platitudes rather than tangible solutions. Many distinguished between anti-establishment positioning and endorsement of specific policies, suggesting that alternative projects addressing material grievances might prove viable.

This diagnostic work informed campaign strategy. Rather than replicating staged listening exercises—carefully managed events demonstrating empathy while maintaining strategic ambiguity—Mamdani engaged in dialogue acknowledging political failure and articulating alternative visions grounded in concrete proposals. This embodied “politics of presence”: direct engagement prioritizing authenticity over mediated communication, functioning as both an ideological commitment to democratic participation and a tactical calculation that accessibility and moral clarity resonate with voters exhausted by calculated positioning.

5. CAMPAIGN STRATEGY: GRASSROOTS MOBILIZATION AND POLITICAL INNOVATION
   1.  Politics of Presence vs. Professionalized Campaigns

Mamdani’s campaign represented a departure from professionalized electoral strategies dominating contemporary American politics. Where conventional campaigns prioritize data analytics, focus groups, and mass media advertising, Mamdani invested in face-to-face organizing, volunteer training, and community relationship-building.

“Politics of presence” describes this approach: visibility on street corners in working-class neighborhoods, accessibility to community organizations without intermediary scheduling barriers, and willingness to articulate clear positions risking donor alienation. This contrasted with opponents’ reliance on television commercials, social media micro-targeting, and professional consultants.

The strategic logic reflected both ideology and tactics. Ideologically, direct engagement expressed commitment to participatory democracy—governance emerging from constituent relationships rather than consultant expertise. Tactically, authenticity appears to function as an electoral asset in contexts of institutional distrust. Voters experiencing politicians as calculating and distant responded to candidates demonstrating genuine accessibility and moral clarity.

The spatial dimension proved equally significant. Centering the campaign in the Bronx and outer boroughs rather than Manhattan challenged assumptions about which New York matters politically. Mamdani’s New York was not the city of financial capital dominating media representations but the city of tenants, transit workers, and immigrant communities whose labor sustains urban life while experiencing systematic exclusion. This geographical focus both reflected and reinforced class-based political identity, demonstrating through spatial practice the vision animating campaign discourse.

Table 1: Summarizes strategic dimensions of Mamdani’s campaign innovation, comparing his approach with conventional electoral strategies across four critical dimensions.

Table 1. Strategic Dimensions of Mamdani’s Campaign Innovation

Dimension	Mamdani’s Approach	Conventional Approach	Political Significance
Communication	Politics of presence: direct engagement, street-level accessibility, unmediated constituent relationships	Professionalized: data analytics, focus groups, mass media advertising, consultant-driven messaging	Authenticity as electoral asset in era of institutional distrust; moral clarity vs. strategic ambiguity
Geographical Focus	Outer boroughs, working-class neighborhoods, immigrant communities, transit-dependent populations	Manhattan-centric, elite fundraising venues, professional-class residential areas, donor accessibility prioritization	Spatial politics reflecting class identity; challenging assumptions about which New York matters politically
Coalition Building	Multiracial working-class solidarity through shared material interests; centering racial justice within economic framework	Either identity fragmentation or colorblind universalism; single-issue emphasis or technocratic appeals	Recognition-redistribution synthesis avoiding progressive neoliberalism; transformative vs. affirmative remedies
Messaging Strategy	Moral clarity, adversary identification, agonistic framing of class conflict, transformative policy proposals	Strategic ambiguity, triangulation, post-political consensus framing, incremental reform proposals	Agonistic populism vs. Third Way consensus; left populism constructing “the people” against oligarchic elites

Note: This comparative analysis demonstrates how Mamdani’s campaign systematically challenged conventional electoral wisdom across multiple dimensions. The approach reflected both principled commitment to participatory democracy and tactical calculation that authenticity resonates with populations experiencing political alienation.

2.  Navigating Multi-Directional Opposition

Mamdani faced opposition from multiple directions simultaneously. Conservative forces sought to prevent progressive governance. Democratic establishment figures perceived his democratic socialist politics as threatening party stability and donor relationships. Former governor Andrew Cuomo’s independent candidacy, reportedly supported by donors seeking to divide opposition, positioned Mamdani as too radical for effective governance.

Cuomo’s campaign replicated the Third Way strategic playbook, attempting to occupy supposed center ground between extremes. This triangulation strategy assumed voters wanted moderation. Mamdani rejected this framing, arguing that systemic crises demand transformative responses rather than splitting differences between inadequate alternatives.

Mamdani also confronted identity-based attacks questioning his background. As a Muslim candidate with a viable path to leading New York—a city central to post-9/11 debates—he became a target for those seeking to delegitimize his candidacy. His response proved instructive: refusing to moderate positions or distance himself from Muslim identity while consistently reframing debates toward substantive policy questions. This demonstrated the possibility of confronting bigotry without capitulating to its premises or accepting defensive postures conceding ideological terrain.

The campaign navigated significant financial disparities threatening to overwhelm grassroots organizing. Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman publicly committed to funding opposition, illustrating material stakes for capital interests threatened by expanded rent regulation, strengthened labor protections, and progressive taxation. Despite resource disadvantages, Mamdani’s campaign leveraged volunteer labor, small-dollar donations, and media coverage generated by grassroots energy to achieve competitive visibility.

This success challenges deterministic assumptions about money’s role in electoral politics, suggesting that resource disparities can be partially offset through volunteer mobilization and authentic political appeal. However, such exceptions require extraordinary organizing capacity and favorable political conditions—not easily replicable formulas applicable across contexts.

3.  Coalition-Building: Multiracial Working-Class Solidarity

Mamdani’s coalition-building synthesized Fraser’s recognition-redistribution framework with Mouffe’s agonistic populism. Rather than colorblind universalism obscuring racialized communities’ distinct experiences or identity-focused fragmentation preventing broad coalitions, his approach centered racial justice while building solidarity through shared material interests.

Campaign messaging articulated demands in universalist terms—affordable housing, living wages, healthcare access, dignified work—while acknowledging how racialization shapes class experience. Housing affordability connects differently for Black families confronting discriminatory lending and white families facing gentrification, yet both constituencies share interests in rent regulation and public housing investment. Labor protections matter differently for undocumented immigrants facing deportation threats and native-born workers experiencing wage stagnation, yet both benefit from strengthened enforcement and unionization support.

This integration avoided the progressive neoliberalism trap: celebrating diversity while maintaining economic structures producing inequality. Mamdani’s platform addressed both cultural recognition—opposing immigration enforcement, supporting LGBTQ+ rights, acknowledging historical injustices—and material redistribution—expanding rent regulation, raising wages, and providing public healthcare. Transformative rather than affirmative remedies predominated: addressing root causes of inequality rather than diversifying elite positions or providing symbolic recognition without structural change.

The adversarial framing identified clear opponents: real estate interests extracting surplus through rent, corporate power suppressing wages and labor organizing, and oligarchic wealth concentration distorting democracy. This populist discourse constructed “the people” as a multiracial working class united against elites rather than as an ethnically defined community excluding racialized others. The strategy distinguished between adversaries (political opponents within democratic contestation) and enemies (threats to democracy itself), permitting strong oppositional framing without authoritarian implications (Mouffe, 2018).

6. IDEOLOGICAL CONTRAST: COMPETING VISIONS OF URBAN GOVERNANCE
   1.  Exclusionary Urban Politics

Contemporary right-wing urban politics emphasizes wealth concentration, hierarchical ordering, and exclusionary community boundaries. This vision treats cities as showcases for elite consumption and aspirational luxury, where success measures individual accumulation and social status rather than collective flourishing.

This spatial politics extends to governance approaches. Policies emphasizing immigration enforcement, social program reductions, and preferential treatment for corporate interests through tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks reflect worldviews in which government exists to protect property rights and maintain social order rather than provide collective goods or address systemic inequalities.

These governance priorities rest on genuine grievances and real material conditions rather than mere manipulation. Supporters include those affected by deindustrialization, those experiencing community transformation by economic restructuring operating beyond local control, and those experiencing cultural and economic anxiety as intertwined phenomena. The political challenge lies in channeling legitimate frustrations, with some formations offering nationalism and hierarchy as solutions while others emphasize solidarity and redistribution.

2.  Mamdani’s New York: Solidarity and Collective Flourishing

Mamdani articulates a counter-vision rooted in democratic socialist principles, reimagining cities as shared political communities rather than marketplaces for individual consumption. His policy platform emphasizes five pillars.

Housing affordability through expanded rent stabilization, public housing investment, and zoning requirements for affordable units reverses decades of privatization and disinvestment. These proposals challenge real estate interests’ commodification of urban space, treating housing as a collective entitlement rather than a market commodity.

Labor protections, including living wage requirements, expanded worker protections (paid sick leave, predictable scheduling), and unionization support, recognize work’s dignity and workers’ basic needs. These measures address precarious employment conditions while building working-class institutional power.

Immigration rights through opposition to federal enforcement cooperation, expanded municipal services regardless of status, and political advocacy for comprehensive reform assert municipal authority to protect vulnerable community members. These positions challenge the federal immigration regime while affirming solidarity across national boundaries.

Climate justice through public transit investment and building decarbonization addresses environmental crises while creating employment opportunities. These policies integrate environmental sustainability with economic security, avoiding false choices between jobs and climate action.

Public goods expansion, including healthcare access and education funding, treats these as collective entitlements rather than market commodities. Universal provision challenges neoliberal privatization while building constituencies for expanded social provision.

These positions reflect a coherent ideological framework treating government as an instrument of collective flourishing rather than merely a manager of competing interests. Mamdani’s vision treats cities not as marketplaces where preferences aggregate through consumer choice but as shared political communities where all residents possess equal claims to dignity and security regardless of citizenship status, income level, or social position.

Crucially, this politics rests on multiracial, multilingual understanding of the working class challenging both white-centric populism and colorblind universalism. Rather than accepting white-centric framing dominating much American populist discourse, Mamdani’s campaign explicitly centered Black, Latino, Asian, and immigrant communities’ experiences while building coalitions across racial lines through shared material interests and common aspirations for dignity, security, and democratic voice.

3.  Dialectical Opposition: Competing Political Ontologies

The contrast between competing visions represents more than policy disagreement—it embodies fundamentally different political ontologies. One approach treats politics as individual competition within hierarchical ordering: success through accumulation, authority through domination, and community through exclusion. The alternative treats politics as collective project toward shared flourishing: success through solidarity, authority through participation, and community through inclusion.

This opposition is asymmetrical. Mamdani does not simply invert opposing positions but articulates a different understanding of what politics is, what it can achieve, and what constitutes human flourishing. Individual success becomes, in this framework, a product of social investment and collective labor rather than personal achievement abstracted from social context—reframing that challenges fundamental assumptions about desert, merit, and social organization.

The spatial dialectic proves particularly revealing. Manhattan’s glass towers and concentrated wealth represent exchange-value maximization: space organized for profit extraction. The outer boroughs’ working-class neighborhoods, immigrant enclaves, and public transit represent use-value prioritization: space organized for collective needs (Harvey, 2012). This contrast reflects competing answers to fundamental questions: Who has the right to the city? Who determines how urban space gets organized and for whose benefit?

The victory in New York thus carries symbolic weight beyond immediate practical consequences, functioning as a political metaphor illuminating broader possibilities. It demonstrates that exclusionary visions are not inevitable, that alternatives exist and can achieve popular support despite resource disadvantages and elite opposition.

7. INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT: CENTER-LEFT CRISIS AND STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES
   1.  European Center-Left Patterns

Mamdani’s victory gains significance when situated within the broader center-left crisis across Western democracies. Social democratic parties have largely accommodated right-wing framing on immigration, national identity, and economic policy rather than articulating alternative visions capable of mobilizing popular support.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s adoption of nationalist rhetoric previously associated with right-wing parties, the German SPD’s inconsistent responses to the AfD’s rise oscillating between accommodation and opposition without clear direction, and Emmanuel Macron’s rightward drift on immigration illustrate center-left patterns enabling rather than challenging right-wing populism’s ascendance (Milanovic, 2024).

Table 2: Systematically compares center-left crisis manifestations across four Western democracies, demonstrating remarkable consistency despite contextual variations in political systems and party structures.

Table 2. International Patterns of Center-Left Crisis and Strategic Responses

Country	Party/Leader	Crisis Manifestation	Strategic Response	Outcome
United Kingdom	Labour Party/Keir Starmer	Adoption of nationalist rhetoric on immigration; distancing from economic redistribution demands	Accommodation to right-wing framing on immigration and national identity; emphasis on fiscal responsibility	Ideological convergence with conservative positions; working-class electoral alienation
Germany	SPD (Social Democratic Party)	Inconsistent responses to AfD rise; internal divisions on immigration and economic policy	Fragmented positioning oscillating between accommodation and opposition without coherent alternative vision	Erosion of traditional working-class base; electoral decline in former strongholds
France	Emmanuel Macron (representing center-left tradition)	Rightward drift on immigration; embrace of law-and-order rhetoric; continued commitment to market liberalization	Triangulation between left economic demands and right cultural positions; technocratic positioning	Normalization of far-right discourse; polarization between far-right and left alternatives
United States	Democratic Party establishment	Professional-working class disconnect; donor dependence constraining policy; reluctance to challenge corporate power	Strategic ambiguity; emphasis on cultural progressivism over economic redistribution; defensive positioning	Vulnerability to both right-wing populism and left insurgency; difficulty mobilizing working-class base

Note: This comparative analysis demonstrates remarkable consistency in center-left crisis patterns across Western democracies. Common elements include: (1) accommodation to right-wing framing rather than articulation of alternative visions, (2) emphasis on cultural moderation and fiscal responsibility over economic transformation, (3) weakening ties to traditional working-class constituencies, and (4) vulnerability to populist challenges from both right and left.

This strategic approach reflects both ideological exhaustion and material class interests aligning center-left leadership more closely with capital than working-class constituencies they nominally represent. As Milanovic (2024) argues, professional-class bases of contemporary center-left parties benefit from economic globalization through enhanced career opportunities, international mobility, and access to inexpensive consumer goods, creating limited material stakes in transformative redistribution threatening relative privileges.

The “defensive positioning” characterizing much center-left politics offers no affirmative vision capable of mobilizing popular support or addressing structural conditions—accelerating inequality, precarious employment, and social service cuts—making right-wing populism attractive to voters experiencing economic insecurity and political marginalization.

2.  The Obsolescence of Triangulation

The Clinton-Blair triangulation model—splitting differences between left demands and right positions to occupy a supposedly popular center—has been rendered obsolete by contemporary conditions foreclosing middle-ground solutions to systemic crises. The climate crisis does not admit moderate responses gradually reducing emissions while maintaining fossil fuel dependence. Oligarchic consolidation cannot be addressed through incremental reforms leaving fundamental property relations and power structures intact.

The political context has fundamentally shifted from the 1990s when Third Way politics emerged. Whereas that approach developed during relative economic stability following the Cold War’s end, contemporary politics unfolds amid cascading crises—financial instability, accelerating inequality, climate catastrophe, and democratic erosion—exposing technocratic gradualism’s inadequacy. Voters increasingly recognize, albeit often implicitly, that choices involve different forms of transformation rather than degrees of change.

Mamdani’s refusal to triangulate represents both ideological commitment to democratic socialist principles and tactical sophistication about contemporary political dynamics. By articulating clear positions on contentious issues rather than strategic ambiguity, he distinguished himself from politicians perceived as calculating and inauthentic. By connecting policy positions to moral frameworks emphasizing dignity, solidarity, and collective flourishing rather than technocratic efficiency or fiscal responsibility, he made substantive politics emotionally resonant rather than merely intellectually comprehensible. And by demonstrating that progressive politics can win elections against well-funded opposition, he undermined arguments for moderation that have constrained left politics for decades.

8. GOVERNING CHALLENGES: FROM MOVEMENT TO ADMINISTRATION
   1.  The Laboratory Proposition

New York under Mamdani’s leadership becomes a testing ground for whether democratic socialist governance can deliver tangible improvements while maintaining democratic legitimacy and popular support—a proposition with implications extending beyond city boundaries. The stakes prove substantial for progressive politics internationally.

If Mamdani succeeds in making housing more affordable, strengthening labor protections, and expanding public services while maintaining democratic legitimacy and coalition cohesion, he will demonstrate that progressive governance is practically viable and electorally sustainable, providing a template for democratic socialist politics in other contexts. Success would challenge decades of neoliberal ideological dominance claiming market-oriented policies represent the only pragmatic approach to urban governance.

Conversely, difficulties would provide evidence to those arguing that left politics remains impractical idealism incapable of navigating real-world constraints—a critique with deep historical roots in social democratic defeats that conservative and centrist forces invoke whenever progressive movements achieve institutional power.

The challenges are formidable and multifaceted: budget limitations arising from municipal property tax dependence and state fiscal regulations, state and federal policy constraints preempting local innovation and overriding municipal authority, entrenched bureaucratic interests resistant to institutional transformation, and coordinated opposition from capital interests threatened by policies challenging property rights and profit maximization.

2.  Fiscal and Jurisdictional Constraints

Municipal fiscal structure creates systematic bias toward development interests. Property tax dependence means progressive policies limiting property values or landlord profits directly threaten revenue sources. Rent stabilization expansion reducing property values, public housing investment requiring capital expenditures, and inclusionary zoning requirements reducing developer profits all face opposition from fiscal logic prioritizing revenue maximization.

State and federal jurisdictional constraints limit policy autonomy. New York State can preempt municipal initiatives through legislation overriding local authority. Federal immigration jurisdiction limits sanctuary city protections—cities cannot nullify federal law through non-cooperation policies. Constitutional property rights protections constrain rent regulation and tenant protection expansion. These multi-scalar governance hierarchies impose substantial legal constraints on progressive municipal policy (Brenner, 2004).

Capital mobility enables investment strikes disciplining progressive governments. Real estate developers threaten construction halts. Financial institutions may limit municipal bond access. Corporations can relocate operations to lower-tax jurisdictions. These threats carry credibility because capital possesses genuine mobility unavailable to rooted populations. The structural power of capital operates through implicit veto rather than explicit lobbying (Poulantzas, 2000).

Table 3: Systematically categorizes governing challenges according to their structural sources and potential response strategies.

Table 3. Governing Challenges and Strategic Response Options

Challenge Category	Specific Obstacles	Structural Source	Potential Strategic Responses
Fiscal Constraints	Limited revenue sources; property tax dependence creating bias toward development interests; budget limitations for social programs and public housing investment	Structural selectivity favoring capital; municipal dependence on property values for revenue generation	Creative financing mechanisms; progressive taxation advocacy at state level; federal grant pursuit; public banking initiatives
Jurisdictional Constraints	State preemption of municipal initiatives; federal override of sanctuary policies; constitutional property rights protections limiting rent regulation expansion	Multi-scalar governance hierarchies; nested state power structures limiting local autonomy regardless of popular will	Legal defense and constitutional challenges; coalition-building with other progressive jurisdictions; state-level advocacy and organizing
Political Opposition	Real estate opposition through campaign contributions and lobbying; capital flight threats and investment strikes; coordinated elite resistance to progressive taxation	Structural power of capital through investment control and mobility; ability to discipline governments through implicit veto power over policy autonomy	Sustained grassroots mobilization; counter-mobilization against elite opposition; maintaining popular mandate through tangible improvements
Implementation Capacity	Bureaucratic resistance to institutional change; technical complexity of policy implementation; limited administrative expertise in transformative approaches	Institutional inertia reflecting decades of neoliberal reorganization; expertise concentration in private sector; administrative structures designed for market-oriented governance	Personnel changes and appointments; capacity-building through training; strategic partnerships with technical experts and community organizations; participatory planning processes

Note: This table demonstrates how governing challenges emerge from structural features of capitalist states rather than contingent political circumstances. Each challenge category reflects systematic obstacles that confront progressive administrations regardless of electoral mandates or popular support. Strategic responses must acknowledge structural constraints while identifying opportunities for agency through mobilization, coalition-building, and institutional innovation.

3.  Policy Implementation Priorities

Mamdani’s initial focus centers on housing affordability—arguably the most acute crisis facing New York residents and the issue most directly connecting material conditions to political grievances. Proposals include expanding rent stability to cover additional units, increasing public housing investment after decades of disinvestment, and using zoning authority to require affordable units in new development.

These initiatives face opposition from real estate interests commanding substantial political influence through campaign contributions and lobbying, legal challenges regarding property rights invoking constitutional protections, and practical questions about financing mechanisms and implementation timelines potentially delaying improvements beyond electoral cycles.

Labor policy represents another priority with symbolic and material significance. Municipal living wage requirements establishing wage floors above state and federal minimums, expanded worker protections including paid sick leave and predictable scheduling, and support for unionization campaigns through procurement preferences and public advocacy address precarious employment while building working-class institutional power.

Immigration policy presents complexity given federal jurisdiction over immigration law. While cities cannot nullify federal immigration law, they can limit cooperation with enforcement authorities through policies prohibiting local police from immigration enforcement, expand access to municipal services regardless of status, and use political platforms to challenge federal policy through public advocacy and coalition-building with other sanctuary jurisdictions. Mamdani’s positioning—refusing federal enforcement collaboration while advocating immigrant rights—places him in potential conflict with federal authorities, creating possibilities for funding cuts or legal challenges.

4.  Coalition Maintenance and Movement Politics

Beyond policy implementation, Mamdani faces coalition maintenance challenges while navigating governance demands, creating tensions between different constituency interests and between movement expectations and institutional realities. Movement politics and governing politics require different skills and create different tensions that have challenged many progressive politicians who successfully mobilized grassroots support but struggled to translate that into effective governance.

Expectations of rapid transformation characteristic of movement politics may collide with institutional constraints, bureaucratic processes, and legal challenges slowing policy implementation. The need to negotiate with various stakeholders—business interests, state and federal officials, and moderate Democrats controlling legislative bodies—may appear as compromise to those expecting uncompromising advocacy.

Mamdani’s success depends partly on communicating transparently about these tensions rather than concealing them through public relations strategies obscuring governing realities. Maintaining political transparency about achievements and limitations, involving constituents in decision-making through participatory structures extending beyond electoral mobilization, and sustaining organizing capacity beyond election cycles through permanent organizational infrastructure become critical.

The transition from oppositional movement to governing authority represents a critical test. Skills required for grassroots organizing differ substantially from those required for institutional management, policy implementation, and bureaucratic transformation. Many progressive politicians have found that electoral success based on oppositional mobilization translates imperfectly into governance requiring compromise, negotiation, and incremental progress.

9. DISCUSSION: BETWEEN STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINT AND POLITICAL AGENCY
   1.  Hegemonic Crisis and Counter-Hegemonic Openings

The contemporary conjuncture represents a Gramscian organic crisis: neoliberal hegemonic formation, achieving dominance in the 1980s, has entered decomposition characterized by declining legitimacy as growing population segments reject market fundamentalism, intensifying contradictions between accumulation imperatives and social reproduction needs, and proliferating alternative political projects from left and right competing to shape post-neoliberal formations.

Mamdani’s campaign emerged within this interregnum when established ideological formations lost the capacity to organize consent while alternatives had not yet achieved hegemonic dominance. However, the existence of a hegemonic crisis does not predetermine resolution toward progressive rather than authoritarian outcomes. As Poulantzas (2000) emphasized, capitalist states possess remarkable adaptive capacity, incorporating oppositional forces through institutional mechanisms, defanging transformative potential while absorbing energy and legitimacy.

The critical question becomes whether Mamdani’s administration will function as a genuine rupture with neoliberal urbanism, transforming property relations, power structures, and governing logics, or will be absorbed into progressive neoliberalism—cultural progressivism combined with continued market fundamentalism, providing symbolic recognition without material redistribution.

The answer likely lies between extremes. Poulantzas’s concept of the state as a strategic field suggests progressive forces can win meaningful concessions—expanded public housing, strengthened labor protections, enhanced immigrant rights—without fundamentally transforming capitalist property relations or challenging capital accumulation logics structuring urban development. These reforms matter materially for working-class residents while remaining within broader capital accumulation logic.

Alternative interpretations of Mamdani’s electoral success warrant consideration. Rational choice institutionalists might argue that his victory reflects strategic positioning within Democratic primary structures rather than hegemonic crisis, emphasizing how electoral rules and party organizations create opportunities for factional candidates. Elite theory perspectives could highlight the role of specific elite defections or intra-elite conflicts rather than grassroots mobilization as the decisive factor. While these perspectives offer valuable insights into electoral mechanics and elite behavior, our analysis suggests that such factors operated within a broader context of neoliberal legitimacy crisis that created conditions for Mamdani’s grassroots mobilization strategy to prove effective.

2.  Scalar Politics and Municipal Socialism’s Limits

Brenner’s state rescaling framework illuminates fundamental constraints facing progressive urban governance operating independently of local political will or organizational capacity (Brenner, 2004). Cities exist within nested state power hierarchies systematically limiting municipal autonomy. Federal immigration policy constrains sanctuary protections. State fiscal regulations limit revenue sources and spending authority. Global capital mobility enables investment strikes disciplining progressive governments.

Mamdani’s administration will confront what Peck (2012) terms “austerity urbanism”—expanded responsibilities for social provision as federal and state governments devolve services to local levels, combined with constrained revenue sources as property tax bases face pressures and state governments limit municipal taxation authority, and intensified inter-urban competition for investment pressuring cities to offer tax incentives and business-friendly policies.

These structural constraints are substantial and consequential, creating systematic obstacles to transformative urban governance that cannot be overcome through political will alone. As Harvey’s work demonstrates, however, urban social movements possess agency precisely because cities constitute critical nodes in circuits of capital accumulation (Harvey, 2012). Disrupting urban space through tenant organizing, labor actions, or political mobilization imposes costs on capital, creating leverage for winning concessions despite structural disadvantages.

The question becomes whether Mamdani can sustain grassroots mobilization as a governing strategy rather than merely an electoral tactic—maintaining permanent organizational infrastructure capable of disrupting capital accumulation when negotiations fail and elite opposition intensifies. This requires transforming campaign apparatus into durable movement organizations capable of sustained mobilization beyond electoral cycles. Moreover, urban governance exists within temporal constraints, creating discontinuities between movement expectations and governing realities. Streeck’s analysis suggests any stabilization through progressive reforms may prove temporary, as underlying structural tensions reassert themselves over timescales exceeding individual electoral cycles (Streeck, 2014). A Mamdani administration successfully expanding affordable housing may face subsequent fiscal crises as property tax revenue declines or capital flight intensifies as investors relocate to jurisdictions offering higher returns.

3.  Populist Strategy and Affective Politics

Mouffe’s framework on left populism illuminates discursive strategies enabling Mamdani’s electoral success while highlighting coalition maintenance challenges (Mouffe, 2018). Constructing “the people” as political subjects requires identifying adversaries—real estate interests extracting surplus through rent, corporate power suppressing wages, and oligarchic wealth concentration distorting democracy. This antagonistic framing proved electorally effective through clear identification of problems and opponents, emotional resonance transcending technocratic policy discourse, and political identities transcending particularistic interests. However, governing differs fundamentally from campaigning. Once in office, Mamdani must negotiate with the very interests his campaign identified as adversaries—a shift risking the appearance of compromise to supporters expecting confrontation. Real estate developers possess not only economic power through capital control but also technical expertise in housing production that municipalities require for expanding affordable housing supply. Financial institutions control capital access necessary for infrastructure investment that public budgets cannot fund independently.

This creates what Przeworski (1985) identified as social democratic politics’ fundamental dilemma: dependence on capitalist investment for revenue generation constrains policy autonomy. Governments require profitable economic activity to generate tax revenue, while capitalists threaten investment strikes if policies reduce profitability below levels available elsewhere.

The affective dimension of politics proves equally critical. Mamdani’s campaign succeeded partly through emotional connections—hope for collective transformation, dignity affirming inherent worth, and solidarity connecting individuals to collective projects. Governing risks disappointing these affective investments as compromise, incrementalism, and delayed implementation characterize policy reality. Maintaining emotional engagement while managing expectations requires political skills distinct from those enabling electoral mobilization.

4.  Recognition-Redistribution Integration

Fraser’s framework highlights ongoing challenges within progressive coalitions uniting groups with distinct and sometimes conflicting interests (Fraser & Honneth, 1998). Housing policy benefiting one constituency through rent regulation may disadvantage another through reduced construction if developers withdraw from markets. Immigration policy protecting undocumented workers may face resistance from legal residents perceiving labor market competition in sectors where unauthorized workers concentrate.

Maintaining coalition cohesion while implementing policies producing differential impacts across constituencies requires continuous political work rather than assuming coalition permanence. Mamdani’s success depends on whether his administration can demonstrate that recognition and redistribution reinforce rather than compete—that racial justice and economic transformation prove mutually constitutive rather than zero-sum trade-offs.

The progressive neoliberalism risk remains substantial. Symbolic gestures toward diversity, representation, and cultural inclusion prove easier to implement than material redistribution challenging property relations and profit structures. Appointing diverse administrators, celebrating multicultural heritage, and acknowledging historical injustices require no fundamental restructuring of economic power. Expanding rent regulations, raising wages, and providing universal healthcare threaten capital accumulation directly.

Avoiding this trap requires maintaining focus on transformative rather than affirmative remedies: addressing root causes of inequality rather than diversifying elite positions (Fraser & Honneth, 1998). This means connecting recognition claims to redistribution demands—demonstrating how racialization structures economic exploitation, how immigration status enables labor superexploitation, and how gender shapes access to housing security and economic opportunity.

10. CONCLUSION

Mamdani’s election represents a significant moment in contemporary American politics, but its ultimate significance remains contested and contingent upon implementation success, coalition maintenance, and broader political developments beyond municipal boundaries.

1.  Key Findings

Our analysis demonstrates three principal findings. First, Mamdani’s electoral success illustrates how progressive politics can mobilize multiracial working-class coalitions through authentic grassroots engagement rather than technocratic positioning. His “politics of presence”—direct engagement, street-level accessibility, and moral clarity—resonated with voters disillusioned by professionalized campaigns and strategic ambiguity, exploiting fractures in neoliberal hegemonic consensus.

Second, this electoral achievement occurred within a specific conjuncture of hegemonic crisis, where neoliberal legitimacy has declined without clear successor formations emerging. The interregnum creates openings for counter-hegemonic projects but does not predetermine progressive outcomes. Right-wing authoritarianism also exploits neoliberalism’s legitimacy deficit, making the contest between alternative visions genuinely open.

Third, substantial structural constraints threaten Mamdani’s administration’s transformative potential. Municipal fiscal dependence on property tax revenue, federal-state jurisdictional hierarchies preempting local innovation, capital mobility enabling investment strikes, and tensions between movement expectations and institutional realities create systematic obstacles that political alone cannot overcome. These constraints are not contingent barriers but structural features of capitalist state organization that limit progressive urban governance regardless of electoral mandates.

2.  Theoretical Contributions

This study advances understanding in three domains. First, it synthesizes critical political economy, urban geography, and democratic theory to analyze contemporary left electoral politics, demonstrating how Gramscian hegemony theory, Poulantzian state analysis, and Harvey’s urban political economy provide complementary analytical frameworks for understanding both political possibilities and structural constraints.

Second, it contributes to debates on municipal socialism’s possibilities and limits under conditions of neoliberal restructuring and austerity urbanism. The analysis illuminates how progressive urban governance operates within nested state hierarchies that systematically constrain local autonomy, while also identifying spaces for agency through grassroots mobilization and strategic disruption of capital accumulation circuits.

Third, it examines counter-hegemonic strategy under conditions of organic crisis, analyzing how Mamdani’s campaign navigated the challenge of constructing multiracial working-class solidarity while avoiding both colorblind universalism and identity fragmentation. The integration of recognition and redistribution demands provides insights into progressive coalition-building in diverse contexts.

3.  Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations warrant acknowledgment. Temporal constraints arise from analyzing governance at its inception, before policy implementation and long-term outcomes become assessable. Our conclusions remain provisional, subject to revision as Mamdani’s administration progresses. Future research should track policy implementation processes, measure tangible outcomes in housing affordability and labor conditions, and assess coalition maintenance over time.

New York’s unique characteristics—size, diversity, economic centrality, and progressive political culture—limit direct generalization to other contexts. While our analysis identifies transferable causal mechanisms regarding grassroots mobilization, recognition-redistribution integration, and structural constraints, application to other cities requires careful consideration of contextual specificity. Comparative research examining progressive urban governance in cities with different demographic compositions, economic structures, and political cultures would enhance understanding of scope conditions for democratic socialist electoral success.

Reliance on publicly available information limits access to internal campaign decision-making processes and closed-door negotiations with opposition forces. Future research employing interviews with campaign staff, elected officials, and movement organizers would provide richer understanding of strategic choices and tactical adaptations.

4.  Implications for Progressive Politics

The contrast between competing visions of urban governance represents fundamental questions about American democracy in an age of crisis: whether it can be reclaimed from oligarchic capture by concentrated wealth, whether it can address working-class communities’ material needs across racial lines, and whether it can sustain itself as meaningful collective self-governance.

Mamdani’s ascent suggests different futures remain possible—that politics need not oscillate between neoliberal technocracy managing decline and right-wing nationalism scapegoating vulnerable populations, that movements can achieve institutional power without abandoning transformative ambitions, and that solidarity can prove more powerful than division when movements build multiracial coalitions through shared material interests.

Whether these possibilities can be realized depends on factors beyond individual leadership: movements’ capacity to sustain organizing across electoral cycles, communities’ willingness to defend progressive gains against inevitable backlash, and democratic socialist politics’ ability to deliver tangible improvements justifying continued political trust and mobilization.

In this sense, Mamdani’s mayoralty becomes a test not only of his individual leadership but of the broader proposition that American democracy can be reimagined as an instrument of collective liberation rather than individual advancement. The outcome will reverberate beyond New York, shaping debates about political possibility and strategic direction across the American left and internationally, where similar movements confront analogous dilemmas of achieving institutional power while maintaining transformative ambitions.

The optimistic reading holds that his victory demonstrates democratic socialist politics’ viability in major American cities, offers templates for challenging right-wing populism through affirmative vision rather than defensive positioning, and signals generational shifts toward politics rooted in solidarity rather than individualism. The skeptical reading acknowledges electoral achievement while questioning whether it can translate into transformative governance given structural constraints, noting that local elections do not necessarily predict national political trajectories and that urban property tax dependence, federal-state preemption, capital mobility, and bureaucratic resistance create systematic obstacles confronting progressive administrations.

Both readings contain validity. The analytical task involves maintaining dialectical tension between them rather than resolving prematurely toward either optimism or pessimism. Mamdani has demonstrated that progressive politics can win competitive elections against well-funded opposition. He has shown that authenticity and moral clarity resonate with voters exhausted by calculated positioning. And he has articulated visions of urban life organized around collective flourishing rather than individual accumulation.

Whether this vision can be implemented remains uncertain. The forces arrayed against transformative urban governance—capital interests commanding substantial political influence, institutional inertia reflecting decades of neoliberal reorganization, federal opposition from administrations hostile to progressive governance, and practical constraints of municipal budgets dependent on property tax revenue—are substantial and systematic rather than merely contingent obstacles.

Yet the alternative to attempting transformation is accepting ongoing crises of housing affordability forcing displacement and homelessness, climate change threatening environmental catastrophe, and economic inequality producing material deprivation and political instability as permanent features of urban life—acceptance foreclosing political possibility and resigning populations to avoidable suffering.

The bridges Mamdani seeks to build—between communities separated by racial and ethnic divisions, across differences in immigration status and national origin, toward collective flourishing enabling human dignity—stand as both practical projects requiring engineering expertise and financing and political metaphors pointing toward possible futures. Whether they can bear transformation’s weight or will collapse under opposition’s force remains the defining question of this political moment, one that will be answered through struggle rather than theoretical speculation.

REFERENCES

Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford University Press.

Brenner, N., Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). Variegated neoliberalization: Geographies, modalities, pathways. Global Networks, 10(2), 182-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2009.00277.x

CBS News. (2025, November 6). Zohran Mamdani wins NYC mayoral election after energizing young voters with focus on affordability. CBS News New York. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/mamdani-wins-nyc-mayoral-election-2025/

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363

Fraser, N. (2017). From progressive neoliberalism to Trump—and beyond. American Affairs, 1(4), 46-64. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/11/progressive-neoliberalism-trump-beyond/

Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (1998). Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange. Verso.

Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Polity Press.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Trans.). International Publishers. https://ia600506.us.archive.org/19/items/AntonioGramsciSelectionsFromThePrisonNotebooks/Antonio-Gramsci-Selections-from-the-Prison-Notebooks.pdf

Hale, J. (2022). Triangulation. In The Oxford encyclopedia of American political and legal history. Oxford University Press.

Harrington, M. (2011). Socialism: Past and future. Arcade Publishing.

Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso.

Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (2007). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place (20th anniversary ed.). University of California Press.

Milanovic, B. (2024). Visions of inequality: From the French revolution to the end of the Cold War. Harvard University Press.

Mouffe, C. (2018). For a left populism. Verso.

Peck, J. (2012). Austerity urbanism: American cities under extreme economy. City, 16(6), 626-655. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2012.734071

Poulantzas, N. (2000). State, power, socialism (P. Camiller, Trans.). Verso. (Original work published 1978)

Przeworski, A. (1985). Capitalism and social democracy. Cambridge University Press.

Streeck, W. (2014). Buying time: The delayed crisis of democratic capitalism. Verso.

The New York Times. (2016, June 29). Bernie Sanders’s long-shot campaign, in its own words. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/bernie-sanders.html