The stunning victory by self-described socialist Zohran Mamdani over former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor tells us that while socialism may be a failure in the real world, it is doing well in American electoral politics. Because New York is heavily Democratic, it is highly unlikely that Mamdani will lose to Eric Adams, even if Adams is the incumbent (and an unpopular incumbent at that).
A week ago, the “experts” would have said that while Mamdani had run an enthusiastic and interesting campaign based upon making NYC “affordable,” Cuomo would prevail because of his name recognition and his experience as governor. (That he resigned in disgrace because of accusations of sexual harassment apparently has not been much of an issue in the present campaign.) As of voting day (June 24), however, at least some polls showed the race being a dead heat with Mamdani having the momentum to squeak out a victory under the ranked-choice voting scheme. The pollsters this time were correct.
What was more telling was the demographic breakdown:
- Voters under 50 break for Mamdani by a 2:1 margin, while Cuomo leads among those aged 50–59 (63 percent to 37 percent) and voters over 60 (56 percent to 44 percent).
- Hispanic voters support Cuomo 60 percent to 40 percent, and black voters favor Cuomo 62 percent to 38 percent. Mamdani leads among white voters (61 percent to 39 percent) and Asian voters (79 percent to 21 percent).
- Cuomo leads Mamdani among voters without a four-year college degree, 61 percent to 39 percent, while Mamdani leads Cuomo among college-educated voters, 62 percent to 38 percent.
- Men support Mamdani 56 percent to 44 percent, while women lean toward Cuomo 52 percent to 48 percent.
While I make no claims of being a political expert, nonetheless, as the Democratic Party continues to move toward the socialist left, what we see in New York is a microcosm of what is happening in the US. To many Americans, socialism is an attractive alternative to whatever exists now, and if the Mamdani candidacy is any indication, it seems to be most attractive to college-educated whites and Asians, despite the fact that college-educated people tend to be in the highest-income categories in this country.
There is an obvious disconnect; socialists claim that they represent and support those who are poor and downtrodden members of minority groups, yet the support base for Mamdani—who openly calls himself a socialist—is drawn from the wealthiest demographic in New York, whites and Asians who are college educated. Given the rhetoric socialists have used since the 19th century, one would expect socialist voters to be drawn from the bottom ranks of society, not those in the upper reaches.
If one looks at Mamdani’s platform, it is obvious that it is written to appeal to people with lower incomes. Among his planks are:
- A $30 minimum wage by the year 2030;
- A rent freeze and more government controls of housing;
- He promised to “triple the City’s production of permanently affordable, union-built, rent-stabilized homes – constructing 200,000 new units over the next 10 years”;
- Creation of city-owned grocery stores that will sell food at low prices;
- He would eliminate all fares for city buses;
- He would, “Implement free childcare for every New Yorker aged 6 weeks to 5 years, ensuring high quality programming for all families. And he will bring up wages for childcare workers—a quarter of whom currently live in poverty—to be at parity with public school teachers.”
Of course, an ambitious agenda that would add billions of dollars to the city’s budget has to come from new revenues, and his platform has included:
- Raising the top state corporate tax rate to 11.5 percent—the same rate as New Jersey’s. Raises $5 billion a year.
- Adding a 2 percent New York City income tax for anyone making more than $1 million a year. Raises $4 billion a year.
- Common sense procurement reform. Raises $300 million a year.
- Collecting money the City is owed. Raises $690 million a year. (emphasis mine)
It is obvious that many Mamdani voters would not be voting what might be in their own economic interest, as it is doubtful that they would be using many of the new “free” services the mayoral candidate has promised. While no one likes to pay more rent, most likely they don’t ride city buses and probably would not be moving into the “permanently affordable, union-built, rent-stabilized homes,” or patronizing the city-owned grocery stores. Furthermore, most of them probably make more than $30 an hour, so they would not be voting themselves raises.
Likewise, while the Mamdani voters are primarily in higher-income groups, most of them would be earning less than $1 million a year and not be subject to a tax increase. The new corporate income tax rates might have a negative indirect effect on them, but it would be difficult to measure. Thus, all of this creates an interesting dynamic in that the bulk of his political support comes from people who probably would not gain direct benefits from his proposed programs, but neither would they see their tax bills increase by the implementation of these new programs.
One can argue that a good portion of the Mamdani coalition would be engaged in expressive voting in which they are making statements about the way that they believe the world should be, versus those who are reality-based who understand the kinds of constraints that politicians will face. The Mamdani voters have some similarities to voting groups that have supported Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom also identify as socialists. In fact, both Sanders and AOC (along with former Bill Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich) have endorsed Mamdani. Like Mamdani, Sanders and AOC have promised voters a lot of free goods and services to be paid by others, but unlike Mandani, they can also promise forgiveness of student loans.
Should Mamdani win the mayorship, he will face another problem: making his socialist schemes a reality. So far, it seems that he and his followers have assumed that socialism can create the high-quality, inexpensive goods that socialists promise if the candidates are forceful and attractive enough and can “inspire” others.
In modern politics, there is no greater form of “virtue signaling” than voting for a socialist—even if one is not stuck with the bill. Of course, even the candidate offering free things knows that someone has to pay, and that means dunning the corporations located in the city and households making more than $1 million annually. The corporate rate would be the same as that in New Jersey and other surrounding states, thus taking away the incentive for firms to move to nearby localities outside of the city.
Yet, firms do move from NYC when costs are too high. In 2023, the New York Post reported,
In all, 56 of the New York firms have decamped to Florida, while most of those remaining also headed to warmer states such as Texas and the Carolinas, according to the report. New York isn’t the only major loser, with California also having lost $1 trillion in financial assets under management to Florida, Texas and other lower-cost states.
Likewise, individuals and families also have left New York for lower-cost and lower-tax states, and—given that a Mamdani administration would not look kindly upon the so-called one percent—people would have an incentive to leave a place where the government was hostile to them. Like so many other left-wing governments in other states and cities, one can surmise that a New York City governed by a self-declared socialist would do everything it could to drive out the most productive people.
We have not even covered the campaign’s proposals from enhanced rent controls to building thousands of new units of “affordable” housing. Socialist schemes tend to break apart on the shoals of what Ludwig von Mises called “economic calculation,” which is Kryptonite to socialism. One can be reasonably assured that the socialist goodies that Mamdani has promised to the voters will end up on the socialist ash heap.
Even had Andrew Cuomo pulled out the win, socialist candidates are attractive, especially to the white voters who are highly educated and relatively affluent. One hopes that sooner or later, they come to understand that socialists will be coming for them too.
