SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Daily-Opinion
Mamdani Won New York City, But the Battle for Winning a Working-Class Agenda Has Just Begun
The battle for a more affordable and egalitarian society is just beginning. Leaders like Zohran Mamdani need to gain even deeper traction with working-class voters, no matter how working class is defined and no matter their racial identity—if they want to win.
Nov 07, 2025
It truly is amazing that a Democratic Socialist has become mayor of the largest city in the United States, and that in the first line of his acceptance speech he quoted Eugene V. Debs, the brave socialist labor leader who was imprisoned in 1985 during the Pullman Strike and again in 1918 for his opposition to WWI:
“The sun may have set over our city this evening, but as Eugene Debs once said, ‘I can see the dawn of a better day for humanity.’”
Mamdani’s youth, charisma, humor, and incredible organizational skills led to this remarkable achievement. He worked hard and he earned it, and so did the many progressive groups that supported him.
Mamdani may have the abilities and the working-class agenda to become a major transformational political leader. Free buses, free childcare, and a rent freeze are concrete and achievable, but the opposition will be fierce, especially as he intends to increase taxes on the rich and corporations to pay for these programs. And powerful landlords will be up in arms. This is the definition of class struggle.
There will be major battles ahead that won’t be settled by Mamdani’s charisma and negotiating skills alone.
Mamdani is operating in the belly of the beast called runaway inequality. It’s nearly impossible to wrap our minds around the wealth that’s concentrated in New York. There are 123 billionaires living in NYC with a combined net worth more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars. And those numbers are surely an underestimate, given the many who have hidden their purchases of luxurious Manhattan apartments using shell companies.
To succeed against the rich and powerful, Mamdani will need a mass movement behind him, and that movement has to include enthusiastic support and the active participation of New York’s working class and labor unions.
Does he already have it? Is his victory the result of overwhelming support from highly educated liberals? Or has his working-class agenda also excited the working class more broadly, the way Eugene Debs did when he received nearly a million votes in his run for president in 1912?
All we have to go by, right now, are the exit polls, which aren’t really designed to include a clear demographic definition of the working class. But there is some suggestive information.
Let’s start with the standard media definition of working class based on education: You are often counted as being in the working class if you don’t have a four-year college degree. By this definition, Mamdani received most of his support from college-educated voters and ran behind Cuomo among working-class voters.
- New Yorkers are well educated: 58 percent of all the voters in this election had a four-year college degree or higher.
- This highly educated group overwhelmingly supported Mamdani over Cuomo, 57 percent to 37 percent.
- But Mamdani ran behind Cuomo among those who never attended college, 41 percent to 48 percent. One out of five voters are in this group.
The picture becomes blurrier if working-class is defined as having a lower income. New York voters are fairly evenly split between those whose family income is less than $100,000 year (58%), and those with $100,000 or more in family income (42%). And Mamdani’s support was identical between the two groups (51%), an almost exact match with his final vote of 51.5 percent.
But a closer look at the income brackets shows that Mamdani didn’t do as well with those with family incomes under $30,000. That group accounts for 16 percent of all voters. They favored Cuomo 50 percent to Mamdani’s 41 percent. But Mamdani won every other income bracket except those with family incomes of $300,000 or more, which he lost to Cuomo 61 percent to 34 percent. No way was a Democratic Socialist going to do well with the group he promised to tax more heavily to pay for his agenda.
Cutting it up into two income slices, Mamdani did slightly better with upper-income voters than lower-income voters. Those with family incomes of less than $50,000 gave 47 percent of their votes to Mamdani, and those with more than $50,000 supported him with 52 percent of their votes.
Revenge of the White Working Class?
Unlike Debs, Mamdani did not come out of the labor movement. He’s well-educated, an Asian immigrant born in Africa, and Muslim. Was that all too much for the allegedly racist white working-class? The exit polls don’t provide the crosstabs to give us definitive answers, but we can get some clues.
Here’s Mamdani’s support by ethnicity (of all educational and income groups):
- White 46 %
- Black 55 %
- Hispanic 49 %
- Asian 61 %
- Other 51 %
It’s hard to point the finger at white racism when support for Mamdani is almost identical between white voters and Hispanic voters. The big outlier is Asian, Mamdani’s own ethnic group.
The breakdown by gender shows less support among white men, but again the gaps are not gigantic:
- White men 43%
- White women 48%
- Black men 60%
- Black women 52%
- Hispanic men 52%
- Hispanic women 48%
Since we don’t know the income or education levels of these white men it’s not possible to see if working-class white men were less supportive, but that’s probably the case given the overall lower Mamdani numbers among those without four-year college degrees. However, while it’s not possible to tease apart racial identity and class when it comes to working-class voters of all shades, nothing big jumps out to suggest that this contest was about racial identity.
Mamdani needs those working-class voters, no matter how working class is defined and no matter what their ethnicity. He’s developed enormous support among liberal, well-educated New Yorkers, and that’s all to the good. But to take on the world’s richest, most powerful elites, that enthusiasm must spread deeply into the working class, where—even in New York—MAGA festers.
There will be major battles ahead that won’t be settled by Mamdani’s charisma and negotiating skills alone. That will require a mass movement in support of the progressive ideas the city’s new mayor campaigned on, the kind of movement New York hasn’t seen since the 1930s. Let’s hope Mamdani can reach even more deeply into the working class to strengthen his support. He’s going to need them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
It’s 2025. The AI Revolution Is Destroying the American Dream
The rise of AI will exacerbate income inequality throughout the country, and it’s the government’s duty to step up and take care of its citizens when required.
Nov 07, 2025
In 2019, the New York Times published a series of op-ed columns “from the future,” including one from 2043 urging policymakers to rethink what the American Dream looks like amid an AI revolution.
Well, it’s only 2025, and the American Dream is already in jeopardy of dying because of AI’s impact.
Earlier this year, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warned of a “white-collar bloodbath,” which was met with criticism by some of his tech colleagues and competitors. However, we’re already seeing a “bloodbath” come to pass. Amazon is preparing to lay off as many as 30,000 corporate employees, with its senior vice president stating that AI is “enabling companies to innovate much faster.” As it (unsurprisingly) turns out, CEOs across industries share this same sentiment.
We’re seeing the most visible signs of this “bloodbath” at the entry level. Recent graduates are having difficulty finding work in their fields and are taking part-time roles in fast food and retail in order to make ends meet. After being told for years that going to college was the key to being successful, up-and-coming generations are being met with disillusionment.
If Americans can’t reach a decent standard of living now, they’ll be worse off as the AI revolution marches forward.
Despite dire statistics and repeated warnings from researchers and economists alike, people at the decision-making table aren’t listening. White House AI czar David Sacks brushed off fears of mass job displacement this past summer, and adviser Jacob Helberg dismissed the idea that the government has to “hold the hands of every single person getting displaced” by AI.
Unlike the hypothetical 2043, there aren’t people marching in the streets demanding that the government guarantee they’ll still have livelihoods when AI takes their jobs—yet. However, this prediction could easily come true. Life is already unaffordable for the majority of Americans. Add Big Tech’s hoarding of the wealth being created by AI and inconsistent job opportunities, and we could have class warfare on our hands.
OpenAI’s Sam Altman perfectly encapsulated the ignorance of Silicon Valley when he implied that if jobs are replaced by AI, they aren’t “real work.” It’s no surprise that Altman, who has profit margins reaching the billions, doesn’t understand that jobs aren’t just jobs to middle-class families; they are ways for Americans to build their livelihoods, and ultimately, find purpose. Our country—for better or for worse—was built on the idea that anyone could keep their head down, work hard, and achieve the American Dream. If that’s no longer the case, then we must rethink the American Dream itself.
We can’t close the Pandora’s box of AI, nor should we. Advanced AI will bring about positive, transformative change in society if we utilize it correctly. But our policymakers must start taking AI’s impact on our workforce seriously.
That’s not to say there aren’t influential leaders already speaking out. In fact, concerns about AI’s effects on American workers span party lines. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy wrote a compelling essay arguing in part that there won’t be enough jobs created by advanced AI to replace the lost jobs. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley is pushing the Republican Party to make AI a priority in order to be “a party of working people.” Independent Sen.Bernie Sanders released a report revealing that as many as 100 million jobs could be displaced to AI and proposed a “robot tax” to mitigate the technology’s effects on the labor force—another version of universal basic income (UBI).
Now, I won’t pretend to know the best policy solution that will allow Americans to continue flourishing in the AI era. However, I do know that the rise of AI will exacerbate income inequality throughout the country and that it’s the government’s duty to step up and take care of its citizens when required.
This starts by looking at how we can rebuild our social safety net in an era where Americans do less or go without work altogether. For millions of Americans, healthcare coverage is tied to their employment, as are Social Security benefits. If Americans aren’t employed, then they can’t contribute to their future checks when they’re retired. This leads to questions about the concept of retirement. Will it even exist in the future? Will Americans even be able to find happiness in forced “retirement” without an income and without the purpose provided by work?
It’s easy to spiral here, but you get the point. This is a complicated issue with consequences that we’ll be reckoning with for years to come. But we don’t have that kind of time. If Americans can’t reach a decent standard of living now, they’ll be worse off as the AI revolution marches forward.
It’s 2025, and AI is already transforming the world as we know it. In this economy, we must create a new American Dream that allows Americans to pursue life, liberty, and happiness on their own terms.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Cities Should Not Be Training Grounds for War
What neighborhoods need are affordable housing, accessible healthcare, well-funded schools, and good jobs—not Humvees on their corners.
Nov 07, 2025
When President Donald Trump stood before military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico this September and declared that American cities should serve as “training grounds” for US troops, he did more than test the limits of civil-military relations—he crossed them. His proposal isn’t just bluster. It represents a dangerous escalation in domestic militarization that undermines the Constitution and endangers the very people our government is sworn to protect.
American neighborhoods are not battlefields. These our the places where we build our homes, send our children to school–the places we take the buses to work every morning. These cities are markers of who we are, not training grounds. Treating them as warfields sets a precedent that imperils every citizen, especially the Black, immigrant, and working-class communities he has repeatedly vilified. Cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland don’t need military drills. They need investments in housing, healthcare, and education.
There’s a reason the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 restricts the role of federal troops in domestic law enforcement. The law enshrines a fundamental democratic principle: Civilian life must be separate from military power. Trump’s plan to “train” troops in US cities would erase that line entirely.
He has already blurred these boundaries before—from ordering federal forces into Los Angeles during immigration protests to threatening governors who refused to deploy National Guard troops on his terms. Each instance chips away at the legal and moral walls that protect civilian governance.
Democracy thrives when communities are supported, not surveilled; when people are empowered, not patrolled.
Presidents have rarely invoked exceptions to Posse Comitatus. Dwight Eisenhower did so to enforce school desegregation in 1957; George H. W. Bush during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Those were extraordinary moments of crisis—not political theater. Turning urban neighborhoods into “training zones” is neither an emergency response nor a lawful one. It’s an authoritarian rehearsal.
Equally troubling is the administration’s push to reshape the armed forces around an exclusionary, hyper-masculine “warrior ethos,” while dismantling diversity and inclusion programs. Combining that militant culture with domestic deployments is a recipe for disaster. Soldiers trained to neutralize foreign enemies should never be tasked with policing American citizens. That pairing risks injury, mistrust, and tragedy. This culture of war needs to end.
The US military has long earned public trust precisely because it stood apart from partisan politics. Using troops in domestic political battles destroys that trust—and corrodes the foundation of democracy itself.
Communities need peace, not militarization. No number of military drills will solve crime, poverty, or unrest. What neighborhoods need are affordable housing, accessible healthcare, well-funded schools, and good jobs—not Humvees on their corners.
At the Peace Economy Project, we’ve spent decades showing how misplaced our national priorities have become. The United States now spends nearly $1 trillion each year on its military, yet millions of Americans struggle to pay rent or buy groceries. Trump’s proposal to rehearse war inside our own borders exposes just how warped this imbalance is.
Some dismiss his statements as rhetoric. But we’ve already seen troops deployed unlawfully, governors coerced, and protesters tear-gassed. Each time the line blurs between civilian life and military power, it becomes easier to cross again. We are marching steadily toward authoritarianism.
What begins as “training” can morph into surveillance, detainment, or suppression of protest. Once normalized, that level of militarization will be nearly impossible to reverse.
What We Must Do
We cannot allow our neighborhoods to become rehearsal spaces for war. Congress must move swiftly to reaffirm the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and establish clear penalties for violations. Governors must reject attempts to federalize local security for political purposes. Civil society—from churches to universities to advocacy groups—must remain vigilant, united, and vocal.
Above all, we must remember: Democracy thrives when communities are supported, not surveilled; when people are empowered, not patrolled.
Our cities are not training grounds. They are where families grow, where culture flourishes, and where democracy takes root. The path to peace and safety does not run through military drills in our streets—it runs through justice, opportunity, and care.
As Executive Director of the Peace Economy Project, I call on every elected official, civic leader, and citizen to reject this dangerous experiment in domestic militarization. We must defend the line between war and peace, between authoritarianism and democracy—before it disappears altogether.
Because if we allow our streets to become training grounds for soldiers, we risk losing the very freedoms those soldiers are sworn to defend.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Time to Flex: Lessons for Mamdani From My Time With AOC
You can’t change a system by sending one or two people into it and hoping for the best. You have to build and use political power to break the system’s ability to resist you.
Nov 07, 2025
Lots of elections happened on Tuesday. Most of them good news for 2026. There are signs that the MAGA fever is breaking. It’s important that whatever we work to replace it with comes from a place of understanding how we got here, and builds the power necessary to repair the damage.
The most hopeful and potentially transformative victory of the night was that of Zohran Mamdani. He won the New York City mayoral race with over 50% of the vote, beating Andrew Cuomo for a second time. The turnout was amazing. More than 2 million people voted.
And here’s what should terrify the Democratic establishment: Mamdani didn’t just win the city. He won decisively in Hakeem Jeffries’ district. He won in Ritchie Torres’ district. These guys are vulnerable as hell in a primary, and they know it.
But I’ve been here before. I was there for AOC’s first primary victory. I helped recruit her to run, helped build her campaign, and then worked as her advisor and communications director. I can tell you with absolute certainty: this is just the beginning. And if the movement around Mamdani doesn’t understand that and act accordingly, this opportunity will slip away like so many others have.
I’m hopeful. Mamdani’s victory is real and it’s important. But my experience tells me that without active, aggressive political power-building, it won’t translate into anything more tangible.
The difference this time is that Mamdani doesn’t have to be one person alone. He’s an executive running the country’s largest city, which gives him powers and capacity that one member of Congress - one out of 535 - could never have. And NY has primary elections coming in June 2026. Federal races, state assembly, state senate—all of it.
The Democratic establishment is already moving to contain him. Obama is reaching out. Bill Ackman is extending olive branches. And they’ll succeed unless the movement around him understands that winning the election was just the starting line.
The Power Problem We Had With AOC
We won in 2018. We proved a grassroots movement could build a political operation to recruit and elect a new type of Democrat. But here’s what we didn’t do: we didn’t immediately use that victory to build more power. We didn’t flex.
We won one seat. We celebrated. We staffed up. We tried to work within the system. And while we were doing that, the establishment built a wall around her. Seniority rules shut her out of real committee power. Leadership froze her out. The party used her as a boogeyman to fundraise off while refusing to even look at her agenda.
We were taught the wrong lesson: that getting people in office was the goal. That was the mistake. You can’t change a system by sending one or two people into it and hoping for the best. You have to build and use political power to break the system’s ability to resist you.
What Actually Flexing Power Looks Like
Imagine if, right now, while Mamdani is being sworn in, AOC was publicly exploring a run for governor against Kathy Hochul in 2026. Not “maybe someday.” Now. Publicly. With rallies. With Bernie Sanders. With pressure.
Imagine if the movement announced tomorrow that they’re running a primary challenger against Hakeem Jeffries. Not quietly. Publicly. With resources. With a candidate who can actually compete. Imagine if Former DNC Vice Chair Michael Blake, the challenger who announced he is running against Torres yesterday, gets backed by Mamdani this week.
Imagine if the entire energy and machinery that just won a mayoral race with 2 million voters doesn’t go dormant. Imagine if it stays active, visible, and aggressive. Imagine if the message to every Democrat in New York is crystal clear: if you block Mamdani’s agenda, you will be primaried. You will be challenged. You will lose your seat.
That’s flexing power. That’s what we didn’t do. That’s what has to happen now.
Governor Hochul has already announced she won’t support tax increases on the wealthy—the foundation of Mamdani’s entire agenda. Hakeem Jeffries gave him the most tepid endorsement imaginable. Ritchie Torres called him “treacherously smart” and warned he’d make New York “ground zero for anti-Zionism.”
These people aren’t confused. They’re opposed to him. And they’ll stop him cold unless they fear losing their jobs. Not theoretically. Actually.
The Easy Enemy and the Hard One
When you’re fighting MAGA, it’s simple. They wear red hats. They’re loud. You know exactly who they are.
The Democratic establishment is different. They seem like they’re on your side. They talk about the same values. They talk about “pragmatism” and being “confined by what’s possible.” There’s always an explanation for why they couldn’t deliver.
I spent years wanting to believe those explanations meant something. That they were potential allies who just needed the right pressure.
But I don’t believe it anymore. I think they know their role. I think they know they are barriers to change, and they’re comfortable with that role.
If democratic socialism is shown to be productive, transformational, and beneficial to the vast majority of New Yorkers, it will have reverberations across the entire country. This is the front line. And they know it.
What This Actually Takes
One person can’t change something this entrenched alone. One person—no matter how brilliant—cannot overcome a system designed to resist them.
During the New Deal, it took three election cycles to build a supermajority. It can happen again in 2026, 2028, 2030. That’s the timeline.
When you’re fighting MAGA, it’s simple. They wear red hats. They’re loud. You know exactly who they are. The Democratic establishment is different. They seem like they’re on your side.
While Mamdani is picking up the trash and making the city function, the movement around him has to be simultaneously primarying Jeffries, running challengers against Torres, recruiting state legislators. It means rallies. Visibility. Making clear political risk to every Democrat in the state who opposes his agenda.
Yes, the infrastructure is collapsing. Yes, construction in New York costs seven times what it costs anywhere else. Yes, the MTA has a $62 billion backlog. Those problems require competent governance. But none of it matters if Hochul and the State Legislature just block him. So while Mamdani’s team is fixing potholes, the movement has to be in the streets, at the rallies, primarying the people in the way.
Where We Go From Here
I’m hopeful. Mamdani’s victory is real and it’s important. But my experience tells me that without active, aggressive political power-building, it won’t translate into anything more tangible.
The impulse will be to work within the system. Staff the administration. Make government function. That has to happen. But it can’t be all that happens. You’ve got to be running a political revolution simultaneously. You’ve got to use your platform. You’ve got to make it clear that opposing this agenda has political consequences.
Because the last 10 months aren’t a departure from the norm. They’re the natural evolution of the past 50 years. And if we want something different, we have to build it. Fast. Visibly. With political risk and political courage.
The impulse will be to work within the system. Staff the administration. Make government function. That has to happen. But it can’t be all that happens.
Starting Monday, November 10, I’m publishing four weeks of essays, supported by a series of videos, laying out exactly what this looks like. Not theory. Actual strategy. Actual targets. Actual timelines.
Then, on Tuesday December 9 - International Anti-Corruption Day - I’ll launch a new initiative designed to reframe and refocus our collective efforts toward meaningful change.
This is the work. This is what it takes. Whether this becomes a moment of transformative power, or just another progressive mayor and a handful of individual candidates fighting alone, depends on what happens in the next six months.
We’re just getting warmed up.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular