Progressives in New York City had a good night on Tuesday. Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s three endorsed congressional candidates won the Democratic nominations in their respective primaries. The outcome suggests that the political current that swept Mamdani into Gracie Mansion last November remains strong, and that his message—blaming landlords, corporations, Zionists, capitalists, and the like for America’s woes—remains seductive.
Given the demographics of their districts, the three nominees—Claire Valdez, Brad Lander, and Darializa Avila Chevalier—are likely to win their November general election races. But their more moderate colleagues in Congress, to say nothing of Republicans, will look to block their more radical proposals.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
The most probable outcome, therefore, will be to expand the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-led “Squad” and to augment the ability of that small but influential left-wing faction to frame the political conversation within the Democratic Party and to significant extent, American politics.
The closest race was the Democratic primary in New York’s 13th Congressional District, spanning Harlem, Upper Manhattan, and parts of the Northwest Bronx. That contest, which pitted establishment incumbent Adriano Espaillat against the Democratic Socialists of America-aligned contender Chevalier, had gone relatively unnoticed until Mamdani endorsed the challenger late last month.
Mamdani was originally not going to endorse a specific candidate in that race, but according to a political strategist with whom I spoke, he was allegedly pushed to do so by another strategist, Morris Katz, who ran his campaign in November. Chevalier, a 32-year-old CUNY Graduate Center Ph.D. candidate in sociology and a Columbia University alumna, was active in organizing pro-Palestine protests and was criticized for attending an anti-Israel protest the day after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks.
At Espaillat’s watch party last night at La Casa del Mofongo, in Inwood, sources close to the candidate told me that Mamdani’s surprise endorsement catalyzed Chevalier’s campaign. Most attendees, like Espaillat himself, came from a working-class immigrant Dominican background. Dominican and labor union flags peeked out of people’s bags. About an hour after the race was called, Espaillat gracefully conceded in a speech delivered half in Spanish and half in English.
The Espaillat–Chevalier race highlighted a broader cleavage in New York: many working-class and immigrant voters are skeptical about socialism, having come to the United States precisely because it held the promise of better jobs and opportunities. Rather than envying others’ wealth, they dream of becoming rich themselves. Meantime, Chevalier’s support came more from younger, white, and college-educated voters, many of whom could be described as true believers in the socialist cause.
But the race was very tight. Chevalier edged out Espaillat by fewer than 3,000 votes, out of about 65,000 cast. Turnout in New York’s closed primary races is typically small—even Mamdani won last year’s Democratic mayoral primary with less than 7 percent of the city’s overall population backing him.
Tuesday’s results do not prove, then, that the majority of residents in New York are hard-left socialists. They instead suggest that, since most potential voters remain politically apathetic, a small but well-organized machine like the DSA’s can deliver big results. In this case, Espaillat’s machine failed to turn out.
In Brooklyn, Valdez, another DSA-backed and Mamdani-endorsed candidate, won the Democratic nomination for the retiring Nydia Velázquez’s NY-7 seat by a far more sizable margin: 56 percent versus Antonio Reynoso’s 36 percent. From a policy standpoint, Brooklyn Borough President Reynoso and Valdez are similar: both call for abolishing ICE and taxing the rich, and both advocate American isolationism.
Nevertheless, the race points to another schism within the Democratic Party: while Velásquez endorsed the Brooklyn-native Reynoso, Mamdani backed Valdez. Mamdani’s successful gambit will therefore likely strengthen his coalition across all levels of government.
Finally, former City Comptroller Brad Lander secured the nomination against incumbent Dan Goldman in NY-10. This was perhaps the least surprising result among the three races, given the intense anti-Israel sentiment in the district and Goldman’s record supporting Israel.
There were several other interesting races. In NY-12, New York State Assemblyman Micah Lasher beat his Assembly colleague Alex Bores, who built his campaign on regulating AI. In the Bronx, pro-Israel incumbent Representative Ritchie Torres held onto the nomination for NY-15, suggesting that continued engagement with constituents on issues that they care about—like securing funding for public housing—can still trump one’s less popular views on foreign policy and other matters.
Though some headlines are portraying Mamdani as a new Democratic kingmaker, the real takeaway may not be the mayor’s magic touch. Instead, New York’s primary results suggest that the same political current that swept Mamdani into office is still running strong. Americans, particularly younger, college-educated ones, are frustrated. As Eric Hoffer once wrote in The True Believer, collectivist politics acts as a conduit for popular frustration, allowing individuals to find common purpose in a cause. Such public moods are transitory and dependent on a certain emotional state of mind.
For the time being, the primary races are likely to be less important than the 2025 mayoral race, given that the marginal ability of any one representative to enact change is much less than that of New York City’s mayor. The more likely outcome is to accelerate the Democratic Party’s ongoing evolution toward a politics of redistribution, rent control, and labor unionism—unless the party’s more moderate establishment articulates and presses for a more constructive alternative.
Mayor Mamdani’s new political movement is unlikely to address any of the city’s underlying problems. If housing remains increasingly unaffordable relative to incomes, if job growth continues to slow across the state, and if students remain saddled with debt for degrees that have little market value, no amount of shuffling around of wealth will help. The stubborn reality is that things really might need to get worse before they get better.