The June 24 New York City Earthquake

New York City just got through its most intense and divisive Democratic mayoral primary in memory, with a stunning finish: Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary. What does the historic campaign say about the changing city and its politics?

To get perspective, we sat down with Basil Smikle. Smikle has spent his career moving between politics, policy and academia. A Bronx native, he served as executive director of the New York State Democratic Party and as deputy state director for U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton. He now teaches at Columbia and CUNY, while also offering political analysis on MSNBC.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Vital City: Thanks for taking the time to talk. To start, what did this Democratic primary campaign reveal about New York City’s politics? What did it teach you?

Basil Smikle: I think it showed us a generational divide in local politics — something we’ve seen nationally as well. While progressive candidates have won legislative seats over the years — like Jumaane Williams, Brad Lander, and, to some extent, Bill de Blasio — the progressive electorate today is different. It’s not 2013 anymore. Since that year, the electorate has been majority-minority, and signals a reshaping of the Democratic coalition.

Jesse Jackson ran nationally in 1984 and ‘88, the Rainbow Coalition helped elect Bill Clinton — and David Dinkins in New York. That framework has underpinned the party for over 30 years. But now we’re seeing a new, younger Democratic coalition coalesce.

My mentor told me in the early ’90s, “Every movement becomes an institution.” And there’s a younger generation of voters who see the Democratic Party as an institution that’s no longer central to their political and economic empowerment. It’s a party in need of a new movement. This election seems to have produced that locally.

VC: Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old assemblyman, ended up besting Andrew Cuomo, the ultimate establishment figure in New York. Why Mamdani? Other progressives could have ridden the same movement. Was it charisma? The message? Something else? 

BS: All of that could be true. He has charisma, a compelling story. He’s young. And he raised a lot of money from a cross-section of New Yorkers. That early fundraising became the first narrative about him — not his age or background, but his donor base — which made him look like a candidate with broad appeal.

There’s also a perceived authenticity. Take Jessica Ramos: a strong legislator and candidate, but when she cross-endorsed with Cuomo, voters asked, “How do those things align?” Mamdani, early on, was seen as an authentic progressive. That mattered to voters trying to figure out what “real progressive” means today.

VC: For a Democrat, is being a member of the Democratic Socialists of America a liability?

BS: I don’t think so. Back in 2016, there was more of a litmus test — specific things you had to support to be “legitimately” progressive. That’s loosened. The connective tissue now is that you’re full of big ideas, independent from the Democratic machine, maybe even in your party registration.

VC: Some of the attacks on Mamdani liken him to Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, but Mamdani doesn’t seem as enmeshed with labor in the same way Johnson was in Chicago. 

BS: Mamdani doesn’t seem beholden to anyone. That matters today — whether you’re compromised or not. Progressive voters want someone authentic, unencumbered by political history.

The Rainbow Coalition of the 1980s and ’90s was deeply tied to organized labor. But over time, Democrats moved toward the center, and Republicans became the party of the working class. Now Democrats need to rebuild that connection. As labor leaders change — like American Federation of Teachers president Randy Weingarten stepping down — there’s potential for a reconstitution of the coalition. That might include some unions joining a newer, less establishment formation.

VC: In polls, Cuomo tended to win among high school grads, Mamdani among college grads. What does that signal? What’s behind that divide?

BS: I’d want to know the age and race of those high-school-grad Cuomo supporters. Older voters may remember his governorship — or even his father’s. A lot of it is name recognition, and unions often stick with known quantities. If you’ve never heard of Mamdani, you’re less likely to endorse him.

Cuomo also leans into quality-of-life issues, which haven’t been front and center in exactly this way for a long time. In Giuliani’s era, those were often proxies for criminalizing poverty. Progressives pushed back on that framing. But some older voters — even those who supported de Blasio — liked Bloomberg’s managerial style. They want order, not necessarily ideology. And many of those voters — especially older Black voters in places like Southeast Queens — supported Eric Adams and now support Cuomo.

Voters engage with multiple identities. They may like Mamdani’s ideas but still feel drawn to Cuomo’s managerial experience.

VC: That complexity can be overlooked. For example, Cuomo’s strongly pro-Israel stance might resonate with Orthodox Jewish voters, but parts of his Black working-class base may feel differently. Sympathies with the Palestinian cause are said to be rising among African-Americans. Voters don’t fit neatly into blocs.

BS: Right. You see that in reactions to the sexual harassment allegations against Cuomo, too. People ask how voters — especially those who support Attorney General Letitia James, who led the independent investigation into those accusations — can still vote for him. But voters negotiate with themselves all the time.

Voters can compartmentalize. They care about safety, security, city management. That doesn’t mean they don’t care about #MeToo, but their day-to-day concerns might feel more urgent.

VC: You worked with Hillary Clinton, a candidate who also had baggage but was widely respected for competence. Cuomo has some of that dynamic. And ranked-choice voting was supposed to reduce negative campaigning — yet here we are.

BS: Ranked-choice can confuse voters. It hasn’t reduced negative campaigning. It’s just shifted how alliances form. Maybe, over time, voters and candidates will adapt.

As for Clinton and Cuomo: both are known names, but their “baggage” is different. Clinton suffered from what I call “infinite regress” — people disliked her without always knowing why. That dates back to her time as First Lady, talking about healthcare.

Cuomo never had that. He’s long positioned himself as the grown-up in the room — since his time as attorney general and after the Senate coup, when he ran for governor. He’s savvy, and people know that. But gender plays a role. Where Cuomo is seen as tough or experienced, Clinton was seen as overly ambitious.

VC: On social media, many people say Cuomo ran a bad race — avoiding forums, dodging tough questions. Do you agree?

BS: He’s not a retail politician like Eric Adams. He’s used to a statewide role where there’s distance between you and the press or public. That doesn’t work in New York City mayoral politics, where the press is tough and the public expects to see you.

But his strategy matched his strengths — and what some voters were willing to tolerate. For communities that know him, it was enough for him to show up once and deliver a message. That might not fly with younger voters, who want engagement. So it feeds the generational divide.

VC: What about the “asshole” factor? Cuomo has a reputation as being a very tough person to work with. Mamdani comes off more like a happy warrior. Some people might think the city’s challenges, internally and coming from Washington, require someone strong and cantankerous. Arguably, if you don’t think the city is facing a crisis, you don’t need Cuomo to come to the rescue — maybe Mamdani and his sunnier presentation becomes a better fit.

BS: It depends on the constituency. Some ask, “Can I work with this person? Do I know who they’d bring into office?” With Cuomo, people know. With Mamdani, it’s a blank slate — but also an opportunity to shape his vision.

Giuliani ran on law and order. Bloomberg was the manager after 9/11. Cuomo’s first campaign ad leaned on quality of life because people feel the city has lost something since COVID. The perception that the city is mismanaged is widespread, and Cuomo leans into that. That appeals to voters who want competence over ideology.

VC: Mamdani has had a remarkably disciplined message: free buses, free childcare, freeze the rent. Some of the other candidates seemed caught off guard by changing conditions — Adams’ legal troubles fading, crime trending down. Did that hurt them?

BS: Yes. Mamdani’s consistency made him look authentic. When candidates have long records, they end up explaining — defending their votes, clarifying positions. That hurts. As they say, when you’re explaining, you’re losing.

Mamdani’s new, so he has room to define himself. It’s like Obama in 2008, and I wouldn’t compare Mamdani to the former president in many other respects: People questioned his experience, but that also meant he wasn’t tied to unpopular decisions. Mamdani had a clean slate — and he made the most of it.

One last point, and it speaks to the divide between Mamdani and Cuomo supporters. Politics is probably the only profession where leaders don’t develop succession plans. Someone can be in office for 40 years and then voters are left to figure out who replaces them.

Younger voters feel that acutely. They believe the older generation hasn’t made room for them — and they don’t trust the institution itself. That’s different from my generation, which still had faith in the Democratic Party. That lack of trust is a big part of the generational divide we’re seeing now.