Not long ago, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was demonized by leaders of both political parties. On Thursday night, the 34-year-old democratic socialist was celebrated as a political force, the face of the region’s sports renaissance, even the leader of “Mamdanistan.”
In a rally with Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that drew thousands to a Brooklyn theater, the emboldened mayor delivered a fiery message to Democratic leaders in Washington — and even those considering 2028 presidential bids — as he worked to elevate a slate of likeminded candidates in Tuesday’s New York primaries.
“People often ask me what I think of the state of the Democratic Party. This slate here today is our answer,” Mamdani declared. “The Democratic Party must change.”
“The party of the past will not be what leads us into the future. We need a Democratic Party with backbone.”
He shared the stage with three congressional candidates, including two running against Democratic incumbents. All three identify, or have identified, as democratic socialists. They promised to “abolish ICE,” condemned the “genocide” in Israel and vowed to “tax the rich” if elected.
…
Mamdani endorsed political organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier over Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, in New York’s 13th District, which includes parts of upper Manhattan and the Bronx.
Mamdani is also backing former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is running against incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in New York’s 10th District. And in New York’s 7th, he’s supporting democratic socialist state Assembly Member Claire Valdez against outgoing Rep. Nydia Velazquez’s handpicked successor.
Mamdani is too far to the left to represent the Democratic party. Most Americans will not be in favor of abolishing ICE. Andy Beshear and Jon Ossoff would be better.
Uh, most Americans are in favor of abolishing ICE. By your pure popularism political philosophy you’re now on board too, right?
From https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/5733676-ice-reform-support-americans/
In an NBC News Decision Desk Poll released Wednesday, 72 percent of respondents supported abolishing or reforming ICE, while 29 percent said it should “continue in current form.” A larger share of those surveyed said the agency should be reformed, at 43 percent, rather than abolished, at 29 percent.
Setting aside that you’re just pretending your poll is right and mine is wrong, what do you think this poll says that supports “people won’t support abolish”? Because giving a third option with reforms doesn’t change that outright abolish is more popular than not. It’s not an electoral loser. Especially in the demographics that vote for Democrats.
It shows that it’s better for Democrats to favor reforming ICE rather than abolishing it. Democrats have to also win in red states.
So having been just wrong about whether abolish was a minority position and claiming Mamdani can’t represent the Democratic party, now you’ve moved the goalposts to “the person who represents the Democratic party, should appeal to Republicans”.
If only we’d had multiple examples of mealy-mouthed centrists losing to an extremist representing his party’s base. Maybe being successful at politics isn’t actually about trying to tack as hard to the center as possible with watered down positions.
Democrats should appeal to independents and some Republicans. If Democrats just win in deep blue areas, they’re not getting anywhere.
This thread literally started with demonstrating that “abolish ICE” is the preferred choice over “keep ICE the same”. It’s not an issue that turns off voters. The whole theory that triangulating centrism that says nothing so as to never turn off a voter had failed. Multiple times now. Your theory of politics is wrong.
From https://www.npr.org/2026/02/04/nx-s1-5690180/will-calls-to-abolish-ice-sway-voters-in-2026-the-strategy-has-democrats-split
He warns the “abolish ICE” slogan may not be universally embraced among voters across the country. Democrats hoping to flip districts or win over swing voters, Cowan said, should lean into different language, such as calling for a “reform” or “overhaul” of ICE.
He likens the debate to when many Democrats coalesced around the “defund the police” movement in 2020, a decision that Cowan argues created an opening for Trump to paint Democrats as soft on crime.
is sarcastic idiot taken? I’d like to apply for that job
The DNC had effectively cut all funding for the ICE and related departments from February until last week when a GOP-only reconciliation bill changed that.
Any Democrat who supports abolishing ICE would end up the same as those who support defunding the police. Republicans would argue that Democrats want open borders permitting criminals to enter.
This isnt conjecture they literally already did the thing.