By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Zohran Mamdani’s primary victory, progressive groups are urging centrist Democrats to support his mayoral candidacy. Our Revolution attempted to deliver a petition to Senator Kirsten Gilibrand’s office, highlighting concerns of establishment sabotage, while Indivisible chapters are also writing to key Democratic leaders to back Mamdani. The New York Working Families Party is similarly calling for support, emphasizing Mamdani’s broad appeal and endorsements. A recent poll shows Mamdani leading among voters, however this lead is threatened by potential endorsements of opposing candidates.
Read the original article here
“Don’t Sabotage Mamdani”: That’s the urgent plea ringing out, backed by a petition with over 30,000 signatures, directed at Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, urging her to publicly support Zohran Mamdani, the progressive candidate for NYC mayor. The sentiment driving this call is clear: Democratic leaders often champion unity until a progressive candidate actually gains momentum, a sentiment voiced by a prominent backer, echoing what many are feeling across the political spectrum.
The core frustration stems from the perception that some within the Democratic establishment prioritize maintaining the status quo and appeasing donors over supporting candidates genuinely dedicated to progressive change. There’s a palpable anger at what’s seen as a betrayal of the “Vote Blue No Matter Who” mantra, a narrative that suggests establishment Democrats are willing to hinder progressive efforts rather than embrace the potential for substantial societal change. This is compounded by a growing sense of disillusionment, particularly among younger generations, who are tired of the old guard and their perceived resistance to populist shifts.
The argument goes that the establishment Democrats often attempt to suppress candidates like Bernie Sanders, believing that a “socialist” can’t win a general election. This resistance is viewed as a betrayal of the voters’ desires for real change, for leadership that prioritizes the American people over corporate interests. There’s a strong sense that the establishment’s playbook is outdated and ineffective, particularly after recent election cycles, and that clinging to these tactics will only lead to further losses. The call is for a new generation of leaders to emerge, those who are genuinely committed to progressive ideals.
The specific issue is Gillibrand’s potential, or lack thereof, to endorse Mamdani. There’s strong sentiment that her previous actions have shown her to be opportunistic and disingenuous, and that her endorsement may even be detrimental. The criticism goes beyond her personal credibility. This is seen as part of a larger pattern of establishment Democrats sabotaging progressive candidates and, by extension, the will of the voters. Many believe the endorsements of establishment Democrats are not sincere and is done out of obligation and convenience.
The petition’s existence reveals the underlying unease that many believe the Democratic Party’s leadership is controlled by corporate interests. This concern casts doubt on the party’s commitment to the values it claims to uphold. The absence of endorsements from figures like Gillibrand, Schumer, Jeffries, and Hochul is interpreted as evidence that the Democratic establishment would rather see a Republican win than a progressive. This perception is further fueled by concerns over the potential for third-party candidates to split the vote and further undermine the progressive cause.
The demand for unity is often heard when the establishment wants something done their way, but the lack of unity is a very big issue when the vote does not go their way. The focus is on the idea that moderate and corporate Democrats are only interested in power and getting rich, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in office. The very nature of political endorsements are questioned. Why is an endorsement even needed? If a candidate cannot win without the support of establishment figures, then does their victory truly matter?
The argument suggests that establishment figures are willing to sabotage any candidate that poses a threat to the existing power structures. This extends to the DNC itself, with accusations that the organization isn’t putting enough pressure on Cuomo not to run as a third-party candidate. The idea of running a fair and transparent election, and respecting the wishes of the voters, is a core concern. It seems the constant opposition to any form of change is just one big show.
This dynamic highlights a fundamental struggle within the Democratic Party between those who advocate for incremental change and those who seek more radical reforms. The opposition is seen as a direct result of the progressive platform. There is a concern that the establishment will undermine candidates for reasons beyond their control.
There’s a clear sense of betrayal among many Democrats, who feel that the party’s leadership is more interested in maintaining the status quo than in enacting the changes that voters want. The concern that establishment Democrats will sabotage Mamdani for these reasons is the essence of the article. The plea is for unity and support for Mamdani, and a warning about the consequences of not doing so.