By John Q. Hosedrinker 
While Zohran Mamdani secured the Democratic nomination for New York City mayor, a surprising lack of support from high-ranking Democrats has emerged. Despite Mamdani’s strong campaign efforts and backing from some elected officials, prominent figures like Governor Kathy Hochul and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have remained silent on the endorsement. This absence of support is especially puzzling given Mamdani’s grassroots campaign and the broader Democratic voter enthusiasm for his candidacy. As Bernie Sanders highlighted at a rally, the failure of these leaders to unite behind the Democratic nominee raises questions about the party’s commitment and its ability to effectively counter opponents.
Read the original article here
Democratic voters want their leaders to stop running from Zohran Mamdani. It’s a simple sentiment, really. The feeling is that party leadership should be backing a candidate who’s clearly resonating with the electorate, especially when that candidate is poised to win. The disconnect, the perceived fear, the reluctance to fully embrace Mamdani, is a source of deep frustration for many Democrats.
The core of the issue seems to be that some Democratic leaders are prioritizing donors and the status quo over the will of the voters. The suggestion, backed by statements from individuals like former Obama campaign manager David Axelrod, is that “donor pressure” is influencing the lack of support. This paints a picture of a party more beholden to wealthy benefactors than to the grassroots movement that’s fueling Mamdani’s popularity. The sheer amount of money being thrown at opposing Mamdani, as detailed by sources, reinforces this concern. Why aren’t they getting behind the guy who won?
The calls for more “balls,” and the critiques of consultants, highlight a longing for authenticity and a leader who reflects the values and concerns of everyday people. Voters aren’t looking for polished platitudes or carefully crafted talking points. They want someone who can connect, who understands their struggles, and who isn’t afraid to speak candidly about the issues. The fact that endorsements seem to be based on the idea that they matter, when the candidate is “20 points ahead” is just confusing to many.
The idea of a “corporate-friendly” candidate being favored over someone like Mamdani is another prominent theme. The criticism is that these leaders are out of touch, prioritizing the interests of the wealthy and well-connected over the needs of the average citizen. This has led to calls for purges, for new blood, and for a fundamental shift in the party’s priorities. If the establishment doesn’t change then they will likely continue to lose elections.
There is a certain frustration with the perception that this is simply standard operating procedure for the Democratic Party. The concern is that the establishment is playing it safe, hedging their bets, and ultimately, failing to represent the people they’re supposed to serve. There are many that feel that a new party may be needed. This is not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of behavior. Any candidate that advocates for the left is often shut out.
The sentiment is also very strong, that the establishment sees Mamdani’s success as a threat. His popularity, his progressive policies, his connection with the voters – all of these are seen as a challenge to the existing power structures. There’s a feeling that the party is more interested in maintaining its own control than in achieving real progress or winning elections.
Ultimately, the message from Democratic voters is clear: Embrace the momentum. Support the candidate who is winning. Step aside and let those who are actually willing to fight take the lead. Stop running from Zohran Mamdani. If the party wants to win, it needs to listen to the voters and embrace the future. It needs to embrace progress. The old ways, the safe plays, the deference to donors – they’re simply not working anymore.