It's the Iron Law of Institutions

After winning the Democratic Party primary for Mayor of New York, the Democratic Party establishment (There is no Democratic Party establishment) continues to shill for corrupt sexual harasser and grandma murderer Andrew Cuomo, because they see Zohran Mamdani as a threat to their own power within the party

Just to remind you, the Iron Law of Institutions is, "The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution."

And folks like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and  House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are still trying to make Andrew Cuomo mayor, because all they know how to do is suck up to big donors.

In the weeks after he won the 2021 Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, Eric Adams was enthusiastically embraced by the party’s establishment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi posed for a picture with Adams and described herself as “honored” to host him at a meeting of House Democrats. He was seated near President Biden at a White House session. “Why Top Democrats Are Listening to Eric Adams Right Now” was the headline of a New York Times story.

Four years later, Zohran Mamdani won the mayoral Democratic primary in the Big Apple by a larger margin than Adams, with far more overall votes, and on the strength of a spectacular campaign that inspired young voters across the country. But the party’s establishment is dissing him. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, hugely influential figures in both New York and national politics, have refused to endorse Mamdani. Same for the state’s other senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Governor Kathy Hochul. Many prominent national Democrats, such as Rahm Emanuel and Cory Booker, are also either criticizing Mamdani or refusing to back him. It was considered a coup for Mamdani when it was reported that he and Barack Obama had a lengthy and positive phone call. But the former president hasn’t actually publicly announced his support for Mamdani, either.

The shunning of Mamdani is an important illustration of the state of the Democratic Party in 2025. It shows some unfortunate truths about the party’s center-left establishment and points to some clear steps progressives must take.

A minor correction here, Schumer, Obama, Jeffries, Gillibrand, Hochul Emanuel, Booker, and the rest of their ilk are not center left.

They are, and always have been, corporate stooges.

Let me move to what I suspect are their actual reasons for the cold shoulder Mamdani is receiving. First, many center-left [Again, not left at all.  At best center-right] Democratic strategists and lawmakers fear that prominent progressives tar the entire party as overly left-wing. So they don’t want a socialist to become mayor of New York City and certainly would not endorse that person and encourage his victory.

………

As party leaders, Jeffries and Schumer in particular may view their roles as appealing to the median voter across the country. That’s reasonable. If their position is that they can’t associate themselves with Mandami because he is too far left for swing voters outside New York, they should state that explicitly (or at least have their aides leak it). That way, they are not implying that Mamdani has policies so radical that he can’t be endorsed even for New York City. It would also end the drama around their refusal to endorse Mandami. If their primary considerations are swing voters far away, they have little reason to back Mamdani, no matter what he promises them. 

But I doubt the wariness of Mamdani is entirely about electability and party positioning nationally. I worry that Jeffries, Schumer, Gillibrand, and perhaps more importantly their campaign donors simply oppose someone as progressive as Mamdani holding office, particularly one as prestigious as mayor of New York. 

………

The Democratic Party is so ideologically diverse these days, from Rashida Tlaib to Jared Golden, that there are bound to be conflicts. But not every disagreement is legitimate. There is no good reason for Jeffries, Schumer, or Gillibrand to refuse to support Mamdani, an inspiring candidate who won the primary and is willing to work with people to his right, particularly when his opponents are the ethically challenged Adams and Cuomo. Party leaders are dead wrong here—and their terrible instincts in New York are a reflection of their broader shortcomings.  

How about primarying Jeffries? That would be a good start.

The Democratic Party establishment (There is no Democratic Party establishment) says, "Vote Blue, No Matter Who," whenever a right wing corrupt creep like Rahm Emanuel gets a nomination, but when someone with actual ideas and political acumen shows up, they line up on the other side.

Unless and until progressives in the Democratic Party understand that electing a bad Democrat is almost as bad as electing a (any) Republican, and are willing to stay home rather than vote for Blue Dogs, New Democrats, and their ilk, this will never change, and it has to change.