An Answer to
Machine Politics?

An Answer Democrats Were Looking For?

Our “Machine Politician” analysis revealed immigrant communities swinging 20+ points toward Trump in 2024—the same neighborhoods where Democrats have been hemorrhaging support. Then something unexpected happened: a DSA socialist named Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic mayoral primary by dominating those exact same communities.

He didn't win by moving to the center. He didn't win by abandoning progressive policies. He won by showing up, speaking their language, and leading with material concerns. Not ideology. Not lecturing. Presence.

The result? A coalition that defied conventional wisdom: Park Slope progressives and Jackson Heights immigrants, DSA activists and working-class Muslims, progressive organizers and culturally conservative voters. He proved that immigrant communities aren't ideologically captured—they'reideologically available to whoever shows up, speaks their language, and addresses their material concerns.

Mamdani vs Cuomo: Two Different Coalitions

Mamdani's coalition looked nothing like Andrew Cuomo's. The former governor dominated wealthy Manhattan and traditional Democratic establishment strongholds—the voters who wanted stability over change. Mamdani won by running up massive margins in progressive neighborhoods and—crucially—outperforming expectations in working-class outer boroughs where Democrats have been losing ground.

Manhattan went for Mamdani by just under M+10—respectable, but not dominant. The Upper East Side and Upper West Side went heavily for Cuomo, the establishment candidate who promised continuity. These are the wealthiest, most educated neighborhoods in America, and they chose the known quantity.

But in Queens' working-class districts—the same neighborhoods trending Republican nationally—Mamdani dominated. In specific immigrant-heavy communities, he won by margins that shocked political observers: 15-20+ point victories against a former governor.

Where Mamdani Beat Cuomo in Working-Class Queens

These Assembly Districts are working-class, immigrant-heavy neighborhoods where Mamdani's economic populism resonated. The Democrats in these communities chose the socialist over the establishment candidate by double-digit margins.

South Ozone Park, Richmond Hill, Ridgewood, Corona, Jackson Heights—these are working-class, immigrant-heavy, economically stressed communities where Democrats have been losing support. Mamdani won them all by 15-20+ points against Cuomo.

Why did Mamdani win the Democratic voters there? The answer is deceptively simple: He showed up. He made specific promises about housing and wages. He spoke their languages—literally, in Gujarati at mosques. He treated them as constituencies to negotiate with, not demographics to claim or lecture.

The Trade-Off: Who Went to Cuomo

Mamdani's coalition came with costs. He lost ground in two key Democratic constituencies: wealthy white liberals and older Black voters aligned with the traditional party establishment.

Cuomo's Strongest Assembly Districts

Upper East Side (AD-73) went for Cuomo by 35 points. Upper West Side (AD-76) went Cuomo by 15. These are the wealthiest, most educated neighborhoods in America—and they wanted the establishment candidate.

The pattern in Black neighborhoods reveals a crucial nuance. Mamdani won them—but often by smaller margins than in progressive Brooklyn. Co-op City (AD-83) went M+15, Brownsville (AD-58) went M+27, East New York (AD-60) went M+18—all comfortable wins, but not the 50-point blowouts of Park Slope. The traditional Black political establishment largely backed Cuomo, yet Mamdani still won these communities. That alone is historically significant.

Borough Park (AD-48) gave Cuomo 84% of the vote. Staten Island went Cuomo by 32-51 points depending on the AD. The Upper East Side gave Cuomo 66%.

These are very different groups united by one thing: they didn't want disruption. The Orthodox community wanted someone who wouldn't challenge their institutions. The wealthy wanted someone who wouldn't raise their taxes. The party establishment wanted one of their own. Cuomo was the safe choice.

The Caveat: Different Voters, Same Neighborhoods

Before drawing national lessons, we need to be honest about what this data can and cannot tell us. Mamdani won a Democratic primary. The voters who swung to Trump in 2024 are largely not the same people who voted in a Democratic mayoral contest.

This matters because it limits what national Democrats can learn. Mamdani didn't “win back” Trump voters—he won Democratic primary voters in neighborhoods where the overall electorate has shifted right. Those are different accomplishments.

But Geography Rhymes

And yet—rhymes are noted for a reason. People who live in the same neighborhoods share more than an address. They shop at the same stores, worship at the same mosques and churches, send their kids to the same schools, complain about the same landlords. Their concerns overlap even when their voting behavior diverges.

The honest answer is: we don't know yet. Mamdani's approach—presence over polling, economics over identity, specific promises to specific communities—worked in a Democratic primary. Whether it can reach the voters who've already left the party is a different question, one this election can't answer.

But shared geography creates shared experience. The immigrant family that voted for Mamdani and the immigrant family next door that voted for Trump both face the same rent increases, the same transit delays, the same school overcrowding. If Mamdani's approach resonates with one, it might resonate with the other. That's not proof. It's a hypothesis worth testing.

Explore the Results: Precinct-Level Map

The interactive map in the sidebar shows how every Election District voted. Toggle between winner view and margin view to see the geographic patterns—Mamdani's strength in progressive Brooklyn, Cuomo's dominance in Orthodox neighborhoods and wealthy Manhattan.

Education and the Asian Vote: The Gifted Program Divide

One of Cuomo's most effective attacks on Mamdani was his opposition to gifted and talented programs in public schools. This landed hardest in Chinese-American communities, where academic achievement pathways are deeply valued and fiercely defended as essential mechanisms of upward mobility.

The results reveal a stark split within “Asian” voters—a group that pundits often treat as monolithic.Chinese-dominant districts went heavily for Cuomo (by 28-33 points), whileSouth Asian districts actually went for Mamdani. The difference? Education policy.

The Cuomo campaign hammered this relentlessly in Flushing and Sunset Park—and it worked decisively. The question for Democrats is whether progressive education policy can be reconciled with communities where meritocratic academic pathways are non-negotiable. The data suggests it cannot, at least not without losing those voters.

The Governance Question: Cea Weaver and the Free Services Debate

Mamdani's victory brings his coalition into power—and with it, questions about governance. His appointment of tenant advocate Cea Weaver to lead the Mayor's Office to Protect Tenants surfaced old social media posts that crystalize the tension between progressive activists and working-class immigrant voters.

For immigrant communities who scraped together down payments on small homes in Queens—who see property ownership as the tangible proof of their American success—rhetoric calling homeownership “white supremacy” isn't academic theory. It's an attack on their life's work, their American dream, their generational wealth-building strategy.

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that drove the 2020-2024 immigrant swing to Trump. Mamdani won despite his association with this wing of progressive politics—but governing with figures who use this language may test the coalition that brought him to power. The voters who delivered his victory may not tolerate the rhetoric that energizes DSA meetings.

The Free Services Question

Beyond the inflammatory rhetoric lies a more substantive policy debate: does making public services free actually serve the communities that use them?

The immigrant voters who backed Mamdani aren't ideological about this—they're practical. They want housing they can afford, transit that works, schools that prepare their kids. Whether services are free or subsidized matters less than whether they're functional.

The tension is clear: Mamdani won by showing up in working-class immigrant neighborhoods and talking about rent and wages. But governing means appointing people—and appointing activists who call homeownership “white supremacy” sends a very different message to the Queens homeowners who delivered his victory. The rhetoric that energizes progressive base voters may alienate the exact communities that made his coalition possible.

Whether Mamdani can manage this tension—keeping both DSA activists and South Asian small homeowners in his coalition—will determine whether his mayoralty succeeds or fractures. The campaign is over. Now comes the harder part.

What This Might Mean for Democrats

Mamdani's victory is suggestive, not conclusive. It offers a hypothesis, not a proven formula.

The hopeful reading: Among Democrats who remain in working-class immigrant neighborhoods, Mamdani's approach—presence, economic messaging, linguistic and cultural fluency—outperformed establishment politics by double digits. If shared geography creates shared concerns, this approach might resonate beyond primary voters.

The cautionary reading: Mamdani won a Democratic primary with historically low turnout. The voters who swung to Trump aren't participating in Democratic primaries—they've left the party entirely. Winning the remaining loyalists doesn't prove you can win back the departed.

Mamdani is a DSA socialist who won conservative Muslim neighborhoods in a Democratic primary. He did it by being present and making specific promises about things they actually cared about: housing, wages, cost of living. Not by abandoning his principles—by finding where his principles and their concerns overlapped.

Can this translate nationally? Can it reach voters who've stopped voting Democratic entirely? We genuinely don't know. But in a party searching for answers after 2024, Mamdani's approach is at least a coherent theory of the case—one that produced a win in the nation's largest city. Whether it's more than that remains to be seen.

The Cuomo Curse: Father and Son

There's an eerie historical parallel here that deepens the meaning of this race. Andrew Cuomo's defeat by a progressive insurgent isn't just a 2025 story—it's a generational echo.

For Mario, 1977 was a beginning. He bounced back from the mayoral loss to become one of New York's most celebrated governors—his whole career still ahead of him. For Andrew, 2025 was an ending. He'd already had his turn at Albany: three terms before resigning in disgrace in 2021. The mayoral race was supposed to be his comeback. Instead, history repeated itself—another Cuomo, another third-party campaign, another 41%. Except this time, there's no second act.