Lessons from the Trump/Mamdani Voter Bloc
Yes they're real, and no, they did not read any white papers
Greetings from rural northern Michigan, where I spent many summers as a kid and am now visiting family. Our timing couldn’t be better - we flew into a cool early summer with not too many mosquitoes or tourists (yet).
In between trips to Moomers and Cherry Republic I’ve been thinking a lot about Zohran’s Mamdani’s stunning primary upset and the second MAGA era. And, like most of Substack, reading too many Takes on both. Two big things I keep waiting to see:
1. More recognition that New York City is not the United States of America. But it’s often covered like that by national media because those journalists work/live in NYC, and so over-focus on their specific, local issues without that fairly obvious context. Mamdani ran on hyperlocal issues like MTA funding, child care costs, and rent stabilization, all of which have unique NYC applications. Any attempt to map What Mamdani Means For the Future of the Democratic Brand, even in good faith, is inherently flawed from inception. Mamdani worked hard to stay focused on local issues (in contrast to Cuomo, who obviously considered Gracie Mansion a pit stop on the way to the White House), and there are zero indications that he’ll govern like someone setting a national progressive or liberal agenda.
The lesson here seems less “Dems should embrace DSA-style socialism or policies” and more “be authentic and consistent as you hyperfocus on local issues.” Elissa Slotkin probably couldn’t win the New York mayoral primary, and Mamdani probably couldn’t get a Michigan Senate seat. Insofar as policy matters in an election, candidates win by focusing local and having a vision that speaks to what voters feel about their daily lives.1
2. NYC went far more for Trump in 2024 than even the most MAGA-pilled pollster could have predicted, but eight months later anointed a 33-year-old Muslim socialist who wants city-run grocery stores. Huh?
A Gothamist analysis found that Mamdani won 30% of the primary election districts Trump won in the 2024 general election and garnered over 35,000 votes in districts that went for Trump. Around the Jamaica Hills, Queens intersection where Mamdani filmed last November, voters in 2024 moved toward the GOP by nearly 25 points. On Tuesday, Mamdani won there with 84.2% of the vote.
In addition to Hillside, Queens, Mamdani won Trump-leaning districts in Tottenville on the Republican stronghold of Staten Island, College Point in North Queens and Bath Beach in South Brooklyn.
Who are these Trump-Mamdani voters? From a policy perspective, this makes zero sense. My husband’s semi-serious take is that New York was secretly filled with closeted Dennis Duffys (Liz Lemon’s terrible boyfriend on 30 Rock): “social conservative/fiscal liberal.”
But looking for any policy Rosetta Stone to explain the Trump-Mamdani voter will only make you crazy. A policy framework also misses what Ezra Klein has said about the difference between governing and performing governance (or campaigning versus governing, if we’re extrapolating).2
The question we should be asking: “what do candidates Trump and Mamdani have in common that appealed to their shared voters?” From my comms perch, I’d offer: both Trump and Mamdani as candidates are extremely good at making politics FUN. NYC voters preferred how Trump and Mamdani made them feel over how their competition made them feel. Their voters’ excitement for being in their tribes overrode any policy questions or anxiety over how they’d govern.
Those supporters then broadcast their support loudly and proudly, amplifying their candidate’s brand across their networks far more effectively than any top-down campaign surrogate plan ever could. It means something to be a Mamdani or Trump voter and to claim that mantle as a part of your own personal brand, like what sports teams you cheer for or your favorite Housewife.
No one reads the candidate’s white paper. Everyone remembers how the candidate made them feel. How by supporting a candidate, they felt like they were something bigger than themselves. How they felt led - not taken for granted, not tolerated, not expected to hold their nose and do what needed to be done. And they’ll remember how much they enjoy being a part of a movement - how it gives them something they’re not getting elsewhere, like community, purpose, or a belief that positive change is coming.
You saw it with Clinton in 1992. You saw it with Obama in 2008. You saw it with Trump in 2016 and 2024. And you’re clearly seeing it with Mamdani today.
Notably, neither Trump nor Mamdani tried to micromanage how their supporters took candidate brands out and made them their own. They encouraged their supporters and let a million flowers bloom, even when weeds crept in. When pressed to condemn outliers who voiced opinions outside their parties’ respective Overton Windows, they both basically shrugged and refused to take the bait. And for both, the momentum from their unrestrained organic support steamrolled over the whatabouts and self-appointed norm enforcers of their political parties.
Many voters (and consumers, taxpayers, etc.) are suspicious, fried, and angry at the status quo. At a moment where trust in public institutions is at an all-time low, voters gravitated to both Trump and Mamdani as outsiders who stared squarely at their party leadership and said, in their own ways, “screw youse.” Both Trump and Mamdani voters derive a big chunk of their tribal identities not just by coalescing around their candidate, but by loudly rejecting what the self-anointed establishment of their parties tried to force-feed them.
But it’s not just opposition to the status quo. Trump and Mamdani both project optimism and confidence. They each have real flaws, and largely own or refuse to take the easy bait on them, which endears them to voters who prize authenticity over slickness and caution.3
Both campaigns have a strong, instantly recognizable visual brands. They engage with legacy media but aren’t snobbish about rising platforms - if anything, they prioritize the latter because they understand that effective campaign media isn’t about performing the role of a candidate, but meeting your voters where they are. They largely eschew surrogate messengers and build direct, emotional connections with their audiences.
Smart, serious people who care about the future of our democracy should learn important lessons from New York’s Trump-Mamdani swing: but with hearts, not heads.
And being a hell of a communicator, with an actual personality and POV, is tablestakes. I feel like we shouldn’t have to say that by now? But one more time for the donors in the back.
NYT: “The presidency is a performance. You are not just making decisions, you are also acting out the things people want to believe about their president — that the president is in command, strong, energetic, compassionate, thoughtful, that they don’t need to worry about all that is happening in the world, because the president has it all under control.”
It’s not lost on me that both Trump and Mamdani are straight men and thereby enjoy a different set of norms and expectations on this front.