By Leo Mahe
We tend to remember 2016 as the year Trump upended American politics, ushering in an era defined by fascist campaigns, scandals, and a constant churn of increasingly unhinged tweets. But before the Democrats eventually lost the general election, ushering in Donald Trump’s presidency, another battle had raged inside the Democratic party: the fight for what being a Democrat meant altogether.
During the 2016 Democratic Primary, with Obama no longer eligible to run for another term, the party was forced to select a new standard-bearer. On one side stood Hillary Clinton, the embodiment of the political establishment. A former First Lady, New York Senator, and Secretary of State, she campaigned for similar policies to Obama’s and framed herself as a unifier.
On the other side stood Bernie Sanders, who—despite being a U.S. Senator—hadn’t even been a registered Democrat before the election, seeing himself as too radical to associate with the Democratic establishment. Sanders ran as a Democratic socialist, campaigning for Medicare for All, free public college, and higher taxes on the rich—proposals that were sure to go poorly with the party’s establishment and its billionaire donors.
Sanders’ ideas, considered radical for a Presidential platform, exploded in popularity but he ultimately fell short, losing by a 12-point margin to Hillary Clinton. His campaign shook the Democratic establishment, but failed to gain enough momentum to overcome its grip on Democratic politics.
However, Sanders’ actions after the primary proved more significant to the party’s future. To quote The New Yorker, Sanders went “all in for Hillary Clinton,” urging his base to redirect their energy from supporting a radical revolution of Democratic politics to defending a status quo that, while deeply imperfect, was superior to a possible Trump presidency.
Over time, this move gave rise to the Democratic mantra of “Vote Blue No Matter Who,” which demands that all Democrats—both moderates and progressives—must set aside their beliefs and vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election. In practice, this has generally meant forcing progressives to set aside their more radical values.
But now, in a new New York City battle that eerily mirrors this national matchup, that dynamic appears set to change.
On July 1, 2025, Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic socialist and state assemblyman from Queens, officially defeated Andrew Cuomo in the city’s Democratic mayoral primary. In stark contrast to Cuomo—an establishment Democrat who ran on brand recognition and governing experience—Mamdani ran a campaign inspired by Bernie Sanders, highlighting clear progressive policy proposals. With help from the Democratic Socialists of America, he built a movement of more than 50,000 volunteers, knocking on more than a million doors and running a highly successful social media campaign to deliver him the same 12-point margin Clinton had in the 2016 election.
Just as Sanders had swallowed his pride and gone “all in” for Hillary Clinton after losing, Cuomo could have played the loyal party soldier by endorsing Mamdani. In a city where the Democratic nominee is almost guaranteed to win, a public endorsement from Cuomo would have been a powerful symbol of unity, a signal that moderates and progressives could vote as one when needed.
But the endorsement never came.
Instead, Cuomo announced that he would run against the Democratic nominee in the general election. He hasn’t been alone: prominent New York Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have also refused to endorse Mamdani, engaging in a delicate dance when reporters asked about their thoughts on the mayoral election.
But as Andrew Cuomo has grown closer to President Donald Trump and further from his supposed Democratic base, things have changed. In September, New York Governor Kathy Hochul wrote a New York Times Op-Ed endorsing Mamdani, criticizing Cuomo for his attempt to use Trump’s power to sway the election. Notably, however, she did not criticize Cuomo for entering the race and refusing to endorse Mamdani, a move Democrats would certainly have crucified Bernie Sanders for.
Their endorsements are of little practical value to Mamdani—he regularly polls more than twenty points ahead of any other candidate, and with no candidate seeming interested in bowing out of the race, he has already all but secured the mayoralty. But in this race, the same moderate Democrats who once championed “Vote Blue No Matter Who” now confront its limits.
After years of demanding that progressives fall in line and blaming them for every lost election, the establishment has proven that it is no more loyal to the party ticket than those it preached against. Mamdani’s campaign has revealed an unsettling truth: “Vote Blue No Matter Who” was never a pledge of solidarity, only a convenient strategy to maintain the progressive vote. And as the party’s own leaders break ranks, that command has finally lost its power.