The Mamdani containment project by the democrats

The "structure–actor" relationship in the U.S. and Western countries has always been a critical and challenging topic in neorealist theories and frameworks. Accordingly, actors ultimately must comply with the structure that exerts both overt and covert dominance over them. Deviating from the structure’s red lines generally results in the actor being absorbed into it and eventually removed from political and executive power calculations. This principle also applies to the recent New York mayoral election and its associated discussions.

While Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York might initially be viewed as a win for the Democratic Party, in reality, it represents a critical warning for the party leadership and a symbol of deep dissatisfaction among American voters.

Contrary to common perception, this result does not only signify disapproval of Republican policies or Donald Trump; it is also an explicit expression of discontent with the traditional political and governance practices of the Democrats.

Mamdani’s election signals that new demands and priorities are emerging among American citizens that the current structures of the Democratic Party are unable—or unwilling—to address.

A crucial aspect of analyzing this phenomenon is the imminent reaction of the overt and covert power lobbies within the Democratic Party. These traditional actors will certainly pose serious obstacles to Mamdani’s urban governance in New York. The reason is clear: accepting Mamdani’s model of governance would legitimize demands that directly conflict with the party’s established macro-level governance patterns. If this public revisionism—even at the municipal level—is accepted as a replicable model, the traditional party structure risks losing credibility.

This mechanism has been observed before in intra-party elections, where the same power lobbies deliberately sidelined progressive figures like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in 2016 and 2020 to consolidate the mainstream, structure-oriented candidates (e.g., Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden). Even the protests by Sanders’ and Warren’s supporters did not succeed, as the Democratic leadership shamelessly censored and distorted these demands.

The election of Zohran Mamdani has emerged as a powerful symbol of social-political revisionism in contemporary America. This emerging movement demands changes that Democratic leaders, due to structural conservatism, are deliberately ignoring. They prefer to treat local victories merely as “statistical anomalies” rather than confronting the need for fundamental shifts in governance models, political thinking, and operational approaches.

This deliberate denial sets the stage for the formation of a new, genuine bipolarity within the Democratic Party, not between Democrats and Republicans, but around the new demands of American citizens and the party’s ability—or failure—to align with them. These constraints are applied not only to electoral competition but also to preserve the party’s long-term structural and ideological hegemony.