What Just Happened?
Taking stock of a shocking election night—and exploring the implications for abundance
“A shocking upset.” “A Democratic earthquake.” “A stunning victory for the left flank of a fractured party still searching for direction.”
It’s hard to overstate how remarkable this upset is: a 33-year-old Democratic Socialist soundly defeated a former governor with $25M in outside spending and endorsements from Bill Clinton to Michael Bloomberg. Zohran Mamdani earned 43% of first-choice votes—a call for change so obvious that Cuomo conceded by 11pm last night.
But while national headlines focused on the drama of Cuomo’s defeat, we were tracking a different story: the evolution of Mamdani’s campaign toward abundance. Back in February, we had dinner with Mamdani and traded ideas on building market-rate housing, speeding up our buses and trains, and improving government service delivery. By the time we released our voter guide in early June, we had concluded that—in both his diagnosis of New York’s problems and his openness to solutions outside of the socialist playbook—Mamdani would be a better mayor on abundance issues than Cuomo.
By the final stretch of the race, the ideas we’d raised over dinner were breaking through in Mamdani’s campaign: he was calling for an “agenda of abundance,” earning nods from Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias for his stances on government delivery and housing, and inspiring optimism in conversation with Abundance co-author Derek Thompson.
We’re pleased to see him, and not Cuomo, win the primary—but the proof is in the pudding. Of course, we don’t yet know if Mamdani will win the general election in November, let alone how he’ll govern. Still, we’ll be watching: Will he continue to embrace abundance as he makes the case to a broader electorate in the fall? If he takes office, can he thread the needle of combining populist campaign slogans with a technocratic policy agenda?
We discuss this and more below—but first, a run-down of what happened down-ballot last night.
How did the Abundance slate do?
Mark Levine, the current Manhattan Borough President and abundance champion, decisively won the race for Comptroller. We’re thrilled to have an ally in citywide office, where Mark will be auditing city agencies and ensuring the effective stewardship of financial resources. If Mamdani does become NYC’s next mayor, Levine’s decades of experience and focus on effective government delivery will be a critical asset.
Antonio Reynoso, another abundance champion, easily won re-election in his race for Brooklyn Borough President. As BP, he has appointed pro-housing and pro-transit folks to community boards, greenlit critical rezonings, and used his bully pulpit to advocate for streamlined land use processes. We’re excited to see him continue this work for another term.
Unfortunately, Keith Powers lost his race for Manhattan Borough President, an outcome we were disappointed but not surprised by: Powers’s opponent, State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, narrowly lost his bid for BP last cycle and was making a second attempt. Additionally, Hoylman-Sigal collected an impressive set of elected and institutional endorsements on Manhattan’s vote-rich west side, and he has been an effective legislator on many progressive priorities. As we mentioned in our Voter Guide, Hoylman-Sigal’s record on our issues has been inconsistent; we hope that he will be responsive to the ascendence of abundance both as a concept and as a political community.
City Council races are looking promising, with up to 10 of the 13 contested candidates we endorsed currently in the lead or announced victorious. All of the incumbents we supported won their re-elections, despite facing opposition about votes they’d taken on abundance issues. Shahana Hanif won handily just weeks after voting to approve the Arrow Linen rezoning; Shaun Abreu defeated his opponent despite repurposing parking spots in his district for trash containerization; and Pierina Sanchez, who supported congestion pricing and City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, quashed a former council member’s comeback bid. Last night’s results were a clear demonstration that standing strong on housing, people-first streets, and transit does not need to come at a political cost.
Most of the high-stakes open seats will be determined by subsequent rounds of RCV: we are optimistic that Elsie Encarnacion in District 8 and Justin Sanchez in District 17, both currently leading, will prevail; but Sarah Batchu in District 2 and Ben Wetzler in District 4 are looking less likely to win. (The candidate we recommended voters rank second in District 4, Virginia Maloney, is narrowly leading ahead of RCV tabulations.) You can follow our results tracker here.
Finally, we’re sad to report that the sole abundance challenger, Jess Coleman, fell short of defeating NIMBY incumbent Chris Marte in District 1. We knew it would be difficult for Coleman to overcome the incumbency advantage—sitting council members win re-election over 90% of the time—so we’re proud to have eaten into Marte’s margins significantly. In 2021, Marte won the primary outright with 62.6% of the vote; yesterday, he won less than 50% of the vote, with Coleman and fellow YIMBY challenger Elizabeth Lewinsohn collectively earning 40%. Just as other incumbents were rewarded for pro-housing decisions, Marte—the sole Manhattan council member to vote against City of Yes for Housing Opportunity—was penalized for his opposition.
What are the policy implications?
With our endorsed incumbents holding their ground and two likely wins in open seats, the ideological makeup of the council will not change dramatically entering 2026. However, we are hopeful that last night’s results—a clear repudiation of the status quo at the top of the ticket, and the ascension of the most abundance-aligned elected official to another citywide office—will encourage more council members to take bolder positions on abundance issues.
There are other reasons for optimism. The majority of the Council is termed out in 2029; members are now more experienced, having learned how to steer bills through the chamber, and may feel more liberated to take courageous votes in their final terms. A more mature and empowered council could help a Mayor Mamdani drive thoughtful and ambitious legislation across the finish line.
Questions remain. As we’ve mentioned, the Council’s Progressive Caucus has been a driving force behind the passage of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, the Council’s support of congestion pricing, and critical public space legislation like daylighting. Would a Mayor Mamdani turbocharge their efforts, reshaping our skyline and streetscape? Or would he divert their efforts to the purely socialist elements of his platform?
In these critical months between the primary and the general election, we’re laser-focused on illustrating what a progressive abundance vision could look like within New York’s deep-blue context. This is our moment to turn palpable but diffuse enthusiasm for change into a clear policy agenda championed by future executives and legislators alike.
What are we learning about how abundance champions can win?
For over a year, we have been making the case that abundance is not a point on the left-to-right spectrum, but rather its own axis. There are left NIMBYs and center NIMBYs; there are also YIMBYs across the political spectrum, as illustrated by our ideologically diverse set of endorsees.
This new axis is not yet legible to rank-and-file voters, who still interpret races in terms of ideological lanes or relationship-based signals. In the Comptroller race, we saw Mark Levine shoehorned into the “moderate” lane vis-a-vis Justin Brannan, despite taking bolder, arguably more progressive stances on building more housing and shelters, ending parking mandates, and congestion pricing. In Council District 1, Elizabeth Lewinsohn had an easier time campaigning in the “moderate” lane than ANY endorsee Jess Coleman did in emphasizing a new axis—running as an abundance candidate. (Zellnor Myrie had similar challenges in the mayoral race, where the old lanes were a powerful early heuristic drawing support to Cuomo and Mamdani.)
While ideological lanes are helpful mental frameworks for voters, individual races don’t all follow the same pattern. Despite Brannan appearing on many of the same left-leaning slates as Mamdani and undoubtedly benefitting from progressive turnout, he lost to Mark Levine, who campaigned on a strong track record of results and local endorsements that legitimized his candidacy across the five boroughs.
Lanes also don’t do all the work: of the 43% of voters who ranked Mamdani first on their ballots, a minority were card-carrying Democratic Socialists; most saw Mamdani as a change candidate in stark contrast to Cuomo’s status quo. (“I don’t think the line right now is between progressives and moderates,” summarized Brad Lander. “I think the line is between fighters and fakers.”) The voters who will push Mamdani over the finish line in subsequent rounds of RCV include many in our community who actively disagreed with some of his leftist positions but recognized his open-mindedness and potential for growth.
We want abundance-minded candidates to win, and we think they should run in whatever way will maximize their success. There isn't yet an "abundance lane": candidates still have to make broader, more legible appeals to voters unfamiliar with this new political axis. But while abundance is not yet in itself a path to victory, it's clear from races up and down the ballot that adopting abundance ideas and rhetoric doesn't impose electoral costs.
What are we learning about our own movement and power-building strategy?
When we launched Abundance New York just over a year ago, we had identified a community-in-waiting, ready to be activated. Abundance advocates existed all over the city, but they were diffuse and disempowered. They didn’t have a political home in the Democratic establishment or on the organized left. Abundance champions lacked the communities, coalitions, and communications infrastructure to build power—so we set out to build just that.
A year later, our community has grown to 3,000 people. We’ve met with—and influenced the platforms of—dozens of candidates up and down the ballot, including the Democratic nominee for mayor, who is calling for an “agenda of abundance.” We’ve connected hundreds of volunteers with abundance campaigns, which credit us with delivering more meaningful support than many legacy players like unions and Democratic Clubs. Early analysis suggests our voter guide recommendations reached over 60,000 people, filling a critical information gap for voters in the city.
Beyond election cycles, we’ve built durable relationships with legislators—applying pressure behind the scenes when it counts, and offering public cover and celebration when they take bold votes. And our coalition—seasoned leaders of policy and advocacy organizations—has moved critical policy wins over the finish line.
Elections can be exciting signals to tell us if what we’re doing is working. But the work also happens every other day of the year, when we’re growing our community, building relationships with electeds, and charting a legislative path for a visionary agenda. We’re so grateful for your role in our community.
If you’ve found value in our work, please consider supporting us through a paid Substack subscription.
We’ll be back before long with more analysis, and a round-up of everything else you may have missed amid election pandemonium. In the meantime, enjoy a respite from the oppressive heat and overfull mailboxes!