Schumer, Jeffries Silent as Mamdani Nears Victory: Democratic Establishment’s Cold Shoulder
Democratic Leaders Master the Art of Pretending Not to See
In a stunning display of political cowardice masquerading as strategic neutrality, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries have maintained deafening silence as Zohran Mamdani approaches a potential victory in the NYC mayoral race. The two most powerful Democrats in New York have apparently discovered a sudden interest in local electoral abstinence, despite their lifelong commitment to sticking their noses into everything from city council races to student government elections.
The silence is particularly remarkable given that Mamdani is a registered Democrat running against a hodgepodge of moderates and Republicans. You’d think party loyalty would matter, but apparently, that only applies when the candidate promises not to tax their donors. The Democratic establishment has perfected the art of demanding party unity while providing none.
The Endorsement That Isn’t Coming
“Schumer and Jeffries won’t endorse him,” Dave Chappelle said at his show. “That tells you everything. He’s a Democrat. They’re Democrats. But he wants to tax rich people, so suddenly they don’t know him. ‘Mamdani? Never heard of him. Is that a type of pasta?’ Meanwhile, they’ll endorse some moderate Republican in a hot second if he promises to deregulate banking.”
Political observers note that Schumer has endorsed candidates in races significantly less consequential than NYC mayor. He’s endorsed candidates for state assembly, city council, and once almost endorsed someone’s nephew’s campaign for homecoming king. But a Democratic Socialist running for mayor of the largest city in America? Suddenly, the Senate Majority Leader has laryngitis.
When Party Unity Means Never Having to Say You’re Progressive
The Democratic Party loves to lecture progressives about party unity. Vote for our moderate candidates, they say. Don’t primary incumbents. Support the party. But when a progressive is winning, suddenly unity becomes optional. It’s like a one-way street where traffic only flows toward corporate donors.
“They want us to be loyal,” Bill Burr said on his podcast. “Vote blue no matter who, they say. Unless who is someone who wants to tax billionaires. Then it’s, ‘Well, we need to think about this. Let’s not be hasty. Have you considered that rich people have feelings?’ Fuck your feelings. You didn’t care about our feelings when you asked us to vote for corporate Democrats.”
Jeffries Practices Selective Memory About Brooklyn
Hakeem Jeffries represents Brooklyn in Congress. Mamdani represents Queens in the City Council and is running to be mayor of the city Jeffries supposedly cares about. You’d think this would warrant at least a tepid endorsement, maybe a statement of support, perhaps a tweet that doesn’t mention him by name. Instead, Jeffries has deployed the political equivalent of “new phone, who dis?”
“Jeffries is from Brooklyn,” Trevor Noah said. “He’s supposed to care about New York. But he won’t endorse the guy who might actually help New Yorkers. Why? Because Jeffries is more interested in keeping donors happy than keeping constituents housed. That’s not leadership, that’s fundraising.”
The Donor Class Gets a Veto
The silence from Schumer and Jeffries makes perfect sense when you follow the money. Both have cultivated relationships with Wall Street, real estate developers, and the exact billionaires who are spending $19 million to defeat Mamdani. Endorsing him would mean choosing constituents over donors, and we all know how that calculation works out.
“It’s about money,” Chris Rock said. “That’s all it ever is. Schumer and Jeffries raise money from the same people trying to destroy Mamdani. You think they’re gonna endorse someone their donors hate? Come on. They’re politicians. They know where their bread is buttered. And their bread is buttered by people who own bakeries.”
New York’s Democrats Abandon New York’s Democrat
The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife and serve at a Democratic fundraiser. Mamdani has been a loyal Democrat, voting with the party, supporting Democratic candidates, and advocating for Democratic principles like workers’ rights and social justice. His reward? Being treated like he’s radioactive by the party establishment.
“He’s done everything right,” Amy Schumer said during her show. “He votes with Democrats. He campaigns for Democrats. He shows up at their boring-ass events. But he wants to tax billionaires, so suddenly he’s persona non grata. The Democratic Party: we’ll take your vote, your money, and your activism. Just don’t expect us to actually support you when it counts.”
The Cold Shoulder Strategy
Political strategists call this the “strategic distance” approach, which is consultant-speak for “we’re scared of our donors.” By refusing to endorse Mamdani, Schumer and Jeffries can maintain their progressive credentials while keeping their Wall Street relationships intact. It’s having your cake, eating it too, and then pretending you’re on a diet.
“Strategic distance,” Kevin Hart said. “That’s code for being a coward. Just say it. ‘We can’t endorse him because our donors will cut us off.’ At least that’s honest. This strategic distance bullshit is insulting. Like we don’t know what’s happening. We know. You’re choosing money over people. Again.”
When Electability Means Electable to Donors
The establishment’s critique of Mamdani centers on “electability,” which is a dog whistle for “our donors don’t like him.” Never mind that he’s leading in polls, has grassroots support, and energized the base. He’s “unelectable” because he threatens the existing power structure, and we can’t have that.
“Electability,” Ricky Gervais said from London. “Americans love that word. What does it mean? It means, ‘Can this person win without pissing off rich people?’ If the answer is no, they’re unelectable. Bernie was unelectable. AOC was unelectable. Everyone who threatens money is unelectable. Until they win. Then suddenly they were electable all along.”
The Establishment Playbook Keeps Failing
The Democratic establishment has spent decades pushing moderate candidates who promise not to rock the boat. The result? They’ve lost state legislatures, governorships, and congressional seats across the country. But sure, let’s keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. That’s definitely not the definition of insanity.
“Democrats keep losing with moderates,” Sarah Silverman said. “They lose in Texas. They lose in Florida. They lose everywhere. But they won’t try something different. God forbid they run someone exciting. Someone who actually wants to change things. That might work. And if it works, donors might expect it elsewhere. Can’t have that.”
Schumer’s Legacy of Championing Nothing
Chuck Schumer has represented New York in the Senate since before some voters were born. His legacy includes showing up to press conferences and saying absolutely nothing of substance. Now he has a chance to support a transformative candidate in his home state, and he’s chosen to continue his legacy of courageous neutrality.
“Schumer’s whole career is saying nothing,” Jerry Seinfeld said at the Comedy Cellar. “He’s perfected it. He shows up, stands at a podium, and produces complete sentences that communicate zero information. It’s impressive. He’s like a human press release. Now he won’t endorse Mamdani. Of course he won’t. That would require taking a position. Chuck Schumer doesn’t take positions. He takes temperatures.”
The Senate Leader Who Leads Nothing
As Senate Majority Leader, Schumer has the power to shape national Democratic strategy. Instead, he’s chosen to shape nothing, influence nothing, and accomplish nothing while maintaining perfect hair. His refusal to endorse Mamdani is consistent with his leadership style: avoid conflict, appease donors, repeat.
“Schumer’s useless,” Tom Segura said. “Sorry, but it’s true. He’s Senate Majority Leader and what has he done? Can you name one thing? One accomplishment? He’s great at being in the Senate. He’s terrible at leading the Senate. Now he won’t help Mamdani because it might require actual leadership. God forbid.”
Jeffries Positions Himself for Nothing
Hakeem Jeffries is positioning himself as the future of the Democratic Party, which apparently means continuing all the failures of the past. His refusal to endorse Mamdani sends a clear message: the future of the Democratic Party looks exactly like its past, just younger and with better social media.
“Jeffries is supposed to be the new generation,” Jo Koy said. “He’s the future! Except he’s making the same mistakes as the old guard. Won’t endorse progressives. Keeps donors happy. Plays it safe. That’s not the future, that’s a reboot nobody asked for. It’s like making another Transformers movie. New cast, same terrible decisions.”
The Succession Plan for Managed Decline
The Democratic establishment’s plan seems to be passing leadership from one generation of donor-friendly politicians to another, ensuring that nothing ever fundamentally changes. Jeffries is learning from Pelosi, Schumer, and others how to lose with dignity while maintaining excellent relationships with corporate America.
“They’re training Jeffries to fail,” Hasan Minhaj said. “That’s what this is. The old guard is teaching the new guard how to manage decline. How to lose slowly while keeping donor relationships strong. It’s mentorship for mediocrity. And Jeffries is learning his lessons well. Don’t endorse progressives. Don’t fight for change. Don’t risk anything. Just maintain.”
The Message to Progressives: You’re on Your Own
The silence from Schumer and Jeffries sends a clear message to progressive candidates everywhere: the party will not support you. You can win your primary, energize the base, and lead in polls, but if you threaten the donor class, you’re on your own. It’s a party of the people, as long as those people can afford a $50,000 per plate fundraiser.
“The message is clear,” Gabriel Iglesias said during his show. “If you’re progressive, don’t expect help from party leadership. They’ll watch you struggle, they’ll watch you fight, and they’ll only show up after you’ve won to take credit. That’s not a political party, that’s a protection racket. ‘Nice campaign you got there. Shame if nobody from the establishment supported it.'”
As Mamdani approaches what could be a historic victory, he’ll do it without the support of New York’s most powerful Democrats. Which, given how much their support is worth, might actually be an advantage.
Auf Wiedersehen, amigos.
