Senator Cory Booker’s Distant Approach: Why National Democrats Have Sidestepped the Mamdani Phenomenon

Booker and Gottheimer Decline Endorsement of Democratic Socialist Mayor-Elect Amid Political Party Divisions

The Conspicuous Silence: Why Cory Booker Won’t Endorse Mamdani

When CNN’s Manu Raju pressed Senator Cory Booker to endorse Zohran Mamdani for New York City mayor—highlighting that Democratic leaders were notably absent in their support for their own party’s nominee—Booker’s response crystallized deeper tensions within Democratic Party identity and strategy. Rather than offering direct endorsement or opposition, Booker offered philosophical musings about pragmatism, left-right distinctions, and New Jersey politics, ultimately dodging the question through elaborate rhetorical deflection.

“Let New York politics be New York politics,” Booker told reporters. “We got enough challenges in Jersey. I got a governor’s race. I’m supporting Mikie Sherrill. I got legislative races. That’s where my energy is going to go.” The response was carefully calibrated to avoid alienating either progressive grassroots voters invested in Mamdani or moderate Democratic establishment figures uncomfortable with the mayor-elect’s democratic socialist positioning.

Yet Booker’s avoidance reflected broader patterns. Of New York City’s 12 Congressional Democrats, only four endorsed Mamdani before the election, according to reporting from major news outlets. This striking underperformance highlighted the widening gap between grassroots Democratic energy and institutional Democratic leadership—a fissure that Mamdani’s unexpected primary victory, where he secured 50.78% of first-choice votes while defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo, had already exposed.

The Pragmatism Defense: Governing vs. Organizing

Booker’s philosophical framing—contrasting “authoritarian” approaches with “pragmatic government that makes a difference in the lives of the American people”—represented the centrist Democratic case against Mamdani without directly articulating specific policy disagreements. This rhetorical move allowed Booker to signal discomfort with Mamdani’s approach while maintaining plausible deniability about ideological opposition. The logic appeared to be: Mamdani’s transformative promises (free buses, universal childcare, housing affordability) lack pragmatic implementation pathways; therefore, supporting them risks looking foolish.

But this framing invited scrutiny from progressive quarters. If Democrats truly believed Mamdani’s proposals were unachievable, they might reasonably either work to implement them or argue directly about policy substance. Instead, the studied non-engagement suggested calculated political positioning: national Democratic figures understood that Mamdani mobilized genuine electoral enthusiasm from younger, working-class New Yorkers, yet worried that association with his democratic socialism might complicate their own political standing in moderate districts and among major donors.

Representative Josh Gottheimer took a more direct approach, calling Mamdani a “job-killing socialist” and criticizing his refusal to unambiguously endorse Israel as a Jewish state. Gottheimer’s willingness to name ideological disagreements contrasted sharply with Booker’s obfuscation, suggesting different calculations about which Democratic audiences each politician prioritized.

The Jewish Community and the Endorsement Vacuum

A significant driver of institutional Democratic distance from Mamdani involved his positions on Israel-Palestine. Mamdani, an outspoken supporter of the Palestinian cause and the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, has repeatedly refused to affirm what he characterizes as Israel’s status as a Jewish state, arguing instead that no country should have hierarchical citizenship based on religion. This stance alienated Jewish Democratic constituencies who have historically wielded significant political influence within Democratic Party structures.

Exit polling revealed that Mamdani won the general election handily but lost Jewish voters by a 2-to-1 margin—a demographic shift raising questions about whether electoral coalitions centering young renters and workers could sustainably replace Jewish Democratic constituencies’ historical influence. Major Jewish organizations, including the UJA-Federation of New York, ADL New York/New Jersey, and the American Jewish Committee New York, released joint statements affirming their concerns about Mamdani’s approach without withdrawing engagement entirely.

Mamdani, on election night, attempted bridge-building: “We will build a City Hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of antisemitism,” he stated, adding that he took antisemitism “incredibly seriously.” Yet these reassurances did not substantially shift institutional Democratic positioning, suggesting that disagreements extended beyond antisemitism concerns into fundamental questions about Democratic Party identity and who rightfully belonged within its leadership structures.

The “Defund the Police” Reckoning

Beyond Israel-Palestine dynamics, institutional Democrats pointed to Mamdani’s 2020 social media posts calling for police defunding—statements he has since walked back as products of emotional responses to George Floyd’s murder. When Raju asked Booker whether such statements remained problematic, the Senator argued that Black working-class communities, including his own Newark, had not embraced defunding approaches and instead demanded robust public safety alongside accountability.

“Newark, New Jersey, a majority black city, five days after the George Floyd incident, if you had polled my city and said, ‘Do you want more police, less police, or the same amount of police?’ Newark would have overwhelmingly voted for more police,” Booker explained. He continued: “We don’t want police violating our rights. We don’t want police endangering our lives, but we want safety and security as the fundamental foundation of Maslow’s pyramid.”

This argument, while rhetorically powerful, somewhat mischaracterized Mamdani’s actual position. The mayor-elect has not proposed eliminating policing but rather redirecting resources toward community safety priorities and reducing police involvement in situations requiring social workers, mental health professionals, or community mediators. Yet the existence of confusion around Mamdani’s positions—partly attributable to limited mainstream media engagement with his actual policy framework—suggested that institutional Democrats had not invested substantial effort in understanding his platform before maintaining distance.

The Political Calculation and Its Costs

Booker’s approach represented a calculated political move: avoid direct engagement with a controversial figure while maintaining position to negotiate with his administration post-victory. By neither endorsing nor opposing Mamdani, Booker preserved optionality. Should Mamdani succeed and accumulate power, Booker maintained standing to access that power. Should Mamdani struggle politically, Booker retained distance from association with failure.

Yet this calculation exacted costs, both political and reputational. From progressive perspectives, it represented establishment Democratic refusal to engage substantively with emerging grassroots alternatives. From moderate perspectives, it suggested insufficient clarity about Democratic Party identity and willingness to defend particular positions. Research from the Center for American Progress has documented that Democratic voters increasingly desire explicit communication from leaders about policy positions and values rather than studied ambiguity.

Booker’s reticence also reflected generational tensions within Democratic leadership. At 34, Mamdani represented younger Democratic energy oriented toward structural economic transformation. At 55, Booker embodied a more centrist Democratic cohort that prioritized coalition management and incremental policy change over transformational ambition. The gap between these approaches increasingly shapes Democratic Party dynamics nationally.

The Broader Context: Democrats in the Trump Era

The limited Democratic endorsement of Mamdani also reflected broader strategic concerns about federal-state relations during the Trump administration. Mayor-elect Mamdani would take office on January 1, 2026—the same day as Donald Trump’s second presidential term. Trump had previously threatened to defund New York City and criticized Mamdani explicitly on Truth Social, calling him a “100 percent Communist lunatic.”

Democratic leaders like Hochul faced dilemmas about whether supporting Mamdani might invite federal retaliation affecting broader New York interests. The calculus appeared to be: maintain distance from Mamdani to preserve relationships with Trump administration while allowing Mamdani to govern independently. This logic, while strategically coherent, abandoned the Democratic nominee at precisely the moment when unified party support might have strengthened his political position.

As Mamdani prepares to take office and engage with Trump directly, the question of whether Democratic distance represents strategic positioning or fundamental disagreement remains unresolved. Booker’s studied ambiguity offers no answer—only a masterclass in how institutional figures navigate emerging challenges through philosophical abstraction.