Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By: Arthur Popowitz

In the waning days before Election Day, with New York City’s political landscape in feverish motion, Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old socialist assemblyman turned mayor-elect, took an unusual pause from the relentless pace of campaign rallies and canvassing drives. As The New York Times reported on Friday, he slipped away from the bustling streets of Queens and Brooklyn for a private meeting with Brad Lander, the city’s comptroller and his one-time political ally turned increasingly complex counterpart in New York’s progressive movement.

The meeting, held on a chaotic Sunday in late October amid overlapping campaign stops, was ostensibly meant to reinforce their “progressive partnership” — a relationship once heralded as the linchpin of the city’s left-wing political machine. Instead, it marked a subtle yet decisive pivot in Mamdani’s power calculus.

According to the information provided in The New York Times report, Mamdani informed Lander that while he valued their alliance, he would be taking his administration in a “different direction.” More consequentially, the mayor-elect suggested that Lander redirect his ambitions — not toward City Hall, but toward a congressional primary challenge against Rep. Daniel Goldman, a moderate Democrat representing New York’s 10th District.

The conversation, quiet but momentous, signaled both a consolidation of Mamdani’s influence and the beginning of new fractures within the city’s left-wing political coalition.

The “progressive bromance,” as The New York Times once described it, had captured the imagination of political insiders earlier in the year. During the Democratic primary, Mamdani’s insurgent campaign drew heavily on Lander’s credibility among Jewish progressives and veteran activists. Lander, 56, with more than a decade in public office and a record as a technocratic reformer, lent gravitas to Mamdani’s fiery populist message — and in turn, benefited from the energy and organizing might of Mamdani’s democratic socialist base.

Their cross-endorsement in June was unprecedented: two candidates for the same office publicly supporting each other to maximize their collective power against establishment rivals like former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. It worked. Mamdani’s victory was decisive, positioning him as the city’s first openly socialist mayor, while Lander emerged as his likely top deputy in an administration that promised to “govern from the ground up.”

But as The New York Times report revealed, the partnership began to fray almost as soon as the votes were counted. The city’s political chatter grew consumed with speculation about Lander’s future — specifically, whether Mamdani had privately promised him the coveted position of First Deputy Mayor, the second-most powerful job in city government.

Sources told The New York Times that Mamdani grew increasingly irritated by the constant speculation, eventually asking Lander to tamp down public assumptions about his appointment. Behind closed doors, the two men discussed the possibility of working together in City Hall over Lebanese food before the primary, but no formal promise was ever made.

By late summer, Mamdani was weighing several candidates for the post, including Daniel Garodnick, the head of the Department of City Planning, and former deputy mayors Anthony Shorris and Dean Fuleihan, both seasoned bureaucrats with extensive city and state experience.

Mamdani, according to The New York Times report, ultimately concluded that Lander’s résumé — rooted in nonprofit advocacy and progressive politics — lacked the administrative depth required for a city struggling with housing crises, budget shortfalls, and public safety concerns.

When he formally announced the appointment of Dean Fuleihan as First Deputy Mayor, the message was unmistakable: Mamdani’s administration would favor experience over ideological purity.

While Lander publicly downplayed any disappointment, allies told The New York Times that he had already begun exploring another path — one that could redefine the city’s left-wing hierarchy and shake up national Democratic politics.

Mamdani’s suggestion that Lander challenge Rep. Daniel Goldman, the freshman congressman and former Trump impeachment counsel, was not just idle conversation. It was, according to three people familiar with the exchange, a calculated invitation to expand the progressive movement’s influence beyond City Hall and into Washington.

Goldman’s district — spanning Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn — overlaps heavily with areas that delivered Mamdani his largest margins. It is also a district where progressive energy runs high, but where Goldman’s moderate stance on Israel and vocal support for U.S.-Israel relations have alienated the socialist left.

The New York Times reported that Lander’s allies viewed Goldman as a “centrist out of step with his district,” particularly in the aftermath of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which divided Democrats nationwide. Lander, who has taken a much harsher line on Israeli policy, has told associates he believes the district deserves a more “activist” representative.

Goldman’s camp, for its part, is preparing for battle. His spokesman, Simone Kanter, told The New York Times that Democrats should be focused on “fighting Donald Trump,” not “wasting time and money fighting each other.”

“Congress is not a consolation prize,” Kanter added, “but if Brad feels compelled to make this about himself, then Dan will eagerly stand on his record — standing up to Trump, leading the opposition to ICE, and fighting for his constituents.”

Yet the brewing Lander-Goldman fight is not the only front in this political realignment. As The New York Times reported, the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (D.S.A.), which played a pivotal role in Mamdani’s rise, is now grappling with internal divisions that threaten to fracture its coalition.

Over the summer, top D.S.A. officials privately assured Lander that they would not endorse another candidate in the 10th District primary. But behind the scenes, Councilwoman Alexa Avilés, a prominent D.S.A. member and ally of Mamdani, began organizing her own campaign to challenge Goldman.

Avilés, known for her outspoken criticism of Israel and close ties to Mamdani’s progressive bloc, represents a more uncompromising strain of the movement — one less willing to temper its positions for broader political appeal. According to the report in The New York Times, the D.S.A.’s local chapter has since held closed-door votes on whether to endorse her candidacy, leaving its official position in flux.

Lander, meanwhile, remains a polarizing figure among the socialist base. While respected for his consistency on progressive issues, his pragmatic style and institutional experience often clash with the more radical currents of the movement.

“The most important thing here is defeating Dan Goldman,” said Jasmine Gripper, co-director of the Working Families Party, in comments reported by The New York Times. “We need to unite the field and have one candidate.”

Adding further intrigue is Yuh-Line Niou, the former assemblywoman and 2022 runner-up to Goldman, who has also been exploring a potential rematch. Niou, who commands strong support among Asian American voters and left-leaning groups, told The New York Times that her priority was ensuring “the district has the best representation it can.”

For Mamdani, the simultaneous developments — Lander’s prospective campaign, Avilés’s ambitions, and growing tension within the D.S.A. — pose an early test of his political discipline and leadership.

As The New York Times reported, Mamdani has privately told Avilés that he would support Lander should he enter the race, signaling an implicit preference for his longtime ally over his more ideologically strident supporters. Still, Mamdani has refrained from making any public statement about the race, a silence that underscores the delicacy of his position.

The mayor-elect’s challenge is twofold: maintaining unity within the city’s progressive coalition while assuring New York’s political and business establishment that his administration will be stable, pragmatic, and competent.

Even before taking office, Mamdani has faced skepticism from moderate Democrats, community leaders, and investors wary of his past comments about policing, capitalism, and Israel. His outspoken criticism of the Jewish state — including remarks equating Israeli military actions with oppression — has already drawn rebukes from mainstream organizations.

As The New York Times report noted, Mamdani’s alignment with figures like Avilés, who share similar rhetoric, complicates his efforts to present himself as a bridge-builder capable of governing a city as complex and diverse as New York.

Beyond City Hall, the left’s internal maneuvering has broader implications for the Democratic Party’s national trajectory. Should Lander enter the congressional race — and should Mamdani lend even tacit support — the contest would pit the city’s newly ascendant socialist leadership against a sitting member of Congress closely associated with the Democratic establishment.

Goldman, 49, has used his background as a federal prosecutor and counsel in the first Trump impeachment trial to position himself as a defender of democratic institutions. But his measured stance on Israel and national security issues has alienated the younger, more radical wing of the party — particularly as the Gaza conflict continues to polarize opinion.

Lander’s potential challenge, encouraged by Mamdani’s camp, reflects the broader ideological struggle now defining the Democratic Party: between institutional pragmatists and activist purists, between incremental reform and revolutionary zeal.

According to the information provided in The New York Times report, the left’s strategists are already working to prevent the progressive vote from splintering. Meetings have taken place between representatives of the D.S.A., the Working Families Party, and community organizers to avoid repeating the mistakes of 2022, when multiple progressive candidates divided the vote and allowed Goldman to win narrowly.

Still, the prospect of dueling candidacies from Lander and Avilés threatens to reignite old rivalries — and could expose the underlying fragility of the coalition that propelled Mamdani to power.

For Mamdani, the months following his election have become an early crucible — a test not only of governance but of coalition management. His allies, once bound by shared opposition to the political establishment, are now competing for influence, office, and ideological primacy.

According to The New York Times report, Mamdani has been advised by confidants to tread carefully. Supporting Lander too openly could alienate the D.S.A. activists who formed the backbone of his campaign. But backing Avilés — or even appearing to encourage her challenge to Goldman — risks deepening public concerns about the radicalization of the city’s political class.

The mayor-elect’s balancing act mirrors the larger contradictions of New York’s progressive movement: a coalition that preaches solidarity but often fractures under the weight of its own ambitions.

As Mamdani prepares to take office, the immediate question is no longer whether his political partnership with Brad Lander will endure, but whether the fragile alliance of left-wing forces he assembled can survive the pressures of power.

In the measured words of The New York Times, the quiet maneuvering now unfolding behind closed doors “offers an early window into the unsentimental calculations guiding the incoming mayor as he builds his administration and flexes his political muscle.”

And in the unforgiving theater of New York politics, those calculations may determine not only the fate of his allies — but the future of the city’s emboldened progressive left itself.