Why Did the Elites Vote for Cuomo? Analyzing an Electoral Anomaly

A thorough analysis of the recent New York mayoral Democratic primary map in 2025 has raised alarms among political strategists, analysts, and voters alike. Despite being marked by controversies and scandals, former Governor Andrew Cuomo managed to secure the majority support of affluent and traditionally influential sectors of the city in a contest that pitted him against progressive Zohran Mamdani, who was the favorite among the more mobilized left-wing bases of the party.

What was expected to be a clear victory for Mamdani ended up revealing an unusual phenomenon: urban elites, including the wealthiest and most educated neighborhoods such as the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, and parts of Manhattan’s Financial District, aligned with Cuomo, an establishment politician many had already written off politically. This fact has been described by several experts as a “protest vote” against identity-progressivism and its radical proposals.

The most revealing aspect of this election was Cuomo’s surprising majority among voters without a four-year college degree, winning 60-40, a result that could be expected given his image of experience and moderation. However, what puzzled analysts and observers most was the massive support he also received from high-income and highly educated voters who, despite criticizing Cuomo, chose stability over uncertainty.

This electoral behavior reflects a latent fear in these sectors: that Mamdani’s more radical progressivism could jeopardize the economic, fiscal, and social stability of their communities. In multiple interviews, voters from affluent areas admitted their vote for Cuomo was less an expression of enthusiasm and more a containment strategy. The implicit message is clear: they prefer to stick with the familiar, flaws and all, rather than embark on a political adventure with unpredictable consequences.

An additional factor that may have influenced the outcome was the controversy surrounding accusations of anti-Semitism against Mamdani, which he strongly denied. In districts with significant Jewish communities, this narrative may have seeded doubt and caution among key voters, though there is no conclusive evidence it was decisive.

Moreover, the election exposed a clear class divide within the Democratic vote. While Mamdani garnered support in working-class neighborhoods and communities with many young progressive voters, high-income districts showed a clear preference for Cuomo. This confirms that urban progressivism is not a monolithic bloc: wealthy progressives may speak of social justice, but when voting, they defend the status quo that guarantees financial security and institutional stability.

This episode offers a strong lesson for the Democratic Party. Its anti-establishment rhetoric must be paired with clear assurances that ease the fears of those who see abrupt change as a direct threat to their livelihoods and well-being. It is not enough to criticize the old politics; a concrete plan must be presented that does not endanger the economic pillars supporting many communities.

On the other hand, this contest presents a strategic opportunity for Republicans. The demonstration that a significant segment of the progressive electorate is willing to sacrifice ideals for security opens the door for a modern right to capitalize on that disillusionment. A clear message defending economic freedom, meritocracy, and stability could attract undecided voters seeking a responsible and sensible option.

It is important to note that the contest does not end with the primary. Zohran Mamdani, having won the Democratic primary on June 24, 2025, is preparing for the November general election. Andrew Cuomo, despite his primary defeat, has not ruled out continuing his campaign as an independent candidate under the “Fight and Deliver” line, seeking to split the vote and remain competitive.

The general election in November will be a multi-candidate race among Mamdani, Cuomo, incumbent Mayor Eric Adams (also running as an independent), and Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate. This scenario promises a fierce and highly competitive battle where votes will be split among different visions for New York’s future.

This phenomenon shows that in times of intense political polarization, voting is not always a pure declaration of principles but often a strategy for survival and pragmatism. Cuomo was seen by many as the lesser evil compared to the uncertainty represented by Mamdani and other more radical candidates. But this does not mean progressivism has lost overall support; it means it must reconsider its message, tone, and strategy to regain the trust of moderate and affluent sectors.

Finally, the New York election is a strong reminder that the ballot box does not forgive improvisation or a lack of connection with voters’ true concerns. The city that was once a laboratory for liberal reforms now seems to demand caution and prudence. If the Democratic Party does not adjust course, an increasingly large space could open for the Republican message of order, freedom, and responsibility to resonate powerfully again — this time from the right — as a viable and sensible option for New Yorkers and the nation.