MAMDANI versus MAMDANI?

A.I. Assesses His Two Different Victory Speeches

Given how warm and friendly Zohran Mamdani had been on the NYC campaign trail, his harsher message on election night surprised me. I said so on CNN.

But many Mamdani supporters told me they were bewildered by my comments. They said they were thrilled by Mamdani’s speech. They heard the voice of an inspiring, young figure — who was working hard to lift up forgotten faces and overlooked people.

They experienced the speech as unifying — and not divisive at all.

I was as puzzled by their reactions as they were puzzled by mine. Granted: there may be a generational divide at work. And perhaps Trump’s toxic attitude — and social media’s generally harsh tone — makes it less objectionable when a progressive leader dunks on his defeated opponent and shouts into the camera.

And fortunately, the mayor-elect has already returned to his more familiar calm and comforting style — giving impressive interviews and reaching out to the Jewish community.

That said: it is still worth reflecting on the speech and its aftermath.

Victory speeches matter — not just because they signal so much about the character of the winner. As a practical matter: the election night “victory speech” offers the biggest opportunity for a winner to broaden the tent and recruit more supporters.

A newly-elected leader is introducing himself to the world. Many people will be tuning in and listening for the first time.

Governing AS mayor is so much harder than campaigning to BECOME mayor. To actually deliver on his campaign promises, a new mayor will need a lot of help.

That’s why — even when CAMPAIGN speeches are bruising — the VICTORY speech is usually designed to be healing.

But Mamdani’s speech wasn’t. I found it odd.

So I did some research, and I discovered something surprising. Just a few months ago, Mamdani defeated Andrew Cuomo in an upset primary win this summer — and the same leader gave a very different speech.

THAT victory speech was sunny, friendly and inviting. It platformed unifying figures like Nelson Mandela and FDR. It talked about fixing problems, without naming, blaming or shaming any group of people.

To make sure I wasn’t hallucinating, my colleague entered the two speeches into AI. He gave no prompt, except to ask artificial intelligence to compare the rhetoric of the two.

Here is A.I.’s comparison of the rhetoric in the two victory speeches:

“Key Differences:

1. Purpose: The first speech (Primary) is about building a broad consensus. It’s long, detailed, and reassuring, aiming to win over skeptics and unify a party. The second speech is about celebrating a definitive victory. It’s a short, fiery speech for the true believers.

2. Framing the “Enemy”: In the first speech, the “enemy” is abstract: a “broken political system” and “fascism”. In the second, the enemy is concrete: “the wealthy and the well-connected” and the “political dynasty” he just defeated.

3. Central Metaphor: The first speech uses the metaphor of a journey (the 13-mile walk) to represent collective work. The second speech uses the metaphor of a fight (bruised knuckles, toppling a dynasty) to represent class struggle.

4. Intellectual Touchstones: The first speech draws from mainstream liberal icons like Nelson Mandela and FDR. The second speech draws from a radical socialist icon, Eugene Debs.

In short, the first video shows a politician building a broad coalition around economic populism, while the second shows a political victor declaring a clear mandate for class-based, systemic change.”

So it’s understandable why some political observers (including the New York Times) felt a little whip-sawed by the difference.

That said, I want to be clear: I’m a progressive and a Democrat. I want this mayor-elect to succeed in driving down prices and uplifting working families. To do that, he needs to continue growing his base. And I think his FIRST speech better serves that purpose.

So my prayer is that his third big speech — his inaugural address— will sound less like the second speech and a lot more like the first one.

---

FULL A.I. COMPARISON OF RHETORIC USED IN TWO MAMDANI “VICTORY” SPEECHES

Video 1: Zohran Mamdani claims victory in NYC Democratic mayoral primary

This longer speech is a broad, unifying, and detailed vision delivered after winning the Democratic primary. Its rhetoric is designed to build a wide coalition and pivot from a contentious primary to a broader general election.

• Tone: Hopeful, grateful, and expansive.

• Key Rhetoric:

  • Inspirational Framing: The speech opens by quoting Nelson Mandela (”it always seems impossible until it is done”) to frame the win as a historic, against-the-odds achievement

  • “Big Tent” Language: He explicitly reaches out to those who didn’t vote for him and thanks his former opponents, emphasizing “partnership”.

  • Policy-Driven Populism: The central theme is an “affordable” city. He lists specific, tangible goals: stable rent, free buses, and affordable childcare. The rhetoric is grounded in solving everyday economic struggles.

  • Extended Metaphor: He uses a long story about a 13-mile walk through the city to connect his campaign’s “work” with the 24/7 labor of everyday New Yorkers, from fishmongers to ferry workers.

  • Anti-Authoritarian Stance: He positions his movement as the antidote to “Donald Trump’s fascism” and the influence of “billionaires”, quoting FDR to argue for both liberty and economic security.

  • Grassroots Acknowledgement: He credits the win to a diverse, “unprecedented coalition”, painting vignettes of “the Bangladeshi auntie” and “the Gambian uncle”.

Video 2: Zohran Mamdani delivers victory speech

This is a much shorter, sharper, and more confrontational speech. Its rhetoric is that of a revolution or a major upset, likely from a general election victory given its finality.

• Tone: Fiery, triumphant, and direct.

• Key Rhetoric:

  • Radical Framing: It opens by quoting Eugene Debs, a prominent American socialist, immediately signaling a more left-wing, class-focused ideology.

  • Class-Conflict Language: The speech is explicitly framed as a victory for “working people” against the “wealthy and the well-connected”.

  • Vivid Physical Imagery: He uses strong, visceral images of labor—”fingers bruised,” “palms callous,” “knuckles scarred”—to create a powerful “us vs. them” narrative.

  • Confrontational Victory: The line, “my friends, we have toppled a political dynasty”, is a direct and combative declaration.

  • Sharp Dismissal: His treatment of his opponent (Andrew Cuomo) is curt and final: “let tonight be the final time I honor his name”. This is not about healing; it’s about “turning the page”.

  • Direct Identification: He identifies with his supporters, not just as their leader: “we will fight for you because we are you”.

Key Differences:

1. Purpose: The first speech (Primary) is about building a broad consensus. It’s long, detailed, and reassuring, aiming to win over skeptics and unify a party. The second speech is about celebrating a definitive victory. It’s a short, fiery speech for the true believers.

2. Framing the “Enemy”: In the first speech, the “enemy” is abstract: a “broken political system” and “fascism”. In the second, the enemy is concrete: “the wealthy and the well-connected” and the “political dynasty” he just defeated.

3. Central Metaphor: The first speech uses the metaphor of a journey (the 13-mile walk) to represent collective work. The second speech uses the metaphor of a fight (bruised knuckles, toppling a dynasty) to represent class struggle.

4. Intellectual Touchstones: The first speech draws from mainstream liberal icons like Nelson Mandela and FDR. The second speech draws from a radical socialist icon, Eugene Debs.

In short, the first video shows a politician building a broad coalition around economic populism, while the second shows a political victor declaring a clear mandate for class-based, systemic change.