Throughout New York City’s mayoral race, Zohran Mamdani’s critics routinely attributed his rise to his slick and entertaining social media content, allowing them to dismiss the appeal of his politics. It’s certainly true that Mamdani’s social media was more successful than Andrew Cuomo’s. But is it true that voters were merely wooed by Mamdani’s high production quality and style?

To find out, Jacobin analyzed each campaign’s first thirty TikTok videos. What we found was another, much more prominent difference between Cuomo’s and Mamdani’s social media content. Our analysis suggests that the core distinction between the two candidates’ communication strategies was not style but policy.

By tallying mentions of keywords, we were able to quantify how much time each candidate devoted to policy. Take the word rent. Across these first thirty videos, Mamdani said it eighteen times, while Cuomo did not say it at all. Working class, ten to zero. Childcare, four to zero. Buses, fifteen to zero. Affordable, seven to one. Groceries, four to zero. Cost of living, four to zero. Labor, two to two. Wealth, six to zero. Trump, twenty-five to seven. Gaza, four to zero. Palestine, five to zero. Antisemitism, zero to three. Climate, four to zero. Public renewables, three to zero. Police/cops, three to seven. Safe, one to fourteen.

This breakdown validates what many perceived: Mamdani hammered home specific solutions to the high cost of living and other working-class issues. Cuomo, meanwhile, talked about only one local political issue in specific terms: public safety. Cuomo placed more emphasis on accusing Mamdani of antisemitism over his Gaza stance than he did on housing, childcare, transportation, or affordability combined.

Drilling down a little further, of these first thirty videos, Cuomo introduced a policy proposal only once and explained that same policy only once. In contrast, fourteen of Mamdani’s videos introduced or referenced a policy, while eight detailed specifics.

That emphasis on policy and substance was established from the outset in his October 2024 launch video. Mamdani walks through the doors of a bodega, orders a chopped cheese, and immediately distances himself from the cartoonish corruption and donor-centric politics of Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo — what he calls “the politics of the past.”

In one minute and forty seconds, Mamdani defines the contours of working-class struggle in New York City, aligns himself with it, and introduces a set of policies designed to alleviate ordinary people’s material burdens. We all know that platform by now: fast and free buses, universal childcare, a rent freeze, and city-owned grocery stores. He ends the ad in view of the iconic Brooklyn Bridge, saying, “This is New York. We can afford to dream.”

Mamdani returned to this formula many times: introduce a policy, illustrate why it’s needed, and show how it can be achieved. Far from lacking in substance, his videos were functional vehicles for policy discussions. And this repetition worked astonishingly well. By the end of his campaign, he was posting videos rallying concertgoers with chants of his policies: “Are you ready for fast and free buses? Are you ready for universal childcare?”

Conversely, Cuomo’s announcement video opens with slow-motion stock footage of a city street at sunset while Cuomo tells us, “We love New York. We know New York City is in trouble.” He never explains how or why the city is in trouble. We’re just meant to accept that it is and that he intends to fix it.

The bulk of this fifty-two-second video consists of B-roll from public speaking events, overlaid with audio from various engagements. Only one shot appears to have been filmed specifically for this ad: someone walking with Cuomo informs the viewer of his nonspecific vision for getting the city out of trouble: “Create affordable housing.” “Revitalize our community.” “Keep us safe.” The video stops short of telling us how he will achieve these ends.

The video is functionally a slideshow of Cuomo’s career highlights with zero concrete policy proposals. It begs the question: Which candidate was really running a shallow, image-based campaign?

It’s hard to overlook that Cuomo’s videos were often poorly produced and uninteresting. If judged by this standard, then yes, Mamdani’s videos were clearly of a much higher production value. However, it’s also true that Mamdani’s production value varied widely and scaled to the task at hand. It also increased over time; for example, one early lo-fi video featured him opening a laundromat dryer to announce an upcoming filing deadline. As for the superior quality of his later videos, you can hardly fault him or his team for their aesthetic sensibility. They often appear inexpensive, benefitting more from thoughtfulness than resources.

Mamdani’s most widely viewed videos are often filmed at a relevant location with relevant people and very little else, making them feel authentic and purposeful. And yes, Mamdani himself “exudes the charm of the well-loved,” as one New Yorker piece put it, but his social media content doesn’t stop at showcasing his personality. It centers on, you guessed it, policy. Many videos are fun and flashy explainers educating voters on the concrete issues facing their everyday lives — efforts to grab people’s attention and direct it to the substance of politics.

Despite unlimited access to consultants, Cuomo’s campaign never understood this. Even after his trouncing in the primary, when he determined he should put more effort into his social media content, he missed the point. One video simply showed him jump-starting someone’s car with no other commentary; others featured him awkwardly visiting small businesses like a café in Harlem and a pizza place in Queens. But unlike Mamdani’s content, which told New Yorkers a story about themselves, Cuomo’s content used New Yorkers as props to tell a story about Cuomo, his past achievements, and his future inevitability.

By the end of his campaign, Cuomo’s claims of managerial excellence had been whittled down to rhetoric and AI slop like the “I’m just a shill” video. Unsurprisingly, the AI-generated content didn’t really land — nor did it lend confidence to Cuomo’s promise of “more jobs.”

Last but not least, Cuomo’s social media presence did not exude an authentic fondness for the city and its people. Cuomo painted a portrait of a New York City where crime is rampant and neighbors can’t be trusted. Mamdani, meanwhile, seems to love New Yorkers and to believe in the city’s potential. He countered: “There is a myth about this city. It is the lie that life has to be hard,” and then extended a policy vision that is material, achievable, and necessary.

It’s clear that Cuomo was bested by a thirty-four-year-old socialist not because of slick social media content and easily suckered voters, but because Mamdani had a vision and Cuomo did not. It’s not possible to convince a hundred thousand people to knock on doors and call strangers in a local election, which is what really pushed Mamdani over the line, without the promise of something real.