CNN’s Jones and Jennings Unsettled by Divisive Mamdani Victory Speech

During post-election coverage on Tuesday night, CNN contributors Van Jones and Scott Jennings didn’t seem particularly happy with mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s (D) angry victory speech. They found it a significant tone-shift from his campaign and believed it would only further divide New Yorkers and the “large tent” Democratic Party.

Left-wing Van Jones’s main takeaway from the speech was a lack of recognition: “I think the Mamdani that we saw in the campaign trail, who was a lot more calm, who was a lot warmer, who was a lot more embracing, was not present in that speech.”

He also thought some New Yorkers would have a hard time deciding if they fit in with Mamdani’s vision and admitted, “… he missed a chance tonight to open up and bring more people into the tent.”

Based on Jones’ reaction, one would think Mamdani had suddenly shed his scales and revealed his true self (which absolutely no one saw coming):

I think his tone was sharp. I think he was using the microphone in a way that he was almost yelling. And that’s not the Mamdani that we’ve seen on TikTok and the great interviews and stuff like that. So, I felt like it was a little bit of a character switch here, where the warm, open, embracing guy that’s close to working people was not on stage tonight, and there were some other voice on stage.

Republican Scott Jennings, who was less surprised by Mamdani’s real sympathies, pointed out the obvious Marxism that loomed over the Big Apple:

He went after everybody that he thinks is a problem: people who own things, people who have businesses. […] And so, when you think of the world that way, that every problem, no matter how small or how large, is something for government to do, let me just decipher this for you. Tax increases as far as the eye can see, which means that people who need to provide jobs to the young people that you say need jobs are going to flee as quickly as they possibly can.

He believed the message was both a warning and a rallying cry, saying it “… was a divisive speech, and he clearly sees the world in terms of the people who are oppressing you and the oppressed. And he said, ‘The oppressed are now in City Hall.’”

And Democrats didn’t beat the TDS allegations during the off-year election cycle: “This guy did not sound like a mayor. […] Half the speech was talking to Donald Trump.”

Even former Obama advisor David Axelrod struggled to find a silver lining to Mamdani’s victory lap: “I was disappointed by it because this was his big introduction to this city as the new mayor. […] This was a shouted speech, not a talk with the city on the night of his election ushering in a new era.”

Well, that’s New York’s new era. Far-far-left populism has demanded everything be free, and that which wasn’t earned can only be taken by force.

The transcript is below. Click “expand” read:

CNN’s Election Night 2025

November 4, 2025

11:43:18 p.m. EST

(…)

VAN JONES: But I think he missed an opportunity. I think the Mamdani that we saw in the campaign trail, who was a lot more calm, who was a lot warmer, who was a lot more embracing, was not present in that speech. And I think that Mamdani is the one you need to hear from tonight. There are a lot of people trying to figure out, “Can I get on this train with him or not? Is he gonna include me? Is he going — is he going to be more of a class warrior even in office?” I think he missed a chance tonight to open up and bring more people into the tent. I think his tone was sharp. I think he was using the microphone in a way that he was almost yelling. And that’s not the Mamdani that we’ve seen on TikTok and the great interviews and stuff like that.

So, I felt like it was a little bit of a character switch here, where the warm, open, embracing guy that’s close to working people was not on stage tonight, and there were some other voice on stage. That said, he’s very young, and he just pulled off something’s very, very difficult. And I wouldn’t write him off, but I think he missed an opportunity to open himself up tonight, and I think that that will probably cost him going forward.

ANDERSON COOPER: Scott.

SCOTT JENNINGS: Oh, are you saying he didn’t — he wasn’t the unifying voice of a generation that you predicted mere moments ago?

JONES: I — I —

JENNINGS: Axe, where was the — where was the man that you predicted would not slice and dice the — look, guys, he started his speech by quoting Eugene Debs, who ran for President of the United States five times as the Socialist Party of America candidate. He repeatedly attacked people in this —

[Crosstalk and laughter]

JENNINGS: No, no, I know my socialists. I keep a close eye on them.

[Crosstalk]

JENNINGS: So, here’s the thing. He went after everybody that he thinks is a problem: people who own things, people who have businesses. He said an interesting quote: “No problem too large for government to solve.”

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: “Or too small.” Important.

JENNINGS: And so, when you think of the world that way, that every problem, no matter how small or how large, is something for government to do, let me just decipher this for you. Tax increases as far as the eye can see, which means that people who need to provide jobs to the young people that you say need jobs are going to flee as quickly as they possibly can.

I think this was a divisive speech, and he clearly sees the world in terms of the people who are oppressing you and the oppressed. And he said, “The oppressed are now in City Hall.”

(…)

11:46:54 p.m. EST

JENNINGS: Can I, can I add one thing, by the way? As the politics — and you’ve done this, so I’d love your opinion — this guy —

DAVID AXELROD: I’d love to give it.

JENNINGS: This guy did not sound like a mayor. He put every old guard, national Democrat on notice. This man sounded like

AXELROD: No —

JENNINGS: — a national candidate. Half the speech was talking to Donald Trump.

AXELROD: Listen, I agree with everything that Vance said about that speech. I was disappointed by it because this was his big introduction to this city as the new mayor. And I think he could have — if he had approached it the way he did so — so much of his communications. This was a shouted speech, not a talk with the city on the night of his election ushering in a new era.

(…)