In the first article in this series, we built the yardstick before using it. In this second article, we apply the first part of the model — policies and ideas — to Abdul El-Sayed, using Zohran Mamdani as a reference point. Not to establish who is “better”, but to understand what distinguishes El-Sayed and what belongs to a broader progressive space.
To make the application of the yardstick easier to follow, the nine indicators will be considered here in five thematic areas, with some inevitable overlaps: ideological orientation and social policy (1, 2, 3 and 5); democracy and economic power (4); human rights and the protection of minorities (7 and 8); environment, water and sustainability (6); foreign policy and military intervention (9). This arrangement is purely for presentation: some indicators, especially number 8, naturally belong to more than one dimension.
In the first thematic area, the initial difference becomes more significant when read together with the other indicators. El-Sayed rejects the socialist identity: on CNN he said «I am not somebody who is a socialist. I believe in capitalism. I just believe that capitalism has to be regulated». He has explained that he supports Medicare for All not because of ideological affiliation, but because his experience as a physician and public-health official led him to see it as an empirical response to a system that leaves too many people without care or exposed to medical debt.1 Mamdani, by contrast, is a democratic socialist and has placed his proposals — rent freezes, free buses, no-cost childcare and more progressive taxation — within an explicitly stated political project.2
The result is not, however, a simple opposition between “moderate” and “radical”. On healthcare, cost of living, housing and economic power, the substantive distances are often smaller than the labels suggest. El-Sayed proposes Medicare for All, taxation of billionaire wealth, and limits on the power of large healthcare groups and landlords; Mamdani has made the direct reduction of everyday costs the centre of his agenda.12 The yardstick therefore shows a first useful point: declared ideological positioning and the concrete content of policies do not necessarily coincide.
If a politician rejects the socialist label but supports policies that many associate with the left, what should we consider more important: the name chosen for self-definition, or the concrete content of the proposals?
The second thematic area brings democracy to the foreground. El-Sayed proposes banning corporate money from politics, combating gerrymandering, the partisan manipulation of electoral district boundaries, reforming the Supreme Court, abolishing the filibuster, the Senate procedure used to delay or block a decision, and making voting easier.³ These are not merely progressive economic policies: he identifies the concentration of money and mechanisms that reduce representation as democratic problems. Mamdani, in a different context, built his campaign around strong grassroots mobilization and a programme that gives municipal government a direct role in rebalancing economic power.² The comparison is not perfectly symmetrical — a senator and a mayor have different tools at their disposal — but it reveals common ground: for both, democracy also concerns who holds economic power and who has effective access to institutions.
The third thematic area concerns human rights and the protection of minorities, which become clearer when the indicators are read together. El-Sayed proposes abolishing ICE, strengthening civil liberties, protecting abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights, and describes current immigration policy as arbitrary and unjust.13 Mamdani has defended New York’s sanctuary laws and legal support for people threatened with deportation and, as mayor, strengthened municipal procedures against the effects of federal ICE operations.4 Their powers differ, but the orientation is comparable: minority rights form part of the definition of who should be able to live with security and dignity in the political community.
The Israel-Palestine case makes this dimension more difficult and more revealing. El-Sayed has said he believes in «equal rights to peace, dignity and self-determination for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike» and has criticised U.S. military support for foreign governments when he believes it contributes to human-rights violations.5 Mamdani has grounded his positions in the «universality of humanity», arguing that crimes against humanity should be condemned regardless of who commits them; at the same time, as mayor he has adopted specific measures against antisemitism and for the security of Jewish institutions.6
For our yardstick, the point is not to decide here whether every formulation by either politician is convincing. It is to observe whether the principle of universal rights is applied to different groups even when doing so creates political tensions. Mamdani’s case also shows why two distinct dimensions must be kept separate: a position on Israeli government policy and the concrete protection of Jews as a minority. An overly simple model would risk confusing the two.
The fourth thematic area concerns the environment, water and sustainability. El-Sayed places particular emphasis on protecting the Great Lakes, safe drinking water, emissions regulation and the environmental risks of data centres.¹ In Mamdani’s programme, fare-free buses and public transport may have environmental implications, but they are presented primarily as measures of affordability and urban mobility.² The comparison on indicator 6 therefore remains partial.
The fifth thematic area, finally, concerns foreign policy and the principles that should govern the use of military force. El-Sayed presents diplomacy, international law and reducing military intervention as principles of his foreign policy.¹ Mamdani, as a municipal politician, does not have a comparable platform on US military interventions. Here the comparison stops: forcing it would create a false symmetry. That too is a result of the method.
But when two politicians occupy different institutional roles, how legitimate is it to demand a perfectly symmetrical comparison?
Applying the nine indicators therefore produces a picture more nuanced than the single label “progressive”. El-Sayed and Mamdani share many redistributive policies and a strong concern for minority rights, but place them within different ideological frameworks. In El-Sayed’s case, partly for institutional reasons, the connection between democratic reform, regulation of economic power, the environment, civil rights and foreign policy is also more explicit.
This first application also suggests a methodological correction: not every indicator has to produce a difference. A convergence can be as informative as a divergence; and the impossibility of a symmetrical comparison can itself be a finding rather than something to conceal.
But policies and ideas are only one part of the evaluation. Two politicians may support similar goals yet differ profoundly in the way they speak, treat opponents, respond to criticism, verify facts or maintain consistency between means and ends. This is where the yardstick must undergo its next test.
Notes
- Abdul El-Sayed, “Priorities”, 2026 Senate campaign; CNN, Inside Politics, 12 July 2026. Priorities / CNN
- Zohran for NYC, 2025 campaign programme; NYC Votes, profile of Zohran Mamdani. Zohran for NYC / NYC Votes
- Abdul El-Sayed, “Money Out of Politics” and other democratic priorities, 2026 campaign. Campaign
- NYC Mayor’s Office, Executive Order 13 Report, May 2026. NYC Mayor’s Office
- FOX 2 Detroit, Michigan Senate debate, September 2026. FOX 2 Detroit
- NYC Mayor’s Office, interviews and Strategy to Combat Antisemitism, June–September 2026. Interview / Strategy
Article based on publicly available materials consulted through October 31, 2026
