In a disastrous recent Men’s Day celebration, New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani couldn’t lift 135 pounds. Nonetheless, some liberals believe the socialist communist may succeed in lifting the Democrats out of their doldrums with young men. This hope may seem fanciful to some. What’s next, they could wonder, trying to attract the guys with Saturday Night Live’s Hans and Franz?

There is, however, method to the Democrats’ madness. After all, style over substance can go far in politics, and Mamdani oozes charisma and has a silver tongue. On the other hand, with the Democrats’ substance becoming so sissified, can they really put enough lipstick on their collective female chauvinist sow to seduce generations of men they’ve impugned as “toxically masculine”?

Some Democrats are encouraged because Mamdani has thus far been trouncing his three main rivals in NYC’s mayoral contest. In fact, he leads his closest pursuer, disgraced ex-New York governor Andrew Cuomo, by 19 points in RealClearPolitics’ polling average. More to the point here, however, Mamdani enjoys the backing of 85 percent of NYC’s young men. This support greatly surpasses that of any of his competitors.

Then again, can we really extrapolate Big Apple data to the country at large?

Reporting on this story recently, Newsweek addressed that matter, writing that enthusiasm for Mamdani

sharply contrasts with national trends, where young men have increasingly leaned Republican. In the 2024 presidential race, President Donald Trump made notable gains with men age 18 to 44, winning 53 percent — up from 45 percent in 2020, when former President Joe Biden carried the demographic with 52 percent. Young men of color, especially Latino and Black males age 18 to 29, swung toward Trump, driving Republican advances.

The challenge for Democrats is underscored by polling data. An April NBC News Stay Tuned poll found only 30 percent of Gen Z men identify as Democrats, compared with 52 percent of Gen Z women — a 22-point gender [sic] gap.

This is striking given that the decades-long norm was for young people of both sexes to support Democrats. Newsweek seeks to explain this sea change. To summarize, it relates:

Some perspective, however, is necessary here. First, having a college education no longer guarantees success. In fact, the U.S. today is producing college graduates at a faster rate than jobs requiring a college degree. Moreover, there is currently a shortage of workers in the skilled trades. Consequently, such fields (e.g., plumbing, heating and cooling) are often where the money is. In other words, that young tradesman may be earning more than the “college (mis)educated” girl he grew up with.

A perhaps bigger issue is perception and expectations. For most of history, people weren’t surprised that life was tough; that was the norm. Today, though, a silk-and-satin lifestyle may be considered a birthright. (This doesn’t mean, do note, there aren’t problems that could be addressed. For example, life would be more affordable if the government didn’t pursue confiscatory taxation.)

What certainly is not perception, however, is that the Democrats have been dumping on men for decades. Back in 2000 already, author Christina Hoff Sommers warned about the War Against Boys. Since then, nagging about “toxic masculinity” and (mythical) “male privilege” has intensified. There have been sex-oriented double standards, too, that almost invariably redound negatively upon boys and men. (E.g., “Equality” is touted — except regarding draft registration and bleeding and dying for the country.)

Not much of this would surprise Democratic political strategist James Carville. He complained last year that “too many preachy females” are “dominating the culture of the Democratic Party.” And data bear this out, with a poll showing that the Democrats have become the party of college-(mis)educated, (pseudo)elite women. “They’re drastically alienating everyone else,” too, said Cygnal pollster Brent Buchanan recently.

Yes, in fact, the Democrats don’t just want to give us a nanny state — they’d now deliver a harridan state.

As already stated, the Democrats now realize their bleeding of men threatens their power. In fact, Mr. Male Feminist himself, Governor Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), just signed an executive order designed to improve men’s mental health. Yet the Democrats’ problem won’t be so easily remedied. In fact, it’s said that men’s testosterone levels have dropped 30 percent the last three decades. And, well, it may be Democratic males bringing the average down. Just consider, for example, that unlike liberals, real men do not

Countering this, Democrats will protest that they aren’t opposed to masculinity; it just must be “redefined” for the modern age. Funny thing, though:

Their redefined masculinity always sounds a lot like femininity.

As this article states, the new masculinity must celebrate “emotional honesty, vulnerability, and connection.” Shorter version:

Just be a girl!

This said, dispensing with woke words (which has recently been recommended) and slick Mamdani-like marketing may win back many men. After all, and as Newsweek also points out, the new young male Republicans aren’t all staunch traditionalists. They tend, for instance, to be rather liberal socially and relatively soft on illegal migration. Sure, they voted for Trump, but this is largely because he’s a populist who seems (and is) so real. He’s a man’s man, someone young guys could see having a beer with.

And whom do the Democrats offer up? In the aforementioned focus groups, the only Democratic figure the young male participants could name as “a masculine role model” was ex-president Barack Obama.

Yet this may say it all, in more than one respect. For if they fancy Obama masculine, they certainly can be fooled by style over substance. And then, who knows? Maybe Mamdani will pass muster, too — even if he can’t lift 135 pounds any more than his socialism can lift an economy.