Stephen Colbert celebrated Zohran Mamdani’s upset win for New York City Public Advocate with the kind of late-night routine that felt more political cheerleading than comedy. Critics say Colbert has moved from punchlines to partisan grandstanding, and his take on Mamdani’s victory drew sharp reactions. This piece looks at Colbert’s response, what he said on air, and why many conservatives found it out of touch.
A lot of people reacted to Mamdani’s win with alarm, given his label as a Democratic Socialist and his promises about expanding government influence. For many voters, especially in conservative circles, the reaction was less about celebrating a politician and more about worrying what his agenda might mean for taxpayers and small businesses. That context is why a high-profile entertainer cheering the result rubbed so many the wrong way.
Colbert’s public posture on the show has increasingly leaned into politics rather than pure comedy, and critics say that shift was on full display during his segment on Mamdani. One viewer summed it up bluntly: the late-night host “stopped being funny a long time ago in favor of being a political hack.” That sentiment is common among those who want late-night to be entertainment first and opinion second.
On air, Colbert framed the outcome in colorful terms, and he delivered a line that many will remember. “Folks, last night in New York City, Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani won a stunning upset to become the city’s next Public Advocate,” Colbert began. That phrasing and the celebration around it struck many as a triumphalist take on a candidate whose policies opponents say will raise taxes and expand government intervention.
Colbert followed with a bit aimed at dramatics that landed differently depending on your politics. “Is this true? I’m being told just now that they’ve already changed the poem on the Statue of Liberty…’I’m not crying, you’re crying,'” he said, using theatrical affect to signal empathy and irony. For critics, the gag underlined the distance between a Manhattan late-night studio and neighborhoods that could feel immediate harm from radical policy proposals.
Reaction outside the studio was sharp and swift, with many conservative commentators pointing out that Colbert doesn’t live in New York City and will not face the direct consequences of policies he praises on stage. That disconnect—cheering policies from a safe perch—was a major theme in responses. The critique is simple: praise for socialist experiments is easier when you are insulated from their results.
The backlash also leaned on the broader critique of socialism many conservatives make: attractive slogans on cable don’t translate into sustainable governance on the ground. “A lot of people who embrace socialism think it’s all kittens and unicorns until they’re stuck in a factory for 12 hours a day, six days a week. Or find themselves in the gulag,” one commentator wrote, capturing the hardline warning about where unchecked socialist policies can lead. Language like that is provocative, but it’s consistent with long-standing conservative critiques.
Another common point raised was the candidate’s track record and rhetoric, with opponents warning that promises to expand government reach risk choking innovation and imposing higher costs on already stretched families. Voters uneasy about such promises say those concerns were worth airing rather than glossing over with late-night banter. From this vantage, Colbert’s tone felt less like civic commentary and more like partisan endorsement.
Supporters of Mamdani counter that his victory reflects real frustrations in the city with inequality and housing, and they argue his policies would redistribute resources to those who need them most. That debate—whether more government is the cure or the problem—is at the heart of the disagreement playing out across media. Both sides recognize the stakes, which is why celebrity endorsements or mockery get amplified so quickly.
Exactly. Colbert doesn’t live in NYC and none of Mamdani’s disastrous policies will harm him in any way. That reality fuels the frustration conservatives feel when national media personalities treat local outcomes as fodder for monologues rather than serious policy discussions. For many, the core issue is accountability: who will actually live under these rules, and who will pay the costs?
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
