"Mamdani has long been praised, even by moderates, for making his campaign all about affordability. But this was no less true for Sherrill and Spanberger, who moved in a decidedly populist direction with their campaigns. At times, centrist Sherrill even sounded like Bernie Sanders. That's good. Second, all of these candidates successfully distanced themselves from unwise (and unpopular) progressive positions on crime and the fringier elements of the social justice brigade. As a result, they broadened their appeal."
"To be sure, enduring structural problems remain; for one thing, all of these candidates are rich. That's not good. Sherrill was hammered on the campaign trail about the millions she made while in Congress. But Mamdani, too, is the son of elites; his mother is a world-famous millionaire moviemaker with homes on three continents. These aren't great credentials for Democrats trying to demonstrate their everyman qualities to working-class voters who have turned their backs on the party."
Democrats won across ideological wings by prioritizing economic concerns and affordability while avoiding unpopular progressive positions on crime and fringe social justice issues. Abigail Spanberger, Mikie Sherrill, and Zohran Mamdani each emphasized economic messages and adopted populist tones that expanded their voter appeal. Centrist candidates sometimes used rhetoric associated with left populists to connect on cost-of-living issues. Wealth and elite backgrounds among candidates remain a structural liability that can undermine working-class credibility. Mamdani stood out as an outsider with an inspirational vision and a coherent theory of society that resonated amid rising inequality.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]