All over the country, young Democratic candidates are running seemingly Mamdani-style campaigns. But check the fine print.
A screenshot from Liam Elkind”s campaign launch video.(YouTube)
The Democratic Party establishment isn’t having a great year. Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani pummeled Andrew Cuomo in the New York City mayoral primary and is cruising to another landslide victory in November. If a Senate primary were held today, Chuck Schumer would lose to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by double digits. And the party’s traditional pro-Israel consensus has become deeply unpopular, with three-quarters of Democrats supporting an arms embargo and agreeing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
It’s undeniable that rank-and-file Democratic voters are fed up with the party’s leadership and ready for change. According to Quinnipiac, congressional Democrats have hit all-time low approval ratings three separate times this year. Not only are they 53 points underwater with registered voters, but they’re also a stunning 13 points down among Democrats themselves, with the downward trend showing no signs of slowing.
When Split Ticket’s Lakshya Jain first wrote about this phenomenon in February, he proposed that the Tea Party–esque primary challengers it might produce wouldn’t be ideologically motivated:
The scenario I am speculating on here is one where a whole ton of established lawmakers, such as 80-year-old Dick Durbin, are forced to the exits and are replaced by younger, more outwardly-idealistic “fighters,” whether by means of retirement or primary challenges. You may call it a revolution on an age-based axis, or on a “combativeness” axis, rather than one waged on the traditional, ideological “leftist vs centrist” front.
Democratic Party careerists across the country, sensing an opportunity to rise through the ranks, want to make this prediction a reality. They’re launching sleek campaigns for office, and on the surface, many seem cut from the Mamdani mode. They’re young, energetic, and aggressive on social media, and they talk a big game about intergenerational change.
But nobody should be fooled. Rather than offering a real alternative to the status quo (“combativeness,” after all, is not an ideological platform), this crop of candidates is repackaging the boring, moderate politics of the Democratic establishment with inauthentic videos and forced rhetoric. Even worse, some are running to the right of the incumbents they seek to replace, so they can court the same donors and special interests that have controlled—and hollowed out—the party for decades.
Some of the first candidates to adopt this style emerged in the days after October 7. Against the backdrop of Israel raining bombs down on Gaza, three young Democratic candidates decided to capitalize on the ongoing genocide to bolster their own campaigns. Isaiah Martin, Zak Malamed, and Joe Vogel wrote a joint letter to President Biden “to thank him for his leadership in support of Israel” and endorse his $14.3 billion funding request “to reaffirm America’s ironclad commitment towards Israel.”
This blatant pandering to AIPAC didn’t do their campaigns any favors; of the three, Vogel was the only one to make it onto the ballot, losing his primary by 14 points. But Martin is trying again next year, betting that his continued opposition to an arms embargo, proximity to the Biden administration, and support from fellow Gen Z centrists like Olivia Julianna can carry him across the finish line.
Then there’s 34-year-old Democratic strategist George Hornedo’s primary campaign against nine-term Indiana Representative André Carson—which, on paper, has all the hallmarks of a Mamdani-esque revolt. His launch video starts by attempting to connect Carson to Schumer, blasting the “do nothing Democrats” who “got us into this mess.” A New York Times profile labeled Hornedo’s campaign “an expression of frustration with the establishment,” and his stated top priority is to “Get Shit Done.”
But Hornedo has much more in common with Schumer and Jeffries than he’s letting on. His website lashes out at a “small but vocal faction on the far left,” smearing them as “agitators” and “unserious people.” Instead of embracing popular ideas like Medicare for All or universal childcare, Hornedo doesn’t go further than tired talking points about a “public healthcare option” and “childcare subsidies.” He insists, “This campaign isn’t about ideology. It’s about direction”—but hides pages on his website promoting his pro-genocide and pro-cryptocurrency agenda.
As the editors of The Nation, it’s not usually our role to fundraise. Today, however, we’re putting out a special appeal to our readers, because there are only hours left in 2025 and we’re still $20,000 away from our goal of $75,000. We need you to help close this gap.
Your gift to The Nation directly supports the rigorous, confrontational, and truly independent journalism that our country desperately needs in these dark times.
2025 was a terrible year for press freedom in the United States. Trump launched personal attack after personal attack against journalists, newspapers, and broadcasters across the country, including multiple billion-dollar lawsuits. The White House even created a government website to name and shame outlets that report on the administration with anti-Trump bias—an exercise in pure intimidation.
The Nation will never give in to these threats and will never be silenced. In fact, we’re ramping up for a year of even more urgent and powerful dissent.
With the 2026 elections on the horizon, and knowing Trump’s history of false claims of fraud when he loses, we’re going to be working overtime with writers like Elie Mystal, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Jeet Heer, Kali Holloway, Katha Pollitt, and Chris Lehmann to cut through the right’s spin, lies, and cover-ups as the year develops.
If you donate before midnight, your gift will be matched dollar for dollar by a generous donor. We hope you’ll make our work possible with a donation. Please, don’t wait any longer.
In solidarity,
The Nation Editors
Hornedo has a political soulmate in another young candidate, 26-year-old nonprofit CEO Liam Elkind, who is running to replace retiring Manhattan Representative Jerry Nadler. Just like his Indiana counterpart, Elkind’s launch video tries to tie Nadler (who was still running for reelection at the time) to congressional gerontocracy and this year’s string of Democratic deaths in office. He commits to “building a new generation of leadership in the Democratic Party” and lists “Actually Fight Trump” as his top priority.
But being young and throwing the word “fight” around a lot doesn’t entitle you to a congressional seat—especially when you’re running to the right of the person you’re trying to replace. Elkind opposes freezing rents and opening municipal grocery stores, two extremely popular proposals among New York City Democrats. He also opposes ending the flow of weapons to Israel and insists that we must “stand with Israel, our democratic ally”—yet another position that puts him well out of touch with Democratic voters, who are increasingly sympathetic to Palestinians.
Democrats like Martin, Hornedo, and Elkind don’t represent the party’s future; they’re emblematic of its past failures. Deprioritizing policy and ideology in favor of empty appeals to the rich and powerful is exactly how Biden and Harris lost the White House to Trump last year. When you’re taking advice from your Uber executive brother-in-law (or, in Elkind’s case, financial backing from LinkedIn cofounders and Michael Bloomberg staffers), your campaign is going to reflect their values and interests, not those of working-class voters the Democratic Party needs to win back.
A superior approach, espoused by Mamdani, Maine Senate hopeful Graham Platner, and other left-wing candidates, is running economically populist campaigns that are unapologetically anti-establishment and anti-capitalist. These candidates are exciting the grassroots, bringing in disillusioned voters, and building working-class coalitions that can withstand right-wing smears and millions in attack ads. (A Data for Progress poll released yesterday found that Democrats prefer political figures similar to Mamdani, AOC, and Bernie Sanders over the likes of Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Nancy Pelosi by 20 points.) If we want to defeat Trump and his fascist Republican allies, the “fighters” we elect in the next few years must be socialists and progressives—not the same centrists who’ve driven the party’s reputation into the ground.
Many Democratic candidates are learning this lesson the hard way. For example, 25-year-old Deja Foxx (named “the Next AOC” by national media outlets) recently sought an Arizona congressional seat, but was defeated by the late incumbent’s daughter, Adelita Grijalva. That sounds like a typical defeat for an underdog progressive by a product of the establishment.
But in reality, Grijalva was the candidate with progressive bona fides, endorsed by AOC, Sanders, and the Working Families Party. On the other hand, Foxx is a former Kamala Harris staffer (twice over) who emphasized empty rhetoric over concrete policies; one local reporter noted that Grijalva took a harder line on issues such as ICE. (Both Grijalva and Foxx placed well ahead of a third candidate, “pro-Israel activist” Daniel Hernández.)
And of course, there’s Andrew Cuomo, who’s now running what might be the most pathetic campaign in American history after his primary loss. The former governor’s third-party strategy for the general election (besides seeking advice from far-right Twitter posters) appears to be copying Mamdani’s videos, without any of the charisma or populism that has attracted universal acclaim. Instead, Cuomo is betting on dry clips of himself pretending to care about helping the homeless or what his campaign song should be—all while he attacks the city’s working class with a proposed means test for rent-stabilized apartments and condemnation of a potential four-day workweek.
Cuomo is now doing so poorly in the polls that he’s banking on Trump clearing the field for him. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders are sitting on their hands and refusing to endorse their party’s nominee for mayor, with Jeffries claiming that his constituents just don’t care, even as Mamdani rallies thousands in Brooklyn with Sanders and local leaders.
If Jeffries and Schumer truly wanted to rebuild their party’s crumbling national brand, there are a few steps they could take. They could move beyond the same tired playbook that lost them the White House, and instead embrace an economically populist agenda that’s laser-focused on affordability. They could ignore pundits like Jain, who encourage Democrats not to worry about their voter base, and instead listen to the overwhelming majority of Democrats demanding an arms embargo and an end to genocide. And they could leave behind the centrist grifters and disgraced governors of the past, and instead take notes from the actual “fighters” who are energizing Democratic voters: Zohran Mamdani, Graham Platner, Omar Fateh, Rashida Tlaib, and hundreds of candidates at the state and local levels.
Will the Democratic establishment heed these words? Probably not. That’s why over the next few years, the left needs to take on the establishment’s empty suits in Democratic primaries across the country—and win. Opponents of Trump and the rising tide of fascism don’t have another choice.
Aaron Narraph FernandoAaron Narraph Fernando is a third-year student at CUNY School of Law and an organizer with the New York City Democratic Socialists of America.