The recent win of Zoran Mamdani in the Democratic primary for mayor in New York has sparked renewed discussions among party members. It raises a significant question: Is the path to winning elections about leaning left to engage disinterested voters, or should the focus be on centrist strategies to attract committed moderates?
The Democratic establishment often seems inclined to take a centrist path. Yet, historical patterns tell a different story. The party recorded few electoral victories when it shifted right, whereas moves to the left resulted in substantial successes.
This belief that appealing to moderates is crucial for winning can be traced back to Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential victory. Though he was part of the Democratic Leadership Council, aimed at steering the party towards moderation, his win marked the end of a Republican winning streak. Still, the abandonment of progressive agendas—like welfare reform—might have helped his campaign, yet the overall impact of centrism was detrimental in the long run.
Between 1992 and 2000, Democrats lost control of both the Senate and the House. They regained Senate majority in 2006 but never held a true majority of seats outside of a couple of independents until Barack Obama took office in 2008.
Historically, the Democratic Party has made its most significant electoral gains when embracing progressive ideas and social movements. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal established majorities in both chambers during the 1930s and 1940s, not only because of his popularity but due to a strong alignment with the labor movement and social safety net initiatives that had faced sharp criticism during a time when socialism seemed to be gaining traction.
During the late 1940s under Harry Truman, a drift towards centrist policies led to a series of electoral losses the party had previously enjoyed. However, a shift back to the left in the 1958 election resulted in renewed success, a trend that continued with the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Unfortunately, then the association with the Vietnam War and moderate stances led to further setbacks in the late 1960s and 1970s.
Obama’s election in 2008 marked another wave of success for progressive policies. While his policies encompassed both moderate and progressive ideas, he was widely regarded as a progressive figure—the first African-American president, celebrated as a significant milestone from the civil rights movement. During his presidency, the party won Senate races in three of four elections.
This historical perspective raises two essential questions: To what extent will progressive policies mobilize today’s disengaged voters? And conversely, will a leftward shift draw in moderates or conservatives?
A recent FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll indicates that around a quarter of voters either don’t vote or have only engaged once, with nearly half occasionally participating. These groups of occasionally engaged and disengaged voters hold considerable influence in elections. Many have withheld support from Democrats out of progressive dissatisfaction, particularly recently in response to issues surrounding Israel’s actions in Gaza. However, it’s important to note that not all non-voters are ideologically opposed.
Research illustrates that non-voters tend to be younger, less educated, and more financially constrained, often not identifying strictly with either major party. To win them over, it’s crucial for Democrats to genuinely address their concerns and propose programs that improve everyday economic conditions. As Senator Michael Bennet pointed out, the centrism pushed by past leaders alienated traditional Democratic supporters, stating that the policies promoted were harmful to the middle class.
It’s often noted in politics that motivation is key to winning elections. Some argued that Kamala Harris’s loss in 2024 was largely because Democrats didn’t mobilize their base adequately. However, insights from the Pew Research Center challenge this notion, suggesting that Trump’s victory margin could have been wider if all voters had participated in the election.
Simply targeting non-voters who lean Democratic isn’t enough; dissatisfaction can also sway voters in unpredictable directions. For instance, a notable portion of Bernie Sanders’s supporters opted for Trump in the 2016 general election.
Polling indicates that progressive policies resonate more with potential voters than moderate ones. Recent surveys show that when people surveyed were asked about policies similar to those proposed by Mamdani—like free childcare, rent freezes, and raising the minimum wage—twice as many expressed support as those who were opposed.
Old beliefs can be tenacious. Many leading Democrats have deeply held views that centering policies can lead to victory, making it a tough mindset to change. Yet, for the party to recover from ongoing electoral struggles, acknowledging past lessons is essential. Both history and contemporary data suggest that a leftward approach could indeed spell success.
Rob Rosenthal is a professor emeritus and former president of Wesleyan University, known for analyzing the relationship between social movements and electoral politics.
