I don’t live in New York City, so I wasn’t able to vote for or against the new mayor, Zoran Mamdani. But it seems that didn’t matter. My mailbox in Oyster Bay, which is about 25 miles away from the city, was overflowing with anti-Mamdani propaganda. Suddenly, all the Democrats in my suburban area were being linked to him. Local officials, who might be more moderate, were depicted as followers of Mamdani, as if they were part of some dystopian socialist agenda. It felt, quite frankly, like guilt by association—there wasn’t much real connection there, but, well, the narrative was out there.
The real question is whether Republicans will adopt a similar approach for the midterm elections in 2026. I’m somewhat familiar with this strategy, having led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for a couple of cycles. Generally speaking, midterm elections tend to be a referendum on the current president and their party. Given the president’s already low approval ratings, we really need to change the focus. The trick is to find the bogeyman.
I actually campaigned with a version of this strategy back in 2010. I found flyers plastered on nearly every telephone pole in a competitive state, claiming that I “voted for Nancy Pelosi 95% of the time.” It’s possibly true if you count votes relating to naming post offices or declaring National Apple Pie Day. The aim was to demonize high-profile center-left leaders, using their images to undermine the specific ideological identities of candidates who were struggling.
Now, critics are zeroing in on what Mamdani will do as mayor. Republicans want to portray him as a representation of a Democratic Party that has gone radical, even communistic. I’m pretty sure they will try to push that narrative. However, I think Democrats can take some crucial lessons from past elections as we approach these midterms.
At the core, the debate within the party seems to hinge on this question: Is the face of the Democratic Party someone like Mamdani, or is it more centrist figures like Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill, who both served as governors of Virginia and New Jersey? The reality is that it needs to be a bit of both.
Mamdani has shown he’s quite talented at energizing grassroots support, revamping digital campaign techniques, and connecting with voters on their fears. On the other hand, candidates like Sherrill and Spanberger appeal to crossover voters who are concerned about the rising cost of living and frustrated with President Trump’s overreach. If Democrats can find a way to meld these two strategies—what wins in Brooklyn, New York, and what works in rural Iowa—they might just carve a successful path for the midterms.
Hyper-online progressives and centrists will argue it out, but the truth is that Democrats need a mix of candidates from various ideologies to win seats and push back against Trump. The key is to have candidates who can tackle voters’ economic concerns. Authentic, responsive messages—especially on digital platforms—will be vital. In Virginia, that might mean moderate voices like Spanberger. In New York, it’s Mamdani. Both are essential.
Of course, this story is still unfolding. The effectiveness of the Republican strategy to position Mamdani as the bogeyman will largely depend on his governance. If he focuses on the issues that resonate—like rent or food prices—voters might not see him as a threat. But if he veers toward more extreme topics, emphasizing global issues rather than local ones, that could play right into Republican hands.
Regardless of Mamdani’s success or failure, Republicans will undoubtedly attempt to use his political image strategically in the surrounding areas of New York. First, there are moderate districts in suburbs like Long Island, where Democrats have faced criticism from Republicans on issues like crime and immigration recently. Then, there’s the upstate area just outside the New York media market. Lastly, there are battleground districts nationwide, where electoral results vary significantly. As you go further away from New York City—both in time and distance—the impact diminishes.
For example, voters in Arizona’s 4th Congressional District seem unfazed by attack ads linking them to the New York mayor, while those in Florida’s 27th Congressional District might respond better to an anti-socialist message. Ultimately, winning these elections hinges on candidates defining themselves—and Democrats accepting them for who they are.
To be successful in the midterms, Democrats will likely need to embrace some contradictions. We have to acknowledge that we are both Mamdani and Spanberger. To win on a national scale, we should keep in mind that all politics is local.
