Edited by Morgan Pustilnik, Elizabeth Adams, Amelia Cantwell, and Owen Andrews
The Democratic Party has had a tumultuous history with the primary and nomination process, particularly for federal office. In 1968, major controversy and riots erupted when the pro-Vietnam War Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the Democratic presidential nomination despite only receiving less than 3% of the vote in the primaries that year and not winning a single contest. The 2008 presidential primary was one of the closest ever, with Barack Obama barely defeating Hillary Clinton, a party insider initially seen as the favorite for the nomination. Clinton’s successful bid for the 2016 nomination was also quite controversial, with her battle against Senator Bernie Sanders igniting a new faction of anti-establishment left-wingers, particularly on the younger side of the electorate. This voting bloc claimed that the Democratic Party establishment, along with collaboration from mainstream news media, influenced the primaries in a way to ensure that Clinton would be the nominee. The Bernie coalition and other associated left-wingers continued to make these claims of establishment bias during the 2020 Democratic primary, even though Joe Biden had a much larger margin of victory among a crowded primary field. Kamala Harris’s selection as the Democrat nominee without a primary, due to President Biden’s late withdrawal from the race, became controversial as many felt like her selection was undemocratic, which raised questions about her legitimacy as a candidate. When Harris lost the election, many in the media pointed to her selection without a primary as a key reason for why she lost. The Democratic Party has continued to play tug of war between establishment and outsider candidates for decades in its primaries. This battle, however, has been favoring the outsider types recently, and it seems to be working to the Democrats’ favor.
For example, last year Zohran Mamdani won a very contentious Democratic primary for New York City mayor against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani—a millennial, self-described socialist state assemblyman—had very low name recognition before the race and polled in the low single digits at its beginning. Cuomo, on the other hand, was a moderate from a New York political dynasty. He had much of the Democratic establishment behind him before this race, receiving endorsements from people like Bill Clinton. Despite this, though, Cuomo was incredibly unpopular with the general public and especially the party base. His tenure as governor, particularly late in his final term, was quite controversial and culminated in his resignation over a major sexual assault case. Mamdani, for his part, utilized social media advertising and strong debate performances to increase his recognition, along with unique policy proposals—such as his plan to decrease permit prices for food to lower the prices of street food—to gain more mass public appeal. Despite losing the primary, Cuomo attempted an independent run in the general election, which he went on to lose as well, even with the endorsements of Republicans, including President Trump. Overall, Mamdani was able to leverage an apathy towards the old guard of the party by pitching new, more innovative solutions to various problems New Yorkers were facing. He proposed higher taxes on wealthy people’s estates, a rent freeze, and establishing government-owned grocery stores, all of which were policies the main faction of the party shied away from outwardly supporting. Cuomo, on the other hand, didn’t seem too interested in making actual structural changes within the Democratic Party, or even in New York City. This made Cuomo incredibly unpopular with younger members of the party, with voters under 44 breaking nearly 70% for Mamdani, while roughly 50% of voters 45 and over went for Cuomo. A large factor in this split was also the perceptions of hypocrisy. If the Democrats are supposed to be pro-women and anti-corruption, the establishment supporting a candidate who was controversial for his corrupt and anti-women past showed that they would rather support hypocritical stability than altruistic and untested change.
Outside of New York City, the election for U.S. Senate in Texas is another avenue where the Democrats have been reforming themselves. The Democrats saw State Representative James Talarico defeat U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett by about 6% overall, a relatively comfortable victory for someone with very little initial national profile to have. Crockett, being in federal office, had far more support from nationally significant members of the Democratic Party compared to Talarico and touted endorsements from various U.S. representatives and federal officials, including former Vice President Harris. Talarico, though, utilized a more unique approach compared to typical Democrats, especially on the federal level: He led with his faith. Talarico constantly pointed to Christian teachings, scripture, and principles when he was on the campaign trail. While this may seem like an odd stance for a Democrat, this strategy helped Talarico win over rural, religious voters in central and western Texas. His appeal was not just rooted in Christianity, however. Much like Mamdani, Talarico defined much of his campaign in fighting the “oligarchy” and standing up to billionaires, something Crockett did not put quite as much stock into doing. In doing so, Talarico is using similar strategies to Mamdani, just with a different coat of paint on the outside. He made it quite clear that his goal was to change how things are, or “flip tables,” as he’s said. Once again, candidates like Talarico using this seem to be working towards the benefit of the Democrats, despite the fact that the party leadership seemed to prefer someone like Crockett. In recent polls, Talarico leads both of the potential Republican nominees—John Cornyn and Ken Paxton—and looks to have improving momentum as his potential competitors are locked in an incredibly competitive runoff. If Talarico wins the seat come November, he will be the first Democrat elected to the U.S. Senate from Texas since 1988, marking a great achievement for the left, finally able to reestablish inroads in the state, an accomplishment seemingly only possible by using a non-establishment candidate.
Maine is another state this cycle where outsiders are gaining momentum. The Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate race is looking to be competitive, with young outsider Graham Platner facing off against Governor Janet Mills. Despite Mills’ electoral history and party backing, she is not only lagging in the polls behind Platner but is also polling worse than him against incumbent Senator Susan Collins. For the general election, Mills is polling with a lead of less than 1 point, while Platner has a lead of around 7 points. Much like Mamdani, Platner is using a more economically progressive approach to his campaign to draw attention, along with utilizing clips on social media platforms like TikTok to gain attention among younger, more online voters. Platner has the backing of many famous progressive politicians as well, such as Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S. Representative Rho Kahana, two candidates who have a history of criticizing the Democratic establishment. Maine is another critical race that the Democrats need to win if they want to be able to retake control of the Senate come November, and Platner seems to be one of the only people who can make that possible.
That being said, this trend isn’t universal across all places where Democrats are performing well. In North Carolina, another pivotal Senate race, former Governor Roy Cooper is polling incredibly well, and he has a strong connection with the mainstream Democrats. Many other moderate, standard Democrats have also found electoral success recently, such as Governor Abigail Spanberger’s large electoral victory in Virginia this past November. These examples, though, are candidates that were already incredibly popular within their home states prior to their run for higher office and were involved in the state for a long amount of time, far before the recent plummeting of Democratic approval.
If the midterms go well for the Democrats, the way they use their new influence in Congress could very much alter the way the establishment in the party is viewed. With many high-level members in the party facing potential primary challenges from more progressive candidates, such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in his reelection bid in 2028, the party will have to grapple with the fact that those who may want to completely alter it from the inside out are the same people who have the ability to save it at the ballot box.