Philippa Kaur

The Democrats won recent elections with a laser focus on cost of living. Now comes the hard part: getting the left and centre to agree on a vision for America’s future. More

All of a sudden, the Democrats seem to be on a roll.

Last week’s elections in the United States gave the party the boost it has been desperately seeking since Donald Trump recaptured the White House in 2024 and sent the party into a tailspin.

Democrats won governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, and Zohran Mamdani stormed to victory in the New York City mayor’s race in open defiance of Trump.

Perhaps most significant for the Democrats’ chances in the 2026 midterm elections, California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 50 passed by a wide margin. This measure is intended to reconfigure the state’s electorates counterbalance Republican gerrymandering in Texas and other states.

Meanwhile, Trump’s approval ratings continue to slump in national polls amid a prolonged government shutdown.

But if a week is a long time in politics, the next US elections (due in November 2026) are an eternity away.

And there are still serious challenges ahead for the Democratic Party as it seeks not just to win back control of the House of Representatives, but to resist Trump’s attempts to recast the country in his own authoritarian and reactionary image.

Some Democrats have questioned whether Mamdani’s success in New York can be replicated on a national scale.
Alejandro Granadillo/AP

What went right for the Democrats?

Before looking at the challenges, though, it is important to understand what led to last week’s Democratic successes.

Trump governs through crisis and chaos. His pitch to supporters is an existential one, explicitly cultivating white grievance among those voters who feel they have been left behind. He argues that the US political system is so broken, only he can resolve it through extraordinary measures.

Yet, there is a significant gap between Trump’s vision of the United States, and the reality of life for Americans (including many Trump voters).

On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump promised his administration would down bring prices “starting on day one”.

But early evidence from Trump’s tariffs indicates US companies and consumers are bearing the costs. Prices have continued to rise on certain goods, such as apparel, furniture, food items and cars. A recent survey found 74% of respondents had experienced an average increase of monthly household costs by at least US$100 (A$150).

Disappointed expectations are a potent political force that has spelled doom for politicians well before Trump.

The optics couldn’t be worse at the moment, either. Hosting a Great Gatsby-themed party, a brash and boastful display of wealth, at a time when federal food aid is about to end for 42 million citizens is not exactly a public relations coup.

The Democrats that won last week came from different ends of the party’s political spectrum, but there was one thing that united them: a focus on affordability and the cost of living. And they all had a clear message: Trump’s policies are to blame.

This is adept and effective politics. Democrats are identifying the ways that Trump is failing to carry through on his promises, and have been increasingly ruthless in exposing them.

But there are limits to this strategy. To build sustainable electoral coalitions capable of not just winning office but of turning back the larger MAGA tide that swept to victory in 2024, the Democrats need to be able to construct a coherent and compelling vision of the future they want to create.

Can the Democrats unify on a national scale?

The Democrats remain deeply divided over how to respond to Trump – and more broadly, divided over what the party stands for.

The split among Senate Democrats on whether to allow a vote to reopen the government without getting the assurances on health insurance subsidies they’ve been holding out for exemplifies this.

Are the Democrats going to lean into being a moderate and centrist party? Or will they move further left and embrace more progressive positions – those championed by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Mamdani – even if these are to the left of the electorate?

Many left-leaning Democrats want the current leadership – among them, Senator Chuck Schumer – to step aside for more progressive, younger leaders.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP

It is not a problem the party is having these debates. Political parties in the US have always been organisationally looser and ideologically broader than those elsewhere.

It is, however, unclear if the party has the institutional mechanisms to synthesise these strongly polarised perspectives into a consistent agenda and program that Democrats can present to a national electorate.

As some commentators have noted, it is relatively easy for Democrats to win low-turnout state and city-based elections without clarifying these matters. But winning a national election, or recapturing the US Senate, is a more difficult task.

Can the Democrats find a way to not just articulate opposition to Trump, but put forth of a common vision of America’s future embraced by these disparate wings of the party?

And how do they turn words into action?

When a political system is in crisis, it is not enough for progressives to repeat over and over what has gone wrong. They also need solutions – a positive case for what they want to achieve and a policy agenda to enact it. Then, they can build a new social coalition around a common sense of purpose.

It is all well and good to denounce Trump’s poor economic management, but will Democrats be able to implement strategies that deliver on their affordability promises?

For this to happen, the party has to agree on concrete plans to reinvigorate economic growth beyond the tech sector and ensure a fairer redistribution of the benefits of this growth. In addition, they’ll need to come together on the right balance of investment in the American people and infrastructure through government spending, and the need to reduce the US’ extraordinary debt levels.

To make things even more difficult, they’ll need to articulate how to achieve this with a Congress prone to partisan gridlock like never before in modern history. So far, the Democrats have no clear answers to these fundamental questions.

The Democrats’ challenge, therefore, is not just to repudiate Trump’s dark vision of America, but to put forward their own positive vision of what the future can be. Recent victories are encouraging, but a lack of this broader imaginative work so far is striking.

The Democrats have come closer to working out how to win – but still need an answer for an even more defining question: what do they want to win for? More

The extended government shut-down has seen Trump’s already-weak ratings tumble further. More

Donald Trump’s net approval has slumped to its lowest this term as the United States government shutdown breaks the record for the longest shutdown. Democrats had big wins in state elections on Tuesday.

I previously covered the ongoing US government shutdown on October 9, eight days into a shutdown that began on October 1. This shutdown has now lasted 38 days, beating the previous record 35-day shutdown that was set during Trump’s first term.

Although Republicans hold the presidency and majorities in both chambers of Congress, they cannot pass a budget without Democratic support in the Senate owing to the Senate’s requirement for 60 votes out of 100 senators to invoke “cloture” and end a “filibuster”.

Republicans hold a 53–47 majority over Democrats in the Senate, so they need seven Democrats to vote with them to obtain cloture. Democrats are refusing to help to pass a budget unless health insurance subsidies are extended.

For the first three weeks of the shutdown, Trump’s ratings were resilient, with his net approval in analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls rising slightly to -7.5 on October 19.

But since then, Trump’s net approval has slumped 5.5 points to -13.0, a low for him this term. Currently, 55.1% disapprove of Trump’s performance while 42.1% approve.

Trump’s net approval on the four issues tracked by Silver have all fallen recently. He now has a net approval of -4.9 on immigration, -17.6 on the economy, -17.8 on trade and -28.9 on inflation.

In Silver’s historical comparison on how Trump’s ratings compare with previous presidents since Harry Truman at this point in their presidencies, Trump’s net approval is only better than during his own first term. Joe Biden’s net approval was -8.3 at this point, making him the next worst on net approval.

Since a peak for the US benchmark S&P 500 stock market index on October 29, it has lost 2.5%. But in the last six months, it has gained nearly 20%.

Trump’s ratings will probably rebound if the shutdown ends soon. Unless something goes badly wrong with the US economy or the stock market, his ratings will probably return to net high single-digit negative, not net double-digit negative.

Democrats had big wins at state elections

US state elections occurred on Tuesday in New Jersey and Virginia. Democrats won the Virginia governorship by 57.2–42.6 over Republicans, a gain for Democrats. They also won the other two statewide races for lieutenant-governor and attorney-general.

Democrats won the lower house of the Virginia legislature by 64–36, a 13-seat gain for Democrats. The upper house was not up for election, but Democrats hold a 21–19 majority there. At the 2024 presidential election, Kamala Harris defeated Trump in Virginia by 5.8 points, though Trump won the overall popular vote by 1.5 points.

Democrats held the New Jersey governorship, winning by 56.4–43.0, far exceeding polls that gave Democrats a low single-digit lead. They lead in the lower house by 53–19, with eight seats uncalled.

If the uncalled seats go to current leaders, Democrats will win by 57–23, a five-seat gain. Democrats hold the upper house by 25–15, which was not up for election. Harris beat Trump in New Jersey in 2024 by 5.9 points.

In June, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani had won the New York City Democratic mayoral nomination, defeating former New York governor Andrew Cuomo by 56.4–43.6 after preferences to win the Democratic primary. On Tuesday, Mamdani defeated Cuomo, who ran as an independent, in the general election
by 50.4–41.6, with 7.1% for a Republican.

Unlike the primary, the general election used first past the post. But preferences would not have changed the outcome as Mamdani exceeded 50%.

In response to Texas Republicans gerrymandering Texas to create five additional federal Republican seats, California Democrats proposed retaliatory gerrymandering of California’s federal seats. A referendum was needed to approve this gerrymander. With 79% reporting, “yes” to gerrymandering had won by 63.9–36.1. Harris won California in 2024 by 20.1 points.

See also my coverage of these elections for The Poll Bludger. In this piece, I wrote about past and upcoming elections in the Netherlands, Bolivia and Chile.

Implications for the 2026 midterm elections

At November 2026 midterm elections, all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for election. In Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial elections, there were respectively 8.8 and 7.5 point swings to Democrats from the 2024 presidential margin in those states.

If these swings are applied to Trump’s national margin of 1.5 points in 2024, Democrats would win nationally by 6.0 points (New Jersey swing) or 7.3 (Virginia swing). So if the swing in either state occurs nationally in 2026, Democrats are very likely to gain control of the House.

There will be 35 seats up for election in the Senate next November (33 regular and two special elections). Republicans hold 22 and Democrats 13, but only two Republican seats are thought vulnerable: Maine and North Carolina.

In 2024, Harris won Maine by 6.9 points and Trump only won North Carolina by 2.2 points. Trump won all other states Republicans are defending by at least a double-digit margin. Even if the swing in Virginia happened nationally, Democrats would gain only two seats and Republicans would hold the Senate by 51–49.

It’s become increasingly difficult for Democrats to win the Senate, as the two senators per state rule skews Senate elections towards low-population, rural states.

In the Fiftyplusone generic ballot average, Democrats lead Republicans by 45.0–41.9. The low single-digit lead for Democrats hasn’t changed since April. The current 3.1-point Democrat lead is below what happens from applying the swing in New Jersey and Virginia nationally.

While Trump’s ratings have dropped, there hasn’t been a Democratic surge on the generic ballot. That suggests voters are blaming both parties for the shutdown. More

Zohran Mamdani has become New York City’s first Muslim mayor, after securing more than 50% of the vote. More

Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist, has been elected as New York City’s mayor. He became the first New York mayoral candidate to win more than 1 million votes since 1969, and looks set to secure over 50% of the total vote.

With almost all of the votes counted, independent candidate Andrew Cuomo seems to have been backed by 41.6% of voters. Republican Curtis Sliwa has secured just 7%.

Mamdani, who has become New York City’s first Muslim mayor, swept to victory on what was characterised as a radical left-wing platform. He has promised to tax millionaires more in order to fund free buses and childcare for all.

He has also vowed to honour an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, over alleged war crimes in Gaza if he visits New York. The Israeli foreign ministry has previously called Mamdani a “mouthpiece for Hamas propaganda”.

How did a figure on the far left of American politics, who is also a staunch critic of Israel, win in a city that is full of millionaires and home to a sizeable Jewish population?

The corruption and sexual harassment scandals affecting his main rival certainly helped, as did the focus of his campaign on making life more affordable for New Yorkers. Mamdani’s presence on social media raised his profile and attracted voters, too.

He posted slick videos on TikTok and Instagram throughout his campaign, including one where he criticised the rent increases seen under outgoing mayor Eric Adams while running the New York City marathon.

But journalists and commentators have noticed something else that has helped boost Mamdani’s appeal among New Yorkers. He has what the New York Times called in July “a rare talent for listening”.

Mamdani is unusually reflective in interviews, often thinking silently for more than 20 seconds before responding to questions. And after his successful primary earlier in 2025, Mamdani contacted every business and cultural leader in the city he could get hold of to hear about why they opposed him.

The viral campaign videos that made his name also see him walking the streets of New York, asking voters questions and listening to their answers at length without interruption. Mamdani may be a radical, but he really listens.

Talking to voters

Democratic theorists are likely to celebrate Mamdani’s approach. Many philosophers embrace what is known as the “deliberative theory of democracy”, which argues that talking – as opposed to voting – is the central democratic institution.

These people suggest that politicians should talk to a diverse range of voters respectfully about their decisions. Listening to diverse perspectives improves policy because it requires leaders to consider a range of ideas and arguments, relying less on their own gut intuitions.

As a respectful and inclusive political style, it can also help citizens feel heard and challenge the idea that politicians are interested only in power and will say whatever it takes to win. A more deliberative kind of responsiveness to voters can therefore increase political legitimacy and trust.

The New York Times has praised Mamdani over his ‘rare talent for listening’.
Sarah Yenesel / EPA

Political scientists are likely to point out that Mamdani has an important strategic reason for his deliberative political style. New York City uses a system of ranked choice voting, or “the alternative vote”, which asks voters to rank candidates in order of their preference rather than choosing just one.

This encourages politicians to find policy proposals that are supported by large majorities, such as taxing millionaires to pay for free childcare, and to communicate respectfully with people of all political persuasions in the hope they might win their second-preference votes.

Larry Diamond, a leading American democracy expert, has called ranked choice voting the “Archimedean lever of change” for solving the deep polarisation currently affecting US politics. This is because it penalises candidates who rely on divisive rhetoric to appeal to a passionate base of supporters.

They are unlikely to win second-preference votes from people whose first preference is for one of their rivals. Conversely, ranked choice voting rewards politicians who try to bridge political divides with respectful and inclusive campaigning.

Depolarising US politics

There are many lessons that the political left in the US and beyond can learn from Mamdani’s victory. Most obviously, it shows that a socialist and pro-Palestine candidate can win in a major US electoral contest by combining a lively digital campaign with a strong focus on the cost of living.

It also suggests that candidates perceived as being radical are more likely to succeed in elections when they are visibly willing to listen to and deliberate with voters from all sorts of backgrounds.

Mamdani’s rise should also encourage a wider embrace of ranked choice voting. The system has been used to elect members of Australia’s House of Representatives for more than a century and it is now used in the US states of Maine and Alaska, as well as in the San Francisco Bay Area.

It should be adopted elsewhere too, as an antidote to political polarisation. The UK held a referendum on changing the electoral system to the alternative vote in 2011. However, UK voters unfortunately rejected the proposal.

Finally, Mamdani’s victory shows that radicalism and reflectiveness can come together, especially when the electoral system promotes it. Ranked choice voting is so good at encouraging a politics of respect and listening that it is sometimes accused of creating boring centrist candidates.

But Mamdani has reminded us that this does not have to be the case. Reforming US election systems could encourage deliberative responsiveness and depolarise American politics, without taking radical options off the menu. More