The "elephant in the room" with Mamdani isn't the "socialist" label or even his policies. It's his authenticity.
Mamdani has been a community organizer and lives in Brooklyn. He rides the subway, knows the city, and is the kind of guy that average people would run into in the city.
One of the things I've noticed, on the local level, is that Republicans and many Democrats running for office aren't someone you'd run into when you go grocery shopping or see randomly at at restaurant or shopping center.
In my county, people on the town council and county commissioners have traditionally been old money "upper crust" types who have big exclusive homes, country club memberships, and aren't going to go slumming at Food Lion. And I'm talking about both Democrats and Republicans.
In this cycle, I saw the people winning seats on my local city council and on the county commissioners that were a middle class firefighter, active in the local community, a small business owner from a middle class average neighborhood, and similar candidates.
Compare this to one prominent county commissioner from a few years ago whose husband operates a charter airline and comes from a prominent, very rich, Republican-connected family. You never saw her around town where "normal" people go. Now, she's in the state legislature.
My point is that the Democrats need to get better at recruiting and supporting competent candidates with a background centered in communities. Sure, the lawyers and business types might be good at schmoozing for bucks among the local and state Hoi polloi, but they just can't speak to voters in a way that really shows empathy and a sense of understanding their problems.
We need more people like Tim Walz who doesn't wince and look like he's sucking lemons when he talks about the struggles of minorities or LGBTQ people because, as a teacher and coach, he dealt with the problems of a wide range of people every day. You don't get that kind of perspective working as a corporate lawyer or sitting in some boardroom every day.
Yes this makes sense. The impediment though is not recruitment it is rolodexing. If you ask the DNC, DSCC, or DCCC what makes a good candidate they fall back on fundraising because the people who staff those organizations focus on donations. They want to know who will donate to your campaign and whether you will spend that money on their friend who is a campaign consultant. That network and money-first focus is what drives away good candidates and also reinforces the cynicism about party politics. There are other things of course, and in my experience it is less of a thing at a local level but it is still present nonetheless.
In some sense when you see how the party hierarchy reacted to Mandami you get the sense that he offended their financing as much as their policies, perhaps more.
Agree with you fully here. The thing I'm seeing the RNC and NC GOP doing is running ads on social media and streaming services in support of some state-level candidates or general image building to remind GOP voters why they should get out the vote. The Democrats? Nothing. Just ads from candidates themselves.
Basically, the DNC and state Dem party isn't providing the infrastructure for legislative candidates after the primaries, promoting the slate of Dem candidates up and down the ballot and even spending a trivial amount of money on ads on streaming sites and social media to push candidates in districts where they're running.
How frickin' hard would it be to run an ad campaign reminding voters to make sure they're registered and why they should prepare to vote for Dem candidates in the mid-terms or general election?
The way the DNC uses email is the absolute worst. If you wind up on their mailing list, you wind up inundated with spammy money begs every day and sometimes multiple times a day.
Compare that to how advocacy groups like the ACLU or NAACP use email to inform supporters about the organization and what they're doing, perhaps once a week or less, with an email a supporter would actually want to read, with the money beg at the bottom or reserved for a once in a while mailing.
I was hopeful the DNC might have turned the page and gone in a more positive direction after watching the convention. It was the best convention I'd seen in many years with purposeful themes and guests that showed the diversity of the party, why the issues were so important, and reminded me of why I identified as a Democrat.
But, nope, after the convention was over, it was back to business as usual, with the state and national DNC seeing their only mission as being a cash register.
That's not acting like a functional political party. The consultants and sticks in the mud need to be shown to the curb, along with their spam email and PR campaigns that are right out of the pre-World Wide Web days.
In a sense, everyone saying the Dem messaging didn't work was right. It wasn't the message that was the problem - it was the fact that the party itself doesn't know how to create a brand identity and build and motivate supporters in the current media and technology climate.
Remember - if you don't build an identity for yourself, the RNC will gladly make one for you.
I certainly agree that Dems need to be careful about using Mamdani as model everywhere, but think you push back a bit too hard on that. As you point out, his laser like focus on affordability is a winning strategy everywhere. Also, seems odd to point out that Sherrill and Spanberger did better among moderate voters than Mamdani did. To the best of my knowledge, they weren't running against two candidates to his right and one (the most famous Dem in NYS and absurdly well funded) was running for "moderate vote." On socialism thing, that is correct stat on most Americans not having positive view of it. That is not the case among Dems. "A new Gallup poll finds that while U.S. adults overall are more likely to have a positive view of capitalism than socialism, Democrats feel differently. According to the survey, only 42% of Democrats view capitalism favorably, while 66% have a positive view of socialism."
Problem is that not one of those who favor "socialism" really understand what that means. We are talking about social democracy, not socialism, and I doubt that any of those in favor of the latter would welcome that reality.
How those 66% of Dems who said they had a positive view of socialism (and among younger Democrats it is higher) define socialism is an interesting question and feel free to share any data you have on that. The Gallop poll Thomas and I cite doesn't define it. Just a guess, but I imagine most define it as an economy where there is a much more robust social safety net, universal healthcare, more worker say at the work place through unions, that sort of thing (basically the way Sanders and Mamdani describe it). That's how my students (I teach at a college) tend to define it.
Perhaps the meanings of the terms have changed (though sadly then in favor of the Republican narrative). I was taught to understand socialism as a variant of communism, rejecting most if not all elements of capitalism. Social democracy, on the other hand and embraced by the West for over a century, does not reject that structural elements of capitalism and accepts private ownership and prosperity. Since Bismark, however, social democracy recognizes the need for safety nets for those who either cannot compete or have endured misfortune, been born into poverty, etc. It regards health care, food and housing as basic rights. I think this is the version that even Bernie Sanders and certainly Mamdani understand. On the other hand, by conflating the two terms we play directly into the hands of Republicans, who regard or paint "socialism" and "communism" as one and the same, knowing that very, very few Americans would buy into that overall philosophy. This is why I suspect that the 66% who say they have positive views of "socialism" don't really mean "socialism," in the strict sense but actually really only like the social welfare elements of social democracy. As I said at the outset, perhaps the basic meanings have changed, just as happened to the word "liberal". If so, then "socialism," like "liberal" has just become a cussword and, IMHO, a losing proposition for Democrats.
Bernie Sanders has a particular way of defining Democratic Socialism. I have seen him stumble around trying to explain what it is. He certainly does not intend for the means of production to be largely owned by the government as would be the case under true socialism. Rather the capitalist corporations and the wealthy would be properly regulated and would not be taxed into oblivion, but rather would be paying their "fair share". Workers would be empowered, higher education would be free, and we would have universal healthcare based on a single payer. Diversity and multiculturalism would be valorized.
Me to, Lawrence. Maybe later I will do some googling to see what I can find. When asked directly about Democratic Socialism, Bernie is politically shrewd enough to equivocate to some degree. I wonder how Mamdani defines it. Likely the most extreme articulation would come from Michael Moore.
The boomers who don’t have a clue what “democratic socialism” means will not be around forever. Unfortunately for many, they likely have less time than they think once the Guardians of Pedophiles (GOP) take aim at Medicare next time since they’ve already basically destroyed the ACA health insurance program and Medicaid is hanging by a thread.
Fine. Call it the “Social Democratic Party” so the boomers will feel better if you must. Whatever you want to call it, the US version of capitalism is a DISASTER. I’ll take the Swedish version of government over this smash and grab by billionaires that’s rocketing most of us into poverty any day!
If things continue as they are, people will be thrilled just to have food and healthcare no matter what the system that brings it is called.
I’d love to live in one of the happiest countries in the world! This ain’t it. Are we “great again” yet?
A word on “affordability.” The term is still an abstraction. It's technical and impersonal. People are worried about the cost of living, the cost of groceries, rent, their everyday struggles, etc. And they are struggling. Affordability in six syllables doesn’t speak to what they are feeling. I've been doing rush hour sign protests 4-5 days/wk. since August. People, especially those under 35, come up to me on the street, look me square in the eye, and thank me for six simple words: YOUR LIFE SHOULDN’T BE THIS HARD. They slap my back, fist bump me, ask for a photo. Why? They feel seen. https://digbysblog.net/2025/11/02/working-who/
I could not agree more, both with your "big tent" approach and, particularly, with your urging Democrats to stop allowing the GOP to control the narrative by adopting stupid terms like "defund the police" and "Socialist". Not only are these terms ridiculously misrepresentative of real general sentiments and policies but they lose the audience instantly. I remember anticipating that "defund the police " would become "defend the police". Sure enough, billboards with that phrase went up by the next day, and I bet they resonated far more with the general voting public.
I agree that in Trump country, the word “socialism” is a pejorative epithet. But it takes only a question or two to discern that people who parrot the epithet don’t know what it means. Indeed, the propaganda of the right has conflated the essence of socialist with the boogey-man “communist”. China, Cuba, etc are communist AND totalitarian, not socialist nor democratic. The fall of the Iron Curtain liberated the Eastern European countries from the communism AND totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, and let them join the rest of the EU…the “democratic and socialist” models of the EU. In terms of policies, my friends who spit “socialist” like Medicare, like Social Security, want access to healthcare, don’t want education to cost their life savings, want to vote….they also buy insurance, enjoy the NFL (socialist business models!). If they think democratic socialism has failed, they have not visited Europe…there is a lot for Americans to envy. And it is capitalist!
I have lived in NC for 35 years. I am a voting democrat and I have very high expectations, set by Obama and now Mamdani, for any candidates running for state and federal office. I am looking for candidates who demonstrate through their actions that they genuinely are connected with the people and work for the people. Both Obama and Mamdani have done this. I hope enough North Carolinians have felt the shock and pain from being duped by republicans that we can turn our state blue.
I grew up in Germany and now live here. Looking at the policies Mamdani embraces, it looks exactly like social democratic ideals to me, not like socialism as we have seen it in former East Germany for example. But you are correct, when i mention to friends and neighbors (from the other side especially) just the word socialist alone gets me that scared „deer in the headlights“ stare, that is hard for me to understand. However, what does it take for people to look at the policies, instead of the label? Also, as you are probably aware, none of the Western European safety net policies are free to the people, they are just universal. A little bit of that here in the United States would go a long way and would make people’s lives so much easier, especially in the areas of costs for healthcare and education. What to do?
Realized late in my mother's life that she was a small "d" democratic socialist, who appeared to be a slightly liberal Democrat in upstate South Carolina. It was largely her background, coming from late 1930s Paris (a big C Communist suburb, to be exact) that made her support national health insurance, most notably. When we lived in NYC (1957-1972) she voted Democrat except possibly for John Lindsay, someone who wouldn't be a Republican in this era. I've interacted with "Greens" in the Triangle, and to some extent elsewhere in NC, who had/have positions that fit in with D-Soc positions. Having run a number of times in Chapel Hill (won 4 times) I don't see even CH as having D-Socs running for office successfully. Carrboro has had, in an uncontested election. Boone and Asheville could as well, maybe winning.
Interesting analysis, Thomas. Democratic Socialism is in effect the personal brand of Bernie Sanders. When Bernie hangs it up, it will be interesting to see if the likes of AOC and Zohran continue to use that label. An untested hypothesis is what might have happened in 2016 if Sanders had been the Democratic nominee instead of Hillary Clinton. Many people I know contend that Bernie would have won based on his appeal as an eccentric outsider with a message of economic populism. He would have pulled the rug out from under the Greens while also energizing those who stayed at home or left the presidential line blank on their ballots (a big problem in Michigan) I have a feeling that Trump's nickname of Crazy Bernie might have stuck, but who knows.
As for what we might do in North Carolina, William Barber often references the Fusion ticket in 1896. We are capable of thinking outside of our old boxes, as we did when Jim Holshouser won for governor in 1972 and (alas) Jesse Helms for the Senate in that same year. George McGovern had a lot to do with that, of course.
Mamdani did prevail in a tough Democratic primary prior to the election. I personally would have voted for Brad Lander
The "elephant in the room" with Mamdani isn't the "socialist" label or even his policies. It's his authenticity.
Mamdani has been a community organizer and lives in Brooklyn. He rides the subway, knows the city, and is the kind of guy that average people would run into in the city.
One of the things I've noticed, on the local level, is that Republicans and many Democrats running for office aren't someone you'd run into when you go grocery shopping or see randomly at at restaurant or shopping center.
In my county, people on the town council and county commissioners have traditionally been old money "upper crust" types who have big exclusive homes, country club memberships, and aren't going to go slumming at Food Lion. And I'm talking about both Democrats and Republicans.
In this cycle, I saw the people winning seats on my local city council and on the county commissioners that were a middle class firefighter, active in the local community, a small business owner from a middle class average neighborhood, and similar candidates.
Compare this to one prominent county commissioner from a few years ago whose husband operates a charter airline and comes from a prominent, very rich, Republican-connected family. You never saw her around town where "normal" people go. Now, she's in the state legislature.
My point is that the Democrats need to get better at recruiting and supporting competent candidates with a background centered in communities. Sure, the lawyers and business types might be good at schmoozing for bucks among the local and state Hoi polloi, but they just can't speak to voters in a way that really shows empathy and a sense of understanding their problems.
We need more people like Tim Walz who doesn't wince and look like he's sucking lemons when he talks about the struggles of minorities or LGBTQ people because, as a teacher and coach, he dealt with the problems of a wide range of people every day. You don't get that kind of perspective working as a corporate lawyer or sitting in some boardroom every day.
Yes this makes sense. The impediment though is not recruitment it is rolodexing. If you ask the DNC, DSCC, or DCCC what makes a good candidate they fall back on fundraising because the people who staff those organizations focus on donations. They want to know who will donate to your campaign and whether you will spend that money on their friend who is a campaign consultant. That network and money-first focus is what drives away good candidates and also reinforces the cynicism about party politics. There are other things of course, and in my experience it is less of a thing at a local level but it is still present nonetheless.
In some sense when you see how the party hierarchy reacted to Mandami you get the sense that he offended their financing as much as their policies, perhaps more.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/31/democratic-party-political-fundraising-dccc/
Agree with you fully here. The thing I'm seeing the RNC and NC GOP doing is running ads on social media and streaming services in support of some state-level candidates or general image building to remind GOP voters why they should get out the vote. The Democrats? Nothing. Just ads from candidates themselves.
Basically, the DNC and state Dem party isn't providing the infrastructure for legislative candidates after the primaries, promoting the slate of Dem candidates up and down the ballot and even spending a trivial amount of money on ads on streaming sites and social media to push candidates in districts where they're running.
How frickin' hard would it be to run an ad campaign reminding voters to make sure they're registered and why they should prepare to vote for Dem candidates in the mid-terms or general election?
The way the DNC uses email is the absolute worst. If you wind up on their mailing list, you wind up inundated with spammy money begs every day and sometimes multiple times a day.
Compare that to how advocacy groups like the ACLU or NAACP use email to inform supporters about the organization and what they're doing, perhaps once a week or less, with an email a supporter would actually want to read, with the money beg at the bottom or reserved for a once in a while mailing.
I was hopeful the DNC might have turned the page and gone in a more positive direction after watching the convention. It was the best convention I'd seen in many years with purposeful themes and guests that showed the diversity of the party, why the issues were so important, and reminded me of why I identified as a Democrat.
But, nope, after the convention was over, it was back to business as usual, with the state and national DNC seeing their only mission as being a cash register.
That's not acting like a functional political party. The consultants and sticks in the mud need to be shown to the curb, along with their spam email and PR campaigns that are right out of the pre-World Wide Web days.
In a sense, everyone saying the Dem messaging didn't work was right. It wasn't the message that was the problem - it was the fact that the party itself doesn't know how to create a brand identity and build and motivate supporters in the current media and technology climate.
Remember - if you don't build an identity for yourself, the RNC will gladly make one for you.
I absolutely concur. The consultants and corporate donors are killing the Dems. Tone-deaf "leadership" in Congress isn't helping either.
Well said!
That’s true. Can you imagine seeing Richard Hudson in the wild?!? 😜 You can’t even see him in his office!😂
I certainly agree that Dems need to be careful about using Mamdani as model everywhere, but think you push back a bit too hard on that. As you point out, his laser like focus on affordability is a winning strategy everywhere. Also, seems odd to point out that Sherrill and Spanberger did better among moderate voters than Mamdani did. To the best of my knowledge, they weren't running against two candidates to his right and one (the most famous Dem in NYS and absurdly well funded) was running for "moderate vote." On socialism thing, that is correct stat on most Americans not having positive view of it. That is not the case among Dems. "A new Gallup poll finds that while U.S. adults overall are more likely to have a positive view of capitalism than socialism, Democrats feel differently. According to the survey, only 42% of Democrats view capitalism favorably, while 66% have a positive view of socialism."
Problem is that not one of those who favor "socialism" really understand what that means. We are talking about social democracy, not socialism, and I doubt that any of those in favor of the latter would welcome that reality.
How those 66% of Dems who said they had a positive view of socialism (and among younger Democrats it is higher) define socialism is an interesting question and feel free to share any data you have on that. The Gallop poll Thomas and I cite doesn't define it. Just a guess, but I imagine most define it as an economy where there is a much more robust social safety net, universal healthcare, more worker say at the work place through unions, that sort of thing (basically the way Sanders and Mamdani describe it). That's how my students (I teach at a college) tend to define it.
Perhaps the meanings of the terms have changed (though sadly then in favor of the Republican narrative). I was taught to understand socialism as a variant of communism, rejecting most if not all elements of capitalism. Social democracy, on the other hand and embraced by the West for over a century, does not reject that structural elements of capitalism and accepts private ownership and prosperity. Since Bismark, however, social democracy recognizes the need for safety nets for those who either cannot compete or have endured misfortune, been born into poverty, etc. It regards health care, food and housing as basic rights. I think this is the version that even Bernie Sanders and certainly Mamdani understand. On the other hand, by conflating the two terms we play directly into the hands of Republicans, who regard or paint "socialism" and "communism" as one and the same, knowing that very, very few Americans would buy into that overall philosophy. This is why I suspect that the 66% who say they have positive views of "socialism" don't really mean "socialism," in the strict sense but actually really only like the social welfare elements of social democracy. As I said at the outset, perhaps the basic meanings have changed, just as happened to the word "liberal". If so, then "socialism," like "liberal" has just become a cussword and, IMHO, a losing proposition for Democrats.
Bernie Sanders has a particular way of defining Democratic Socialism. I have seen him stumble around trying to explain what it is. He certainly does not intend for the means of production to be largely owned by the government as would be the case under true socialism. Rather the capitalist corporations and the wealthy would be properly regulated and would not be taxed into oblivion, but rather would be paying their "fair share". Workers would be empowered, higher education would be free, and we would have universal healthcare based on a single payer. Diversity and multiculturalism would be valorized.
I would agree with your interpretation of Bernie's views, though I am really only guessing since I can't, of course, speak for him.
Me to, Lawrence. Maybe later I will do some googling to see what I can find. When asked directly about Democratic Socialism, Bernie is politically shrewd enough to equivocate to some degree. I wonder how Mamdani defines it. Likely the most extreme articulation would come from Michael Moore.
Excellent commentary. Bread and butter issues. Let each community see hunger and people needing health care = so long Grand Old Party
The boomers who don’t have a clue what “democratic socialism” means will not be around forever. Unfortunately for many, they likely have less time than they think once the Guardians of Pedophiles (GOP) take aim at Medicare next time since they’ve already basically destroyed the ACA health insurance program and Medicaid is hanging by a thread.
Fine. Call it the “Social Democratic Party” so the boomers will feel better if you must. Whatever you want to call it, the US version of capitalism is a DISASTER. I’ll take the Swedish version of government over this smash and grab by billionaires that’s rocketing most of us into poverty any day!
If things continue as they are, people will be thrilled just to have food and healthcare no matter what the system that brings it is called.
I’d love to live in one of the happiest countries in the world! This ain’t it. Are we “great again” yet?
A word on “affordability.” The term is still an abstraction. It's technical and impersonal. People are worried about the cost of living, the cost of groceries, rent, their everyday struggles, etc. And they are struggling. Affordability in six syllables doesn’t speak to what they are feeling. I've been doing rush hour sign protests 4-5 days/wk. since August. People, especially those under 35, come up to me on the street, look me square in the eye, and thank me for six simple words: YOUR LIFE SHOULDN’T BE THIS HARD. They slap my back, fist bump me, ask for a photo. Why? They feel seen. https://digbysblog.net/2025/11/02/working-who/
I could not agree more, both with your "big tent" approach and, particularly, with your urging Democrats to stop allowing the GOP to control the narrative by adopting stupid terms like "defund the police" and "Socialist". Not only are these terms ridiculously misrepresentative of real general sentiments and policies but they lose the audience instantly. I remember anticipating that "defund the police " would become "defend the police". Sure enough, billboards with that phrase went up by the next day, and I bet they resonated far more with the general voting public.
I agree that in Trump country, the word “socialism” is a pejorative epithet. But it takes only a question or two to discern that people who parrot the epithet don’t know what it means. Indeed, the propaganda of the right has conflated the essence of socialist with the boogey-man “communist”. China, Cuba, etc are communist AND totalitarian, not socialist nor democratic. The fall of the Iron Curtain liberated the Eastern European countries from the communism AND totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, and let them join the rest of the EU…the “democratic and socialist” models of the EU. In terms of policies, my friends who spit “socialist” like Medicare, like Social Security, want access to healthcare, don’t want education to cost their life savings, want to vote….they also buy insurance, enjoy the NFL (socialist business models!). If they think democratic socialism has failed, they have not visited Europe…there is a lot for Americans to envy. And it is capitalist!
North Carolinians. I expect the NCDP writes this stuff for him. He is, I hope, smarter than that.
I have lived in NC for 35 years. I am a voting democrat and I have very high expectations, set by Obama and now Mamdani, for any candidates running for state and federal office. I am looking for candidates who demonstrate through their actions that they genuinely are connected with the people and work for the people. Both Obama and Mamdani have done this. I hope enough North Carolinians have felt the shock and pain from being duped by republicans that we can turn our state blue.
Thomas,
I grew up in Germany and now live here. Looking at the policies Mamdani embraces, it looks exactly like social democratic ideals to me, not like socialism as we have seen it in former East Germany for example. But you are correct, when i mention to friends and neighbors (from the other side especially) just the word socialist alone gets me that scared „deer in the headlights“ stare, that is hard for me to understand. However, what does it take for people to look at the policies, instead of the label? Also, as you are probably aware, none of the Western European safety net policies are free to the people, they are just universal. A little bit of that here in the United States would go a long way and would make people’s lives so much easier, especially in the areas of costs for healthcare and education. What to do?
What about the term ‘progressive capitalist’? I have heard this term more recently.
Realized late in my mother's life that she was a small "d" democratic socialist, who appeared to be a slightly liberal Democrat in upstate South Carolina. It was largely her background, coming from late 1930s Paris (a big C Communist suburb, to be exact) that made her support national health insurance, most notably. When we lived in NYC (1957-1972) she voted Democrat except possibly for John Lindsay, someone who wouldn't be a Republican in this era. I've interacted with "Greens" in the Triangle, and to some extent elsewhere in NC, who had/have positions that fit in with D-Soc positions. Having run a number of times in Chapel Hill (won 4 times) I don't see even CH as having D-Socs running for office successfully. Carrboro has had, in an uncontested election. Boone and Asheville could as well, maybe winning.
Please write a column that addresses Roy Cooper’s daily plea for a donation. He needs to talk about what he will do for orth
Interesting analysis, Thomas. Democratic Socialism is in effect the personal brand of Bernie Sanders. When Bernie hangs it up, it will be interesting to see if the likes of AOC and Zohran continue to use that label. An untested hypothesis is what might have happened in 2016 if Sanders had been the Democratic nominee instead of Hillary Clinton. Many people I know contend that Bernie would have won based on his appeal as an eccentric outsider with a message of economic populism. He would have pulled the rug out from under the Greens while also energizing those who stayed at home or left the presidential line blank on their ballots (a big problem in Michigan) I have a feeling that Trump's nickname of Crazy Bernie might have stuck, but who knows.
As for what we might do in North Carolina, William Barber often references the Fusion ticket in 1896. We are capable of thinking outside of our old boxes, as we did when Jim Holshouser won for governor in 1972 and (alas) Jesse Helms for the Senate in that same year. George McGovern had a lot to do with that, of course.
Mamdani did prevail in a tough Democratic primary prior to the election. I personally would have voted for Brad Lander