The Left's to Lose

Oftentimes, in American politics, one party doesn't get pulled further towards its wings, such as the left if you're a Democrat, unless the other party implodes. It's happened a couple of times. In 1932, the Democrats adopted left-wing policies under FDR, but this would not have happened if Hoover and the Republicans hadn't completely bungled their response to the Great Depression a few years earlier and given FDR a landslide and therefore a mandate to transform the state. In the wake of Kennedy's assassination and Johnson's popularity in 1964, Democrats had the room to support Civil Rights legislation, helping to speed along the realignment in politics we have today. If you would have asked in 2004 if someone named "Barack Hussein Obama" would ever have a chance to win the White House, I would have laughed at you. Relative centrist policies aside, Obama's name alone would have likely stopped his campaign in earlier elections. Bush's toxic unpopularity in 2008 helped make that possible.

And now the Democrats sit at another crossroads. Until now, we really didn't have much data on how much voters would endorse or tolerate candidates who were further to the left within the Democratic party itself. Democrats have, at the time of writing this, flipped 30 state-level seats in places like Florida, Texas, Virginia, and elsewhere, and posted huge overperformance in congressional special elections. However, most of those wins came from traditional, more moderate Democrats that voters on the left are increasingly skeptical of.

Last night, New Jersey's 11th district held its special election to replace Mikie Sherrill, who won the governor's race last November. Sherrill is fairly moderate, and NJ's 11th is located in the suburbs of New York City, about a 40 minute drive from Times Square. It went to Harris by just 8 points, 53 to 45. Sherrill herself won her last congressional race in 2024 and her governor's race in the district by just a couple more points. This isn't AOC's district in the Bronx or Bernie's granola-left Vermont, or any district where you'd expect a member of the Squad to get elected.

Until last night. Not only did Analilia Mejia expand on Sherrill's victory and win comfortably by about 20 points, or 60% of the vote, but she won while running much further to the left of the vast majority of elected Democrats in DC today. Some were skeptical that someone who condemned Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide could win in a district that is in the top 20 in the US when it comes to number of Jewish voters, about 53,000, give or take.

None of this should be taken as an endorsement that the left can win everywhere. You still need to field candidates that have the best shot of winning in whatever district they're running, but this is a good indication that the map has expanded, putting not only a massive amount of seats in play, but expanding where candidates to the left of the Democratic establishment can win.

And just like in 1932, the Republican brand has become so toxic that there is space opening up within the general electorate to support more left-wing views. The district did not swing 18% to the left like other congressional races in recent special elections, but Mejia did grow over the previous results when moderates won. This delta, the difference between moderate wins and more progressive/left-wing results, is the wiggle room. It's a sign that the Democrats can and should breathe. They have the wiggle room to scoot farther left and adopt some of those policies, like they did in 1932, 1964, and even in 2008.