“All politics is local,” Tip O’Neill famously said, and truer words have never been spoken.
That’s the foundational truth behind every factor or nuance that becomes the winning difference in individual elections. Whatever that issue turned out to be, it was local to the voters there.
And there’s nowhere more “local” than our own lives.
People vote for very personal reasons, having to do with their money, their health and their opportunities to climb the ladder.
Also to act on their most deeply held values and beliefs, though that’s happening less often these days. As I’ve remarked here before, a disturbing number of people voted for Donald Trump because they thought he was “funny.”
Sometimes, those local concerns coincide with national trends, like the way criticism of Israel’s politics, actions, leadership and billionaire committees seeking to influence our democracy influenced primaries in New York City.
Israel was a pivotal issue in New York because Israel is practically a borough of the city—if voters don’t physically live there, Israel occupies territory in their brain. It’s a local issue, like the subways, and the cost of living.
Politico ran a story about the New York City primaries that included this quote:
“The Democratic establishment better wake up — because the left is winning, they are on the outs, and it’s time for us to retire a few more members of Congress,” Usamah Andrabi of the progressive group Justice Democrats told Playbook.
Is it? Are they?
Have Democratic voters really shifted to the left? Is the answer to low turnout among Gen Z voters that the party of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries change to look more like Graham Platner and Darializa Avila Chevalier?
The left will continue to win in greater numbers than they used to, because there are more people who embrace left-wing ideas and they are better organized than Eugene Victor Debs. But don’t write off the “Democratic establishment.” Most Democrats are winning their primaries the old-fashioned way, by knocking on doors, energizing their base, and meeting voters.
Speaking of Schumer and Jeffries, critics of their endorsements forget that they do not see themselves as the embodiment of national Democratic leadership, representing the collective hope and will of all Democrats. They are leaders of their caucuses, and their primary focus is representing the interests and re-election of their members.
And as for Chuck Schumer, I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest he’s seen the writing on the wall, knows he’ll be 77 in 2028 and won’t seek another term. People need to relax about Chuck Schumer.
(I’ll go out on another limb and predict the next Senator from New York is Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez).
“All politics is local,” but not all localities are the same. The elements that gathered in New York City that coincide with a Democratic Socialist agenda are not easily replicated elsewhere. I agree with Joe Scarborough:
A pro-Palestinian doctoral student and a critic of Israel’s politics can win in New York because all politics is local.
Meanwhile in the same city, a candidate backed by party leaders, including the retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler, won because all politics is local.
And a little farther upstate, my own Assemblywoman won against a challenger from the left because all politics is local.
As a consultant to Democratic candidates for president (well, one), federal, state and local office, I’ve created campaign material like the dozens of mailers, letters and emails I received in this contest between incumbent Didi Barrett and her challenger, Sam Hodge.
Nancy Pelosi told us that “no one gives you power, you have to take it from them,” and she was absolutely right. She would never have advanced in a male-dominated system if she hadn’t boldly gone where no woman had gone before.
But you also have to be able to stand for something, and present a case for change. All Hodge had was his ambition. He targeted his opponent’s age and attacked her for not voting for a doomed bill in Albany to “tax the rich.” This priority for Democratic socialists was literally the only criticism he could muster—along with accusing Barrett of taking money from “greedy utility companies.”
I have been working for Democrats seeking to win elections on issues pertaining to campaign finance since I helped Mark Green lose to Al D’Amato in 1986. I was a development officer at Public Citizen. I ran the campaign of the first corporation to run for Congress, in reaction to what we called the “enlightened Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.”
Nothing has changed over the decades. Voters don’t care about campaign finance reform. They should, but they don’t.
I never thought for a moment that Hodge would win this election against a popular and accomplished incumbent.
He thought he could do what outsider candidates from the left always say they’ll do—create a new, younger, more progressive electorate that’s never shown up before.
Didi Barrett won with 75% of the vote. I shudder to think what Hodge spent for his 925 votes. I know from all those postcards what his consultants got.
You can’t win elections on slogans and mailings, as much as I would like to believe otherwise, being someone who gets paid to create slogans and mailings.
They can help, of course.
But first, you need to be talking to people who believe that elections matter. Primaries are a great way to find them.
As Taegan Goddard reminds Political Wire members (you should become one):
Of course, primary electorates are not general electorates. Turnout is lower. Activists are more likely to vote. The ideological edges of both parties tend to be overrepresented.
But that is precisely why these results matter. Primaries are where parties decide who gets to speak for them.
From the Upper West Side to the coast of South Carolina, primaries this week nominated Democrats representing the breadth and diversity of a party big enough to amplify many different voices.
Unlike that other Party being held hostage by a big baby.
Absolutely, I agree that the candidate matters most of all. One of Mamdani's great strengths is his authenticity. I would have voted for Lander in the primary if I was still a NYC voter but I think he's doing a great job. I worry about DC and Trump and know how hard is to be mayor of
DC...but I hope Janeese Lewis George finds a way to do well. Readers, consider my column amended!
I also think who the candidate is matters. Mamdani is a great candidate and is a great mayor. Some people voted him for change, others for his competence and his energy. Janeese Lewis George (in DC) is a great candidate. Some people voted for her because she is to the Left of the current mayor in DC, and some people just think she will do a good job running the city.
But a lot of the analysis of elections forget about the candidate.