

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
His victory proves that Democrats can not only win over Trump voters but perhaps even more importantly reach voters who are not normally part of the political process.
While it may be hard for Democrats to admit it, the fact of the matter is that over the past 10 years Donald Trump has been able to expand his political base in ways that seem inconceivable. In the immediate aftermath of the 2024 elections, Trump’s achievements were clear to Democratic pollster John Zogby who wrote in The Guardian a week after the 2024 election:
But 2024 exit polling has clearly shown that MAGA has expanded beyond its original base. Trump outperformed his previous runs by substantial numbers among men and women, particularly young men; Black people, Latinos, Asian/Pacific Islanders; and suburban voters. He grew his support among voters in every state.
Many Democratic pundits have been in denial about Trump’s 2024 achievement let alone trying to chart effectively how Democrats can expand their electorate. There is some good news here as the 2025 elections as Zohran Mamdani in his successful run for mayor of New York City has demonstrated that Democrats can also expand their electorate.
It is certainly true that New York City is not necessarily a model for political communications and organizing in the United States. Nonetheless, an analysis of the 2025 results offer the Democrats some lessons. Kabir Khanna, CBS’ director for election analytics, has broken down the 2025 results and come up with some very intriguing conclusions.
All parts of the Democratic Party should study Mamdani’s winning campaign and figure out how Democrats can reach Trump voters and nonvoters.
Khanna’s analysis finds that fully 14% of Mamdani voters either voted for Trump (5%), for a third-party candidate (3%), or did not vote for president (6%).
Mamdani non-Harris voters tend to be younger than the electorate as a whole (two-thirds were under age 45), less likely than Harris voters to have a college degree, and tend to be less affluent (44% under $50,000 annual income). Mamdani was clearly able to expand the Democratic electorate by bringing in more blue collar and younger voters.
To his credit, Khanna acknowledges that New York City is not representative of the country as a whole. However, he does find some interesting parallels in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races:
Democrats Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia won in landslides, thanks both to high turnout in Democratic areas and some Trump voters flipping. And it was voters of color, specifically Latino voters, and younger voters who were the likeliest to flip. In New Jersey, for example, 18% of Latino Trump voters flipped to Sherrill this year, while only 5% of white Trump voters did so. Add to this group voters who backed this year's Democratic nominees but didn't turn out in 2024 and you see many of the same characteristics as we saw in New York: The Democrat-not-Harris voters tend to be younger, less partisan, less affluent, and more focused on the economy.
There is nothing in the CBS data that shows us how effective Mamdani was as a communicator. I do think we can infer that from Mamdani’s ability to reach voters in unexpected ways and maintain a consistent stance on his issue. Contrary to what many thought, after he won the Democratic primary, Mamdani stuck with his progressive platform and did not try to move to the center.
Mamdani’s victory shows that Democrats can not only win over Trump voters but perhaps even more importantly reach voters who are not normally part of the political process. A number of self-styled Democratic centrists are wary of what Mamdani’s win means for the future of the Democratic Party. I would point out to these centrists that future elections will determine the direction of the Democratic Party. In the meantime, all parts of the Democratic Party should study Mamdani’s winning campaign and figure out how Democrats can reach Trump voters and nonvoters. The outcome of the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections will be determined by how effectively the Democrats can learn lessons from the 2025 election results.
For our democracies to function we need to repair the social contract between generations and work toward such a shared vision of the future.
On this day last year, I was at the United Nations Summit of the Future in New York where world leaders agreed a global Pact to “safeguard the future.”
The Pact for the Future, adopted by the UN General Assembly, lists 56 actions governments have committed to. These cover peace and security, sustainable development, science and technology, youth, and global governance—all with the ultimate goal of protecting the needs and interests of present and future generations.
The challenges are immense. As the preamble to the pact states, “If we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown.” But to start to confront the challenges, we need multilateral cooperation for the long term and the pact provides a foundation for this.
I left the US feeling hopeful.
We all must remind ourselves that someday we will be the past generations and it’s our decisions now that will shape the future.
A year on, it’s hard to hold on to that sense of hope. The world feels like a very different place this September compared with last.
Could such a summit even take place in 2025? Given US President Donald Trump’s "my way or the highway" approach to international diplomacy and his weaponization of tariffs in trade relation; and given the lack of progress toward negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine and ending the genocide in Palestine, it’s hard to imagine a diplomatic consensus being found today on leaving a better world for future generations.
This downward spiral of the last 12 months makes the pact even more precious.
Amid all the chaos and conflict in the world, with war raging, famine, extreme weather events, and the very fabric of our democracies coming apart at the seams, these commitments provide a vision to hold on to.
For our democracies to function we need to repair the social contract between generations and work toward such a shared vision of the future. Participation in democracy is key across generations—for individuals to say what their priorities are and choose representatives to act on the things they care about. However, participation isn’t equal across generations, and thus nor is representation.
In the 2024 US presidential election, voter turnout was lowest for the 18-24 age group; less than half of citizens in this age bracket voted. By contrast, the highest turnout was among 65-74 year-olds, three-quarters of whom voted. Similar voting patterns can be observed internationally.
It is natural that younger people are reluctant to participate in democracy when they feel governments are not acting in their longer-term interests—the climate crisis being the prime example. To build trust, governments need to show that they are listening and find ways to bring the voices of young people and future generations into decision-making processes.
Creating common visions about a desired future gives governments a goal to work toward. Having a clear vision helps them design policies knowing what direction they want to move in. Having broad, diverse participation can give them the support of the people.
Future generations governance uses co-creative and participatory methods, as well as tools like strategic foresight, to drive toward shared visions.
While it might feel like it, it’s not all doom and gloom in the world today.
Away from the front pages and social media feeds work is being done in different places to strengthen long-term thinking and the consideration of future generations in decisions.
Wales continues to be a leader. Its independent Future Generations Commissioner has existed since 2015 to support and challenge the Welsh government to represent the interests of those not yet born. This role was a result of a participative visioning process with citizens which set out in a legal Act seven well-being goals to “create a Wales that we all want to live in, now and in the future.”
Here in Europe, we have high hopes for the European Union’s first ‘intergenerational fairness’ strategy. Last year the bloc appointed its first Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness responsible for “making sure decisions taken today do not harm future generations.” Their work has the potential to provide a home for long-term thinking in the EU system and to ensure the interests of future generations are respected throughout EU policymaking.
Still under development, the strategy has had a huge amount of input from experts and citizens—myself included.
Another country setting a precedent is Norway. Earlier this year it convened a national citizens assembly to discuss how—as one of the richest countries in the world—it can use its wealth to benefit the world, Norwegians, and future generations. One of the resulting recommendations in as independent Commissioner to ensure that future generations have a voice in decision-making.
Outside Europe, the Australian parliament created a cross-party group for future generations, and Cameroon has created an Indigenous Commission for Future Generations.
Developments like these—at different levels, in different parts of the world—are how the long-term vision set out last year at the UN will be implemented on the ground.
We all must remind ourselves that someday we will be the past generations and it’s our decisions now that will shape the future.
A year ago today global leaders committed us to becoming good ancestors—future generations will be the judges of whether we succeed.
Believing the current style of door-knocking wins campaigns is the same as believing in Santa Claus.
Once upon a time, in a precinct long, long ago, there was a campaign that built voter contact programs solely from those who lived in the targeted neighborhood. The entire community shopped at the same grocery stores and even saw one another at the bank, gym, and library. In other words, this was totally different from today's "ground game," manned by people who drive from hours away, armed with clipboards, shiny new campaign t-shirts, and ready to tell residents exactly how they should vote.
While a ton of articles have been written about the importance of the "ground game" in the final days of the Harris campaign, no one is discussing the increasing problems and decreasing rate of return of this tactic. Time Magazine's October election article, "Democrats Bank on Ground Game Advantage in Pennsylvania," opens with the author observing that "most of the people on Elana Hunter's list weren't answering the door," but does not dig into the actual problem. The same is true with campaign analysis in hundreds of other news outlets. The New York Times wrote a lengthy piece comparing Vice President Kamala Harris' in-house door-knocking operation to the Trump campaign's outsourced field operation. The article highlights both sides bragging about how many doors they knocked on and how much paid staff was hired. But, neither side (nor the writers) discuss how few people answer their doors or even care what the stranger is selling.
This analysis misses the real problems of modern-day door knocking: Voters don't open their doors anymore, voters do not know their neighbors, and undecided voters are more skeptical than ever when it comes to talking about politics.
As Democrats, we should know that a last-minute paid "ground game" that gets dropped into the battleground days before an election hasn't worked in years.
Year-round precinct work with "local captains" who knew their "turf" and how each neighbor would vote disappeared as the campaign industry grew and political parties stopped building traditional ward systems. Instead, they were replaced with volunteers and paid voices that only knocked on doors during major elections. This transition from a known, trusted neighbor to an unknown door knocker has made modern campaigning a data-driven competition that ignores effectiveness as it optimizes toward knocking on the most doors.
Nonetheless, message and messenger still matter in all aspects of campaigns, especially in the field. Door-to-door salesmen are a relic of history (Even the legendary Fuller Brush company started transitioning out of door-to-door sales in 1985).
Public safety studies show neighborhoods are more responsive to community policing programs when public safety officers know the people they serve. Why would political campaigns be different?
Technology has also had a major impact on door knocking. It's now been a decade since the invention of video door camera technology. According to a 2024 Consumer Reports study, 30% of Americans use video door cameras. These changes in neighborhood dynamics and consumer behaviors are realities that must be faced.
The rite-of-passage, where a volunteer gets lost in below-freezing weather canvassing an unknown precinct or gets bitten by a dog while knocking on doors, needs to be relegated to history. While campaign war stories are fun, it's time to be honest about the changing times and begin a new chapter: These age-old tactics are neither sacred nor effective. If no one is home or no one is answering their door even if they are home, political campaigns need to change with the times.
To win more elections, target voters with appropriate messages and messengers. It's time to explore better ways to use scarce time, people, and money to achieve the desired victory. Are there better places to send volunteers to work more efficiently and rally potential voters?
This is not to say that field organizing should be discarded or that campaigns should go completely digital. (Lots of criticism is being written on the current problems with these newer tactics that will hopefully be fixed.) But, as the Democratic Party's messaging and mobilization are transformed, an honest assessment of all tactics is needed to understand what works and create better ways to win.
Remember, just because a tactic worked on one campaign, it will not always continue to work the same four years later. We have tried this with auto-calling and text messaging technologies and know they have diminishing returns each cycle. Now is the time to dig deep and have honest conversations with field organizers and volunteers to learn what tactics need to be retired and start adopting new approaches.
Let's stop pretending that more "fake neighbors" door-knocking is the solution to the Democrats' problems and focus on how to best reach targeted voters with a message that resonates, delivered by respected voices that matter, while we have time now to build a real organic field effort.
As Democrats, we should know that a last-minute paid "ground game" that gets dropped into the battleground days before an election hasn't worked in years. It didn't work on Howard Dean's well-funded 2004 campaign that flew tons of staff and volunteers to Iowa. It's now 20 years after the infamous Dean scream, and we continue to blindly follow the same failed "orange cap" tactics of these past campaigns: inserting last-minute volunteers and door-knocking teams instead of thinking about how to create long-term community-based approaches.
We all have to grow up at some point and face the truth. Or you could keep believing in Santa Claus and see what gift he brings you in the next election cycle.