On election night, Democrats had two major victories platformed on a message of affordability, delivered through different ways. In New York City, Zohran Mamdani won the mayoral race in a progressive, pro-interventionist campaign. In New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill claimed the governorship through a pragmatic cost-relief message aimed at a broader electorate.
In New York City, Mamdani’s victory was historic and emphatic. He became the city’s 111th mayor, defeating former governor Andrew Cuomo and perennial Republican challenger Curtis Sliwa. With turnout surpassing 2 million votes and a decisive predicted win in the news media, his win is being portrayed as a mandate for bold, system-changing reforms. His platform centered on affordability: a rent freeze, expansion of affordable housing, free bus fares, city-owned grocery stores, childcare access, and a $30 minimum wage by 2030.
In New Jersey, Sherrill defeated Republican Jack Ciattarelli in the gubernatorial race to keep the state blue. She ran on an “affordability agenda” that promised to declare a utility-cost emergency on day one, cut grocery and energy bills, ease property-tax burdens, and boost housing supply. Her message was less about sweeping structural overhaul and more about concrete relief for working families across the state.
Campaign Strategies: Same Ends, Different Means
Both campaigns identified the same underlying voter anxiety: the cost of living keeps going up while wages struggle to keep pace. In New Jersey, voters in Monmouth and Ocean counties repeatedly cited high energy bills, grocery costs and tax burdens as top motivations. In New York City, Mamdani emphasised that renters and younger workers were being squeezed out of the city, and pitched an agenda of public intervention to re-engineer affordability from the top down.
The difference lies in how each candidate proposed to address the problem. Mamdani’s method focuses on bold structural change. He leaned into progressive suggestions: tax the wealthy and corporations, build thousands of units of permanently affordable housing, eliminate bus fares, operate city-owned grocery outlets. In short, he advocated for public intervention and rethinking market outcomes.
Sherrill’s method, however, focused on cost-relief through targeted reform. Her campaign emphasised lowering bills and taxes, streamlining government, enabling more competition (in groceries, utilities, housing supply, etc.), and using the existing apparatus in a more democratic manner. She pitched herself as a manager of government who delivers savings rather than an ideologue reshaping the system.
Despite these differences, the common goal is clear: affordability. Importantly, each campaign tailored this to their jurisdiction’s scale and electorate. Mamdani’s interventionist tone resonated in NYC’s dense, diverse, largely-Democratic electorate of renters and transit users; Sherrill’s message resonated in an electorate composed of everyday New Jersey voters anxious about everyday costs.
Implications for the 2026 Midterms
These victories represent the crossroads that Democrats face heading into the 2026 midterms. Will the party lean into the bold, system-changing, progressive cost-of-living agenda of the Mamdani campaign or follow the pragmatic, cost-relief messaging aimed at a broad, heterogeneous electorate of the Sherrill campaign?
If the progressive path scales, Democrats might emphasize public-option policies: free or deeply subsidised services (childcare, transit, groceries), aggressive taxation of high earners, and coalition building among younger, more diverse urban voters. But that path risks appearing too radical in more moderate or swing districts, especially in states or regions where the electorate is less left-leaning.
Conversely, the moderate path offers a message that could travel better across states with mixed electorates. A focus on “cutting your bills” rather than “restructuring the system” may appeal in swing suburbs and rural-adjacent districts, helping Democrats defend seats or pick up open ones. However, that path may struggle to excite younger or progressive voters who are demanding more transformative policy.
For the 2026 midterms, the question is not just which issue, but which tone. The rising cost of living gives Democrats traction as voters are listening to affordability instead of culture war alone. But the how of the message will matter. In urban districts and mayoral races, the Mamdani-style approach may be winning ground. For statewide and congressional contests in more mixed jurisdictions, the Sherrill-style message may prove more effective. Democrats will need to calibrate according to geography, electorate composition and policy feasibility.
In short: the 2025 election night wins are not only about candidates. They signal possible blueprints for 2026. The question is whether Democrats will unite around one model or adopt a differentiated, terrain-specific strategy. As exciting as Mamdani’s win is for the progressive movement and his grassroots backing across the nation, Democrats have shown us in the past that they are willing to step over populist policies that are viewed as too much. In recent memory, Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign was a victim of this: universal healthcare was too radical, income inequality was too taboo to speak of, and all of his ideas of handing out “free” things weren’t actually free. As a result, the Democratic party would nominate Hillary Clinton: an establishment democrat who knew what to stay quiet on. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, it is quite likely we will once again see the Democratic party shy away from grassroots politics of Mamdani.
