Copyright The New York Times
My column this week was a quick analysis of the results of the elections in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City, which were about the particular interests and concerns of each place and also a clear referendum on the state of things. I have a few other observations that I couldn’t quite fit into that piece, so I will share them here. First, I have been a little reluctant to comment on the arguments around the future of the Democratic Party, for the simple reason that I see most of them as beside the point. Any path forward will ultimately rest on public discontent with the president, and beyond that, Democrats are less in need of new messaging than they are in the social and political infrastructure needed to reach voters where they’re at. It is also clear to me that efforts to impose a single message are incompatible with the broad political and ideological diversity of the Democratic coalition. Better to focus on a set of areas that individual candidates can tailor to their respective electorates, which is exactly what happened on Tuesday. Abigail Spanberger, Zohran Mamdani and Mikie Sherrill — as well as many candidates down ballot — focused on affordability. They all emphasized their opposition to the president’s corruption. But the particulars of each effort varied according to the circumstances of each election and the views of each candidate. There is no one-size-fits-all template for winning, and the party shouldn’t try to impose one. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Second, the rhetorical centerpiece of the Republican Winsome Earle-Sears’s campaign for Virginia governor was anti-trans demagoguery. She clearly believed that she could weaponize prejudice against transgender people to win the governor’s mansion, under the theory that opposition to trans inclusion was a winning issue Democrats couldn’t beat. When the dust settled on Tuesday night, however, there was no evidence that issues affecting transgender people moved votes in the Republican Party’s direction. Earle-Sears’s attempt to repeat the success of President Trump’s “they/them” ads against Kamala Harris may have shown, instead, that 2024 was the exception that proved the rule. The question of whether transgender people can use public restrooms that fit their gender identity or whether trans girls can play sports with their cis counterparts just isn’t very salient to the public. Even Trump’s ad played on prejudice to make a point about material concerns. Anti-trans bigotry for its own sake is not a winning issue and may work, instead, to repel voters whose concerns lie elsewhere. Finally, Tuesday’s results may put a halt to Republican midyear redistricting. Gerrymandering isn’t a magic bullet. When you create a safe seat, you are not generating new voters as much as you are moving around the ones you already have. In many states, the only way to create new Republican-leaning seats is to dilute existing districts that have a strong Republican tilt. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
