Progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed won his Michigan Democratic primary Tuesday night, defeating a more moderate opponent and setting up a contest against Republican Mike Rogers. For Republicans hoping to capture the Senate seat, El-Sayed’s victory may look like a welcome development. But treating the growing strength of Democratic Socialists simply as an electoral gift could prove shortsighted.
El-Sayed is hardly alone. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has become one of the country’s most visible socialist politicians, while Democratic Socialist candidates and activists are gaining attention elsewhere. The Democratic Party is simultaneously dealing with a widening argument over just how far left it should move.
From the Republican perspective, the temptation is obvious. Candidates advocating government-owned enterprises, abolition of the Senate, sweeping changes to policing and prisons, and other policies well outside traditional American politics would seem to give the GOP unusually favorable opponents.
That assumption deserves scrutiny.
John Rogers, a pollster with Cygnal, described the situation as a “monkey’s paw scenario” during a recent appearance on “Washington Watch.” Republicans might receive exactly what they think they want electorally while watching political ideas they strongly oppose become increasingly mainstream.
“I think we need to be careful about what we wish for,” Rogers said.
Michigan provides an immediate example. Rogers argued that El-Sayed becoming the Democratic nominee could improve Mike Rogers’ chances of capturing the Senate seat. Such a Republican pickup would be consequential in a closely divided Senate.
“But the rise of the Democratic Socialists and people like El-Sayed is not a good thing for the country,” the pollster added.
That distinction matters. Winning an election against socialism is one thing. Watching socialism become sufficiently popular that defeating it requires increasingly competitive elections is another.
There is also evidence that Democratic Socialism has moved beyond a tiny ideological faction. A recent CNN poll found that roughly one-third of Democrats identify as Democratic Socialists. Whether that represents a durable political realignment remains uncertain, but it means Republicans cannot safely assume that attaching the word “socialist” to a candidate automatically makes that candidate unelectable.
The economic conditions helping these politicians make their pitch are equally important.
Many younger Americans are confronting housing prices that put homeownership beyond their immediate reach. Some carry substantial student debt. Prices have risen, and wages have not always kept pace with the expenses households encounter. Someone who believes the existing economic arrangement offers little opportunity to accumulate property or wealth may be more receptive to politicians promising a radically different one.
Republicans can respond with arguments about government intervention, debt, productivity and historical examples of socialist governments. They can point to Venezuela, Cuba and the Soviet Union. But those arguments do not automatically resolve the immediate financial concerns of an American who cannot afford a house.
That creates a political problem that ridicule will not solve.
There is also a recent warning about assuming that an ideologically objectionable opponent must necessarily be an electorally weak one.
Democrats made precisely that calculation with Donald Trump.
During the years preceding the 2016 presidential election, some Democrats regarded Trump as an opponent they would be delighted to face. His candidacy attracted enormous media attention, generated ratings and frequently produced statements his opponents considered disqualifying.
The attitude was memorably captured in 2013 when John Oliver, guest-hosting “The Daily Show,” repeatedly urged Trump to run for president as the audience laughed.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign later pursued what became known as its “pied piper” strategy, regarding Trump and several other Republican candidates as opponents whose success in the GOP primary could improve Clinton’s prospects in the general election.
Then Trump won.
The lesson is not that El-Sayed, Mamdani or another Democratic Socialist will necessarily reproduce Trump’s trajectory. Their circumstances, constituencies and politics are different. The lesson is narrower: Political parties have a poor incentive to help normalize opponents merely because those opponents initially appear easier to defeat.
Republicans laughing at Democratic Socialists today should remember Democrats laughing at Trump.
A candidate who seems impossibly radical can still benefit from changing economic conditions, generational turnover and dissatisfaction with established institutions. Ideas that once carried a prohibitive political stigma can become ordinary subjects of debate surprisingly quickly.
That makes the underlying economic argument more important than the immediate electoral one.
