Lessons from November 2025

Unless you've been under a rock for the past year (or maybe even if you have), you've probably heard quite a bit about the rock-bottom polling of the Democratic Party as a brand, and the corresponding white-hot fury of Democratic voters who feel the party is failing to meet the moment. The grassroots outrage at 7 Democrats and 1 independent voting to capitulate and end the government shutdown throws this into even sharper relief.

Over the past year, frustrated Democrats have decried their party for weak leadership, uninspiring messaging, and most of all a business-as-usual approach to the staggering overreach and corruption of Trump and Republicans. Yet, somehow, last Tuesday’s election results — with victories for Democrats that media dubbed “surprising” and “a blowout” — turned Democrats’ exasperation on its head. (As one of the CEBV team said: “I forgot that elections can be good and not nervous breakdown inducing!”) Then, not even a week later, Democrats abdicated their overwhelming political advantage to a president who is as unpopular as it's possible to be these days, leaning into obsolete old-guard thinking to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

There's a lot to learn from all this. Arizona's elections this year were mostly local, not on the same scale as those in many other states, but the results of these other elections allow us to glean important lessons. Next year will bring Arizona our own major statewide elections, so we need to pay attention. Here are CEBV's takeaways.

1: People want to vote for something. 

Take Zohran Mamdani. He didn’t simply defeat a scandal-plagued billionaire-class opponent who lacked ideas or imagination. He galvanized New York City into its highest mayoral election turnout since 1967. He also spurred over 100,000 people to volunteer for his campaign — a nearly unheard-of number. Despite more than 20 billionaires squandering over $22 million to try to stop the charismatic millennial, Mamdani won handily.

Anand Giridharadas (@anandwrites)

I would not be surprised if there are dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of relationships that eventually come out of that volunteer corps. There are going to be Zohran volunteer marriages and children five, ten, twenty years from now. People want to be part.

SubstackAnand Giridharadas

This record turnout and sky-high civic participation point to people’s hunger for leaders with authenticity and clearly displayed, firmly held principles. It was hope, not fury, that galvanized the New York electorate. A candidate doesn’t have to embrace Democratic socialism to win in Iowa or Florida, but people-centered reforms that address real voter concerns can — and do — win elections.

Mamdani also showed that candidates can rely on kitchen-table issues as part of a grander vision — building a city where real people can afford to live and thrive — so that voters can envision a future that welcomes them. And, of course, being a charismatic, joyful candidate doesn’t hurt.

2: "Moderation" is a trap.

We say this for so many reasons. Here are just a few.

"Compromise" enables backsliding. For decades, well-funded and singularly focused Republicans have ruthlessly pursued unilateral power. They've been careful and consistent in notching incremental wins that advance that long-term agenda. They've refused to be deterred by setbacks along the way. Because they have played the long game, our democracy is now weak enough that a full-scale authoritarian regime has been able to plow into the gaps. 

Trading temporary wins for permanent losses is a recipe for disaster. Arizona offers many cautionary examples. For example: In 2006, Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano convinced a Republican-controlled legislature to give her $160 million to fund full-day kindergarten by “compromising” and agreeing to an expansion of private school tax credit vouchers. Guess what? Republican lawmakers yanked the kindergarten funding the minute there was a budget crunch, but Arizona still has school tax credit vouchers (which cost our state $140 million in 2024 alone).

By making deals with bad actors like these, compromise Democrats are signing a death warrant for progress. When your opponents' goal is to remove even the slightest possibility that anyone else might ever govern, and they are willing to see even the most microscopic win as a step toward that goal, "compromising" with them is — to say the least — counterproductive.

Centrism depresses turnout. The vast majority of “independent” voters aren’t neutral or centrist. Decades of research shows most identify with a political party, hold strong core beliefs, and may embody mixed or even contradictory views. This is why centrist messaging often results in these voters seeing compromise Democrats as politicians with few core beliefs. The bone-weary voter cynicism this milquetoast messaging generates (why vote for a candidate who doesn't believe in anything? indeed, why vote at all?) results in more left-leaning voters staying home rather than vote for a candidate they find unappealing or uninteresting — in other words, in more Republicans winning elections. The 2024 presidential election was lost not to a competing idea or vision, but to the couch.

Centrists often test the temperature before taking a stand. Mamdani, on the other hand, served as a thermostat, not a thermometer: he created the weather around the issues he favored. He refused to throw vulnerable populations, like trans kids, under the bus for political gain, for example. This turned out to be not only the moral stance but the winning one. Despite a boatload of money spent on anti-trans attack ads in 2025, these ads failed to gain any traction whatsoever with the electorate.

"Compromise" with MAGA normalizes extremism. By treating hardline Republicans as normal negotiating partners, centrists normalize their extremist positions, thus shifting the Overton window of acceptable policy further right over time.

"Centrism" puts decorum over principles. Just say “Kyrsten Sinema” at a political gathering and step back. A politician who values the tool of bipartisanship (or procedure, or decorum) over actually achieving anything will be punished by voters. Those who tell you to “follow the rules” have often written the rules and know you can’t win by following them.

We're reminded of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his 1963 “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” In his famous open letter to the “white moderates” who opposed the marches and sit-ins for which he was jailed, King champions the need for nonviolent protest and admonishes those who tell him to "wait for a more convenient season." If you haven't read it recently, we encourage you to do so:

Sound familiar?

At best, the centrist's insistence on "decorum" vaults appearing "moderate" or "bipartisan" in importance over the achievement of tangible results. At worst, it's a jackboot that keeps the downtrodden subjugated, a silk-sheathed, pearl-clutching cudgel wielded against those out of power to ensure they remain so.

3: Stand for something, dammit!

People who want a more authentic political vision are rightly vilifying the “consultant class.” This style of "governing," in which politicians won't scratch their own asses without commissioning a poll first, gets the entire purpose of representative government backwards. It turns our leaders into followers who mindlessly chase fluctuating poll numbers, rather than actual leaders who use their own judgment to do the right thing.

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold… The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity." (The Second Coming, William Butler Yeats) 

Voters want to elect leaders, and to be a leader, you need a vision of the way society ought to function. Indeed, part of Mamdani’s viral success is that he embodies strong beliefs and doesn't shy away from confrontation. (In his victory speech, he said, “I am young, despite my best efforts to grow older. I am Muslim. I am a Democratic socialist. And most damning of all, I refuse to apologize for any of this.”) And throughout his campaign, he refused to be baited, instead engaging with criticism on his own terms. (When one heckler called him a "communist" as he was preparing to ride a Citi Bike, he responded without missing a beat, "It's pronounced cyclist" — then turned the moment into a campaign video and a story in Time.)

4: Tepid centrist claptrap falls flat with voters.

When you factor out the corrupting variables of money and incumbency, the supposed electoral bonus for moderate candidates vanishes entirely. In other words, "centrism" does not actually win more elections.

The idea of centrism has long been spun as gospel, but that just doesn’t work for today’s electorate. Voters aren’t looking for “compromise.” They’re looking for someone who will fight for them against a system they believe is fundamentally rigged. Voters will forgive officeholders who fight and lose, but they won't forgive those who don't fight at all.

Even though the Democratic establishment is going all in on a strategy built on a mirage, we don’t expect centrist claptrap to disappear anytime soon. Today's Democratic Party is astoundingly resistant to change. But November's resounding successes prove the winning power of candidates who lead with clear values and work to implement their vision. Imagine if more candidates harnessed the same electricity — if we had more genuine human beings running for office who actually spent time with voters and listened to their concerns and desires.

It's time for a bold new generation of candidates who not only reach for power, but will do something with it.