As you eye 2028, the field of potential nominees for the presidential election is dominated by moderates, ranging from Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer to Cory Booker and Josh Shapiro. But, with years of evidence and the 2026 midterm elections already suggesting that more radical candidates can energize voters and outperform expectations, the party is ignoring a clear warning sign. If Democratic leaders continue to treat moderation as the default, they are gambling with the future of the American people.
For years, Democratic strategists and politicians have clung to a familiar assumption: centrism is the path to electoral success. A good example of this assumption is in the Oct. 20th, 2025, Op-Ed by The New York Times editorial board, titled, “The Partisans Are Wrong: Moving to the Center Is the Way to Win.” In the article, the Editorial Board argues that there remains a meaningful political center in the U.S. and that moderates consistently outperform more ideologically extreme ones in competitive districts. As a result, the Editorial Board claims, Democrats win more often when they nominate candidates closer to the center because most voters are less aligned with any one political party and more with their day-to-day struggles.
Recent analysis and electoral outcomes suggest that this belief is not only flawed but may be actively undermining the party’s ability to win and govern effectively. A 2025 study conducted by political scientists Adam Bonica at Stanford University and Jake Grumbach at the University of California, Berkeley, directly examines claims that moderates outperform progressives in general elections. Their analysis finds that models claiming a large “moderate advantage” are fundamentally flawed, arguing that these models rely on biased measurement choices that systematically inflate the success of moderate candidates while undervaluing progressive ones.
When the authors replaced these flawed metrics with more rigorous modeling, the supposed advantage for moderation largely disappeared. Once incumbency and other structural factors were properly accounted for, the difference between moderate and progressive candidates became small or statistically indistinguishable.
Furthermore, the centrist argument doesn’t align with recent electoral evidence. Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani defied centrist expectations and, according to CNN, won the New York mayoral election by approximately 9.5 percentage points against moderate Democrat Andrew Cuomo. In Maine, progressive Democrat Graham Platner is running essentially uncontested after Governor Janet Mills suspended her campaign on April 30. Not only that, but Platner is leading by six points in the general election polling, according to a poll conducted by WorkBench Strategy, a reputable poll company. In Texas, a state that has voted predominantly for Donald Trump in three consecutive presidential elections, progressive Democrat James Talarico is also polling 1-2% ahead of both potential Republican nominees, according to Impact Research, a polling firm.
Despite the questionable empirical support for moderation, it remains the dominant philosophy of the Democratic Party. This philosophy is not a result of voter demand but of institutional incentives embedded in the Democratic Party’s fundraising and endorsement structures.
Donors, PACs,and party leadership organizations tend to prefer candidates who are perceived as “safe,” predictable and broadly acceptable to business interests primarily concerned with profits. According to Open Secrets, a non-profit that tracks data on campaign financing, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer raised approximately $4.1 million from PACs and approximately $32 million from large individual donations between 2019 and 2024, while House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries raised approximately $2.6 million from PACs and approximately $7.2 million from large individual donations between 2023 and 2024. This donor-driven ecosystem helps explain the broader governing position of party leadership.
Last fall, Chuck Schumer failed to hold his caucus together in the face of a Republican spending bill that cut healthcare subsidies for millions. While Schumer himself voted against the bill, he was unable to stop centrist Democrats from reopening the government without securing those subsidies.
This episode reflects a broader pattern in Schumer’s inability to translate leverage into policy wins. As Nathan J. Robinson, writer and editor-in-chief of Current Affairs, wrote in his Nov. 2025 Op-Ed, Schumer’s leadership often embodies a kind of democratic “fecklessness,” where institutional stability takes priority over aggressive bargaining for the American people.
Moving away from moderation is the clearest pathway towards delivering real material change for working people. Policies like raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, expanding access to affordable housing and providing universal or near-universal childcare are broadly popular. In fact, according to the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans support raising taxes on corporations. These are measures that directly target the economic pressures facing the working class, who, according to the Center for American Progress, make up around 60% of the country. Candidates who run on clear commitments to these kinds of policies are better positioned to build governing coalitions around actual economic transformation for their constituents, rather than being structurally constrained by corporate influence and donor pressure.
For Democrats in 2028, a moderate-heavy field may appear stable in theory. However, it risks producing candidates who fail to generate the urgency to maximize turnout. In a polarized political environment, the most effective strategy is not persuading the moderate wing; it is activating the working class.
Now I am calling on you, the Democratic Leadership, to take the growing evidence from both academic studies and real-world election results seriously and act accordingly. It is time to stop allowing donor pressure and institutional incentives to dictate strategy and instead prioritize the public good directly: raise taxes on the wealthy, lower costs, expand housing, and secure universal childcare. If you continue to ignore the warning signs and do nothing, you are not simply misreading politics; you are risking your integrity, your credibility and your responsibility to the people you claim to represent.
Sincerely,
Matan Shulman
