WASHINGTON, D.C. —A political change is taking place inside the Democratic Party but describing it simply as Black and Brown voters suddenly embracing communism would miss what election results and public-opinion research actually show.
The more revealing question is this:
Who is voting for candidates associated with democratic socialism and the progressive left—and why are those candidates sometimes winning even when they perform poorly with traditional Black or Latino Democratic constituencies?
Recent elections involving New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed and Washington, D.C., mayoral nominee Janeese Lewis George illustrate a Democratic electorate increasingly divided not simply by race, but by age, education, geography, ideology, turnout and economic priorities.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders helped build the national political infrastructure for this movement years earlier.
Yet these politicians should not all be described as communists.
Communism, socialism, democratic socialism and progressive Democratic politics are different political traditions. Mamdani and Ocasio-Cortez are associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. El-Sayed has embraced many policies associated with Sanders’ progressive movement but has resisted attempts to define himself simply as a democratic socialist.
Whatever terminology critics or supporters use, something significant is occurring inside Democratic primary politics.
The First Misconception: Black Americans Do Not Uniformly Reject Socialism
There is a widespread assumption that Black Americans overwhelmingly oppose socialism.
National polling complicates that claim.
Pew Research Center found in 2022 that 52 percent of Black Americans had a positive impression of socialism. The comparable numbers were 49 percent among Asian Americans, 41 percent among Hispanic Americans and 31 percent among White Americans.
That does not mean half of Black America wants the United States transformed into a socialist economy.
Survey respondents attach very different meanings to the word “socialism.” Some associate it with government ownership of industry. Others associate it with Social Security, Medicare, public education, universal health insurance, stronger labor protections or government assistance for working families.
Gallup has similarly found that Americans increasingly interpret “socialism” differently from its classical economic definition.
This distinction matters enormously.
A voter can support Medicare, Social Security, public schools and subsidized child care while supporting private property, privately owned businesses and a market economy.
That voter cannot accurately be assumed to support communism.
Americans Overall Still Prefer Capitalism
The country as a whole has not become socialist.
Gallup’s 2025 polling found that 54 percent of Americans viewed capitalism positively, compared with 39 percent who viewed socialism positively.
Socialism therefore remained a minority position nationally.
But something very different happens when the electorate is divided by party and generation.
Democratic voters are considerably more receptive to the term “socialism” than Republicans. Younger Americans are also substantially more receptive than older Americans.
That creates precisely the type of electorate in which a democratic-socialist candidate can win a Democratic primary without demonstrating that socialism has become the preference of the entire American population.
A primary electorate is not America.
It is not even necessarily representative of all registered Democrats.
It consists of the people who actually participate in that particular election.
And turnout can transform a relatively small ideological movement into an extremely powerful electoral force.
Mamdani Demonstrated the Importance of Age
Zohran Mamdani’s political rise in New York provides one of the clearest examples.
Mamdani is a democratic socialist, not a communist. His campaign emphasized affordability: housing, transportation, child care and the cost of living.
During his initial rise, however, polling repeatedly showed that his strongest constituency was not necessarily older Black and Latino Democrats.
His strength was particularly pronounced among younger and more progressive voters.
That is crucial.
New York contains millions of Black and Latino residents, but an election is determined by the people who vote—not by the racial percentages appearing in Census tables.
A highly motivated coalition of younger voters, progressives, renters, college-educated voters, Asian voters and left-leaning White voters can overcome weaker support among another demographic group.
Mamdani subsequently broadened his coalition.
That suggests his victory cannot be reduced to “White socialists elected him” any more than it can be claimed that Black and Latino voters alone elected him.
His coalition evolved.
The important lesson is that race was not the only—or necessarily the strongest—political dividing line.
Age increasingly matters.
The Generational Divide May Be Bigger Than the Racial Divide
This may be the most important development in the entire story.
Pew found that Americans under 50 were considerably more likely than older Americans to have positive impressions of socialism.
Among Democrats, the generational difference was particularly striking.
Younger Democrats were much more likely to view socialism positively while viewing capitalism negatively than older Democrats.
That means two Black Democrats—or two Latino Democrats—separated by 40 years of age may have substantially different attitudes toward capitalism, government intervention, health care, policing, housing and economic inequality.
The same is true among White voters.
Consequently, asking simply, “How did Black people vote?” increasingly misses important divisions within Black America.
The better questions include:
How did Black voters under 30 vote?
How did Black homeowners vote compared with Black renters?
How did college graduates vote?
How did union households vote?
How did older churchgoing voters vote?
How did voters in high-cost urban neighborhoods vote?
Those distinctions can produce dramatically different answers.
Washington, D.C., Presents an Especially Interesting Test
Washington provides perhaps the most fascinating example because of its history as a center of Black political power.
But one factual correction is necessary.
Washington is no longer more than 75 percent Black and Brown based on current Census estimates.
The Census Bureau’s recent figures put the District’s Black population at roughly 42 to 43 percent, while approximately 13 percent of residents identify as Hispanic or Latino. Those categories also cannot simply be added together because Hispanic origin and race are measured separately.
Washington nevertheless remains a city with an extraordinarily important Black electorate.
That makes the rise of Janeese Lewis George significant.
Lewis George identifies as a democratic socialist and has received support from organized progressive and labor groups.
Her campaign has concentrated heavily on affordability—especially housing, utilities and child care.
That is an important clue about what may be happening.
Some voters may not be entering the voting booth asking:
“Do I support socialism?”
They may instead be asking:
“Who says my rent will come down?”
“Who says child care will become affordable?”
“Who says my utility bill will decrease?”
“Who says more housing will be built?”
A candidate can therefore win support for a collection of policies without every voter accepting the candidate’s ideological label.
That distinction is fundamental to understanding modern urban progressive politics.
Why Doesn’t an Independent Automatically Capture the Anti-Socialist Vote?
The existence of an independent candidate does not mean voters who dislike socialism will automatically migrate to that candidate.
American voters make decisions using many considerations simultaneously: party identification, candidate familiarity, campaign organization, endorsements, money, volunteer networks, perceived viability, neighborhood relationships and individual issues.
Washington presents an additional structural factor.
The Democratic primary has historically carried enormous importance because Democrats dominate District politics.
That creates institutional advantages for whoever captures the Democratic nomination.
An independent candidate therefore has to persuade voters not merely that the Democratic nominee is too progressive, but that the independent represents a credible governing alternative.
That requires organization.
Elections are not ideological opinion polls.
A voter can dislike socialism as an abstract concept and nevertheless vote for a democratic-socialist candidate because that voter agrees with the candidate about rent, schools, abortion, Donald Trump, public transportation or another issue considered more important.
Michigan Offers Another Clue
The August 2026 Michigan Democratic Senate primary produced another important example.
Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated Rep. Haley Stevens.
But geographically, the result does not support a simplistic theory that Michigan’s traditional Black Democratic electorate carried El-Sayed to victory.
Stevens performed strongly in Wayne County, home to Detroit and Michigan’s largest concentration of Black voters.
El-Sayed found crucial strength elsewhere, including areas associated with Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids.
That is enormously important.
It demonstrates how a progressive candidate can win statewide even without dominating the Democratic Party’s traditional Black urban base.
The coalition can be assembled elsewhere.
University communities matter.
Young voters matter.
Highly educated progressives matter.
Activists matter.
Small-dollar donors matter.
Organized volunteers matter.
White progressives matter.
Some Arab and Muslim voters matter.
And progressive voters scattered across multiple metropolitan areas can collectively offset losses within another Democratic constituency.
That appears to be part of the emerging electoral formula.
Bernie Sanders Built the National Infrastructure
Bernie Sanders did not invent socialism in America, so calling him the “father of socialism” would be historically inaccurate.
American socialist political movements existed more than a century before Sanders became a national political figure.
What Sanders did accomplish was different.
He helped move the term democratic socialism from the margins of contemporary American electoral politics into mainstream Democratic debate.
His presidential campaigns demonstrated that a candidate running openly as a democratic socialist could raise enormous sums from small donors, attract young voters, fill arenas and compete seriously for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Sanders also changed the Democratic policy conversation.
Medicare for All, tuition-free public college, higher minimum wages, stronger union protections and aggressive taxation of extreme wealth became subjects of mainstream presidential debate.
He did not win the Democratic presidential nomination.
But movements can lose elections and still change political parties.
Sanders helped create a generation of activists who no longer considered “socialist” an automatically disqualifying political label.
Then Came Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became perhaps the most successful congressional representative of the political generation inspired by Sanders.
Her 2018 defeat of powerful Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley demonstrated something important about primary elections.
A heavily favored establishment politician can lose when an insurgent campaign creates intense enthusiasm among voters who actually participate.
Ocasio-Cortez subsequently became one of America’s most recognizable politicians.
She has remained closely aligned with Sanders on many economic issues and has advocated programs including Medicare for All, aggressive climate policy, stronger labor protections and higher taxation of wealthy Americans.
Her significance therefore extends beyond her congressional district.
She helped demonstrate that the Sanders movement could produce candidates who actually captured and retained political office.
So Who Is Voting for the Socialist Left?
The evidence suggests there is no single racial answer.
The emerging progressive and democratic-socialist electorate is assembled from overlapping constituencies.
It includes substantial numbers of younger voters, especially younger Democrats; progressive White voters; some Black voters; some Latino voters; significant Asian and South Asian constituencies in particular elections; union households; renters confronting high housing costs; college students and graduates; activists concerned about economic inequality; voters dissatisfied with the Democratic establishment; and voters attracted to specific government programs without necessarily identifying themselves as socialists.
And that last category may be among the most important.
A person does not have to say, “I am a socialist,” to vote for Mamdani, Lewis George, Ocasio-Cortez or another politician associated with democratic socialism.
The voter may simply prefer that candidate’s proposed solution to a particular problem.
The Word “Socialism” May Mean Different Things to Different Generations
For Americans who lived through the Cold War, socialism and communism often evoke the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, state ownership, political repression and geopolitical conflict.
Many younger Americans have no personal memory of that world.
Their formative political experiences are different.
They have experienced the Great Recession, rapidly increasing college tuition, student debt, extremely high housing prices, expensive health insurance, the COVID-19 pandemic and widening debates about wealth inequality.
Consequently, when some younger voters hear “socialism,” they may think less about Soviet central planning and more about universal health care, inexpensive college, paid family leave or affordable housing.
That does not mean the historical definition of socialism has disappeared.
It means political language itself has changed.
Gallup’s research supports this conclusion: Americans who view socialism positively frequently describe it in terms of equality and government-provided services rather than government ownership of the entire economy.
Black Political History Adds Another Complication
Black American political history cannot easily be placed into a capitalism-versus-socialism binary.
Black Americans have built businesses and churches, fought for property ownership and entrepreneurship, supported labor unions, defended Social Security and Medicare, demanded government enforcement of civil rights laws and supported federal programs aimed at correcting discrimination.
Those positions do not fit neatly into one ideological box.
Pew found in 2022 that 54 percent of Black adults had a negative impression of capitalism, while 40 percent viewed it positively.
Yet Black Americans also expressed considerable faith in Black-owned businesses as instruments of economic advancement.
That apparent contradiction is actually informative.
Many voters distinguish between markets themselves and whether the existing economic system distributes opportunity fairly.
A person can strongly support entrepreneurship while believing government should intervene against discrimination, monopolies, unaffordable health care or housing shortages.
Primary Elections Magnify Organized Minorities
There is another explanation that should not be overlooked:
Turnout.
Primary elections frequently attract fewer voters than general elections.
That gives organized political movements disproportionate influence.
Imagine a city containing 500,000 eligible voters.
If only 150,000 participate in a Democratic primary, a candidate does not need the support of a majority of the city’s adult population.
The candidate needs enough support among those 150,000 participants.
If one ideological movement is younger, highly organized, enthusiastic, knocking on doors and persuading its supporters to vote while another constituency assumes its preferred establishment candidate will win, the smaller but more energized coalition can prevail.
That is not unique to socialism.
The same phenomenon occurs in Republican primaries, where highly motivated conservative constituencies can defeat more moderate candidates.
Primaries reward intensity.
The Democratic Party Is Experiencing an Internal Argument
What Mamdani, Lewis George, El-Sayed, Ocasio-Cortez, and Sanders collectively represent is larger than the political label “socialism.” Their rise reflects an ongoing struggle over the future direction of the Democratic Party, between a traditional liberal wing favoring incremental change and broad center-left coalitions and a progressive wing demanding greater government intervention in housing, health care, wages, and economic inequality. Neither side can assume that race alone will determine the outcome: Black, Latino, White, and Asian voters are not politically uniform, younger voters increasingly differ from their parents and grandparents, and the Democratic primary electorate can behave very differently from the American electorate as a whole.
The Question Is No Longer Simply Black, Brown or White
That may be the central lesson emerging from these recent elections. For decades, American political analysis frequently began by dividing Democratic voters into racial and ethnic constituencies, with Black, Latino, White, Asian, and other voting blocs treated as relatively predictable components of the party’s electoral coalition.
Race remains enormously important in American politics, particularly because history, economic inequality, civil rights, immigration, and regional differences continue to influence voting behavior. Yet race alone is increasingly insufficient to explain the ideological struggle developing inside the Democratic Party. New political fault lines are appearing across generation, class, education, housing status, geography, economic security, and attitudes toward capitalism and the role of government, creating divisions that can exist within the same racial or ethnic community.
Michigan illustrates the point particularly well: a progressive candidate could show comparatively weaker support in heavily Black Wayne County yet accumulate enough votes elsewhere to capture the Democratic Senate nomination, demonstrating that a candidate does not necessarily need to dominate the party’s traditional Black urban base if another sufficiently large and motivated coalition emerges.
New York has offered another example, revealing the electoral strength of younger and progressive voters while demonstrating how a democratic-socialist politician can use an insurgent political movement as a foundation and then attempt to broaden that coalition beyond its ideological base. Washington, D.C., presents another important test because of the city’s historic role as a center of Black political power and Democratic Party loyalty.
The contest there may help reveal whether the progressive and democratic-socialist movement can build durable support across generations and racial groups or whether its strength remains concentrated primarily among younger, more ideological, and highly organized voters. Taken together, these elections suggest that understanding the Democratic electorate now requires looking beyond race alone and examining who votes, where they live, how old they are, what economic pressures they face, which policies motivate them, and which political organizations are most successful at turning those concerns into actual votes.
The emerging answer to the question, “Who is voting for the socialists?” cannot be reduced to a single racial, ethnic, or economic group. Instead, recent elections point toward a changing coalition made up of voters with very different motivations. Some are committed democratic socialists who openly support a larger government role in the economy, while others are progressives who support many of the same policies but would never describe themselves as socialists. Younger voters, including those who have become skeptical of capitalism because of high housing costs, student debt, health-care expenses, wage pressures, and widening economic inequality, represent another important part of this electorate. Still others are conventional Democratic voters who may have little interest in ideological labels but simply prefer a particular candidate to the available alternatives. There are also voters who support individual proposals—such as affordable housing, expanded health coverage, public transportation, higher wages, subsidized child care, or stronger labor protections—without believing that they are voting to replace capitalism with socialism.
This distinction helps explain what can otherwise appear to be a contradiction in American politics. The United States as a whole has not embraced socialism, and national polling continues to show capitalism receiving greater overall public approval than socialism. Yet democratic-socialist and strongly progressive candidates do not need a majority of Americans to embrace socialism in order to win Democratic primaries, particularly in heavily Democratic cities and congressional districts. They need a sufficiently large, motivated, organized, and reliable coalition to participate in the election.
When primary turnout is relatively low, an energized movement capable of registering voters, raising money, organizing volunteers, knocking on doors, communicating through social media, and actually getting its supporters to the polls can defeat a better-known or more traditionally aligned candidate. Recent elections therefore suggest that the more revealing political question is no longer simply whether Americans support or oppose socialism as an abstract ideology, but which voters are participating, what specific policies are motivating them, and which political movement is most successful at getting its coalition to show up and vote when the election is actually held.
_____
By M. Bell, Staff Reporter contributed to this report.
(Copyrighted 2026) Bee News Daily All rights reserved.
