Gen Z Democratic candidate running a campaign in the modern era

[superrific]

I get where you’re coming from, but Mamdani’s rent freeze proposal isn’t just some standalone slogan, it’s part of a broader housing strategy. He’s calling for a rent freeze specifically on rent-stabilized units in NYC, where many working-class New Yorkers are facing displacement from homes they’ve lived in for decades. That’s not just political theater; it’s a targeted measure to keep people housed while the city ramps up supply.

The rest of his platform includes building 200,000 new units and loosening zoning to encourage more private development. So it’s not anti-supply, it’s a both/and approach: protect tenants now, while expanding housing for the future. You might still disagree with the freeze on principle, but it’s part of a much more comprehensive plan than it might sound like in a soundbite.

All right. We know he's not going to build 200,000 new units. This is NYC. I don't think the rent-freeze idea depends on that.

Caveat: It's hard to have a meaningful discussion about housing policy in New York because so much depends on the details. Once upon a time, I knew those details, but I've forgotten a lot and probably a lot has changed (the data certainly has).

Anyway, as I remember it, a rent-stabilized unit is one where the rent cannot increase more than X% a year (whether or not it is occupied; occupation tightens the allowable increase, but I don't think stabilized units could ever just double in rents when the tenant changes). Except there is a cap: once the rent gets to a threshold, it is no longer capped at all.

IIRC the cap was $2000 a month. I don't know if that figure has changed, so let's go with it for illustration. Alice rented an apartment 18 years ago for $1000 a month. The rent has gone up by 4% a year, so it has now doubled. The next rent increase will take it over the $2000 cap, at which point it becomes unregulated. In the meantime, rents in surrounding properties have shot up. So the minute the rent gets one penny above $2000, the landlord will raise it to $4000 or more.

Whatever your views on rent control in general, this situation is untenable. Though at least with congestion pricing it's not quite as costly to move. . . .

 

[Paine]

Yeah, to be clear, I definitely don't think we should be trying to "let the system fix itself from within" - we need to be pressuring it with change from without. But the reality is that the incentives for congress members have been slowly realigned over the last few decades by what are mostly seemingly arcane changes to the internal congressional rules. The changes to filibuster rules that now have created a de facto sixty-vote threshold to pass legislation in the senate (and even worse, a situation where members don't even have to go on record voting against legislation, because it never comes up for debate or a vote at all); the changes to the way in which bills are presented for debate and review that has concentrated near-total control over what is debated and voted on in the hands of one or two congressional leaders; and of course the ceding of authority to the executive in a variety of ways, both intentional and unintentional. All of this creates a system where members of Congress have realized that it is better for them, politically and personally, to not have to take responsibility for doing (or not doing) anything, instead just pushing off all responsibility to the executive. So while the pressure has to come from the outside, the actual change does in fact have to come from the inside; the elaborate rule structure that has led to Congress self-imposing gridlock and dysfunction on itself can only be reformed or dismantled by Congress itself.

I also have to say that in many cases what the "boldness in the face of structural decay" that Progressives always seem to want is unilateral executive action. They wanted Biden to unilaterally expand the Supreme Court. They wanted more aggressive unilateral action on student debt, even when Biden's executive actions in that regard were overruled. I just want there to be an understanding that fixing the structural decay is going to be a prerequisite for any "bold action" progressives might want to achieve any lasting impact. Because any "bold action" that comes in the form of executive order or other executive action will, at best, simply disappear the moment executive power changes, and at worst will only exacerbate the cycle of increasingly aggressive partisan executive actions that is going to burn this whole thing down if it isn't stopped.

I’m with you on most of this. You’re absolutely right that a functioning Congress requires internal reform, and that means winning not just elections but control over the levers that shape procedure, committee power, and the legislative calendar itself. The current rules make real governance nearly impossible, even with a majority, unless you’re willing to go after those structural chokepoints. That’s a crucial part of the long game.

Where I think Mamdani’s approach becomes especially important is that it’s one of the few contemporary models that actually builds the foundation for that long game. He’s not just talking about what laws to pass; he’s growing the civic muscle needed to elect people with the courage and the mandate to change the rules. That only happens when politics becomes rooted again in collective, local organizing. When campaigns aren’t just about marketing, but about building power in neighborhoods, in workplaces, in housing fights.

You’re right that progressives can fall into the trap of wanting a president to fix everything with the stroke of a pen. That impulse is a symptom of the same hollow politics that produced today’s dysfunctional Congress. But the best of the left isn’t pushing for presidential fiat as a replacement for democracy. It’s pushing for executive boldness as a bridge while we fight to restore democratic capacity. And that requires movements on the ground that can pressure Congress to change itself, movements that look a lot more like Mamdani’s coalition than the average Twitter campaign.

No one campaign is the silver bullet. But we need dozens, hundreds of efforts like this across the country, each adapted to its terrain, each rooted in moral clarity and material stakes. That’s how you get the votes to rewrite the rules and finally govern with purpose again.

 

[Paine]

All right. We know he's not going to build 200,000 new units. This is NYC. I don't think the rent-freeze idea depends on that.

Caveat: It's hard to have a meaningful discussion about housing policy in New York because so much depends on the details. Once upon a time, I knew those details, but I've forgotten a lot and probably a lot has changed (the data certainly has).

Anyway, as I remember it, a rent-stabilized unit is one where the rent cannot increase more than X% a year (whether or not it is occupied; occupation tightens the allowable increase, but I don't think stabilized units could ever just double in rents when the tenant changes). Except there is a cap: once the rent gets to a threshold, it is no longer capped at all.

IIRC the cap was $2000 a month. I don't know if that figure has changed, so let's go with it for illustration. Alice rented an apartment 18 years ago for $1000 a month. The rent has gone up by 4% a year, so it has now doubled. The next rent increase will take it over the $2000 cap, at which point it becomes unregulated. In the meantime, rents in surrounding properties have shot up. So the minute the rent gets one penny above $2000, the landlord will raise it to $4000 or more.

Whatever your views on rent control in general, this situation is untenable. Though at least with congestion pricing it's not quite as costly to move. . . .

You’re right that “200,000 units” is an ambitious number, and skepticism is warranted. I think that goal is about setting a horizon and anchoring the rest of his policy vision. Unlike a lot of politicians, Mamdani isn’t pretending we can solve the housing crisis through supply alone. He’s saying: yes, build more, and yes, reform zoning, but also, in the meantime, don’t let the bottom fall out for people who’ve managed to hang on this long.

 

[superrific]

You’re right that “200,000 units” is an ambitious number, and skepticism is warranted. I think that goal is about setting a horizon and anchoring the rest of his policy vision. Unlike a lot of politicians, Mamdani isn’t pretending we can solve the housing crisis through supply alone. He’s saying: yes, build more, and yes, reform zoning, but also, in the meantime, don’t let the bottom fall out for people who’ve managed to hang on this long.

I have no problems with a politician making bold promises during a campaign. Almost all of them go at least partly unfulfilled; that's just the nature of political campaigns. That the 200K units won't happen merely means that Mamdani the candidate is more ambitious than Mamdami the mayor ever could be. In other words, he'd be like everyone else. I'm not going to single out a leftist for this sort of thing.

Now, if he was promising to double housing supply in a year and halve the rent, he would be starting to veer into Trumpian unrealism. Does not seem to be the case.

Maybe it's just me, but I think NYC is quite difficult to understand for people who haven't lived there. It's just so much different from virtually all other American cities. That's one reason why, in my view, the criticisms of rent control policies in NYC are often misplaced. That's not to say that rent control has always been implemented with maximum wisdom, but as a whole I think NYC is much better off because of rent stabilization and I doubt you'd find many NYCers not in the real estate business who would disagree. That wouldn't necessarily be true in other cities.

 

[duluoz]

Second, the long-term strategy is to rebrand what “socialist” means by tying it directly to tangible material improvements: rent freezes, free buses, universal childcare. That doesn’t happen overnight, but it won’t happen at all if every candidate runs scared from the label.

Sorry, but this point is a pipe dream. The term carries hundreds of years worth of baggage, and is freely associated with and confused with “communism” by many. That labeling simply does not fly in this country.

Package up the same ideas with a brand new, totally unrelated label slapped onto it, and you’re in business. Otherwise you’re looking at literal decades (at least) before that term earns a new connotation.

And as for it being viable as-is in some local races, sure. Some. But republicans anywhere and everywhere will still point to the state and federal representatives and legislators who endorsed the “socialist,” and we all get saddled with it.

And calling each other comrades, no matter how infrequently or tongue-in-cheek, is the stupidest and most tone-deaf way to serve up red meat on a silver platter.

There’s simply no defending nor rehabilitating the term in a way that makes more sense than just finding a new label for the same ideological platform. It’s maddening that it persists, but another of many ways Dems just don’t understand messaging.

 

[Paine]

Sorry, but this point is a pipe dream. The term carries hundreds of years worth of baggage, and is freely associated with and confused with “communism” by many. That labeling simply does not fly in this country.

Package up the same ideas with a brand new, totally unrelated label slapped onto it, and you’re in business. Otherwise you’re looking at literal decades (at least) before that term earns a new connotation.

And as for it being viable as-is in some local races, sure. Some. But republicans anywhere and everywhere will still point to the state and federal representatives and legislators who endorsed the “socialist,” and we all get saddled with it.

And calling each other comrades, no matter how infrequently or tongue-in-cheek, is the stupidest and most tone-deaf way to serve up red meat on a silver platter.

There’s simply no defending nor rehabilitating the term in a way that makes more sense than just finding a new label for the same ideological platform. It’s maddening that it persists, but another of many ways Dems just don’t understand messaging.

I get where you’re coming from, and I’ve heard that argument a hundred times. But here’s the thing: we don’t win the fight over words by abandoning them. We win by tying them to things that make people’s lives better. “Social Security” was once a terrifying idea too. So was “Medicare.” What changed wasn’t the label, it was people experiencing the benefit.

Yes, “socialism” carries baggage. But it also carries clarity. It says we believe in public goods, shared investment, and democratic control over the basics of life. That scares some people, but it also inspires others. You don’t build long-term power by hiding what you believe. You build it by connecting values to material results, over time.

You’re right that we’re not going to flip the connotation overnight. But that’s all the more reason not to let the right define it unopposed. If the only people saying “socialist” are Republicans using it as a slur, and we just run from it, we’ve already lost the frame.

To be clear, I’m not saying Democrats need to call themselves socialists. But I am one, and I’m not afraid of the label. I think the values behind it are worth defending, especially when they’re tied to things that make life better for working people.

 

[duluoz]

I get where you’re coming from, and I’ve heard that argument a hundred times. But here’s the thing: we don’t win the fight over words by abandoning them. We win by tying them to things that make people’s lives better. “Social Security” was once a terrifying idea too. So was “Medicare.” What changed wasn’t the label, it was people experiencing the benefit.

Yes, “socialism” carries baggage. But it also carries clarity. It says we believe in public goods, shared investment, and democratic control over the basics of life. That scares some people, but it also inspires others. You don’t build long-term power by hiding what you believe. You build it by connecting values to material results, over time.

You’re right that we’re not going to flip the connotation overnight. But that’s all the more reason not to let the right define it unopposed. If the only people saying “socialist” are Republicans using it as a slur, and we just run from it, we’ve already lost the frame.

To be clear, I’m not saying Democrats need to call themselves socialists. But I am one, and I’m not afraid of the label. I think the values behind it are worth defending, especially when they’re tied to things that make life better for working people.

You’re in a bubble. Important to recognize when to adapt, and stop expecting the world to adapt to you, and instead holding your head high and defiant imagining that you are fighting the good fight. There’s simply no rehabilitating the term in a way that doesn’t continue to cause collateral damage by way of hemorrhaged votes vs gained votes, which is what matters a hell of a lot more than dying on the hill of labels and semantics. You’re sacrificing the further acceptance of good ideas in favor of your terrible label. What a massive miscalculation.

And the rest of us are tired of carrying your baggage.

 

[Paine]

You’re in a bubble. Important to recognize when to adapt, and stop expecting the world to adapt to you, and instead holding your head high and defiant imagining that you are fighting the good fight. There’s simply no rehabilitating the term in a way that doesn’t continue to cause collateral damage by way of hemorrhaged votes vs gained votes, which is what matters a hell of a lot more than dying on the hill of labels and semantics. You’re sacrificing the further acceptance of good ideas in favor of your terrible label. What a massive miscalculation.

And the rest of us are tired of carrying your baggage.

If we’re going to talk about electoral baggage, let’s be real. Democrats have lost massive ground not because a handful of candidates call themselves democratic socialists but because the party has too often failed to deliver on the basics: jobs, wages, housing, healthcare. Voters aren’t leaving in droves because of labels, they’re leaving because they don’t trust the party to fight for them. That trust won’t be rebuilt by policing vocabulary. It’ll be rebuilt through action, clarity, and yes, moral courage.

I’m not living in a bubble. I’m advocating for a politics that doesn’t flinch when it comes to naming who’s hoarding power and who’s getting screwed. If that’s baggage, fine. But I’d argue the greater liability is a politics that tries to please everyone, offends no one, and ends up inspiring nobody.

 

[duluoz]

If we’re going to talk about electoral baggage, let’s be real. Democrats have lost massive ground not because a handful of candidates call themselves democratic socialists but because the party has too often failed to deliver on the basics: jobs, wages, housing, healthcare. Voters aren’t leaving in droves because of labels, they’re leaving because they don’t trust the party to fight for them. That trust won’t be rebuilt by policing vocabulary. It’ll be rebuilt through action, clarity, and yes, moral courage.

I’m not living in a bubble. I’m advocating for a politics that doesn’t flinch when it comes to naming who’s hoarding power and who’s getting screwed. If that’s baggage, fine. But I’d argue the greater liability is a politics that tries to please everyone, offends no one, and ends up inspiring nobody.

Here’s how it boils down, and my main point here — and I pray that Gen Z eventually gets this right since the rest of the party still hasn’t. With the electorate as it apparently exists, here’s the order of importance for gaining votes of pretty much any kind:

1. Messaging, packaging, and presentation of ideas, catchy slogans, charismatic figures
2. The actual ideas themselves, as concepts
3. The precise details of the ideas or policies, and their cost vs benefit clearly articulated

If anyone thinks otherwise, they’re overestimating enough of the electorate to keep on losing elections.

And everyone knows where the electorate see “Socialism,” “defund the police,” etc. as fitting into this equation. Messaging that is dead on arrival, taking their respective ideas down the drain with them without even a chance to be heard or considered.

 

[Paine]

Here’s how it boils down, and my main point here — and I pray that Gen Z eventually gets this right since the rest of the party still hasn’t. With the electorate as it apparently exists, here’s the order of importance for gaining votes of pretty much any kind:

1. Messaging, packaging, and presentation of ideas, catchy slogans, charismatic figures
2. The actual ideas themselves, as concepts
3. The precise details of the ideas or policies, and their cost vs benefit clearly articulated

If anyone thinks otherwise, they’re overestimating enough of the electorate to keep on losing elections.

And everyone knows where the electorate see “Socialism,” “defund the police,” etc. as fitting into this equation. Messaging that is dead on arrival, taking their respective ideas down the drain with them without even a chance to be heard or considered.

Just to be clear: I’m not trying to get caught up in the “socialist” label debate. That only came up in the context of Zohran Mamdani and the question of whether candidates should run from the label if it’s already part of their political identity.

My broader point has nothing to do with insisting on that term. It’s about how Democrats, across the board, fail to connect emotionally and materially with working people. You can call it whatever you want: “economic populism,” “New Deal politics,” “dignity politics,” I don’t care. What matters is whether it’s rooted in moral clarity, trust, and the willingness to take on concentrated power.

If the strategy is just to smooth the edges off every idea and find the least offensive phrasing, you end up with a message that doesn’t land because it doesn’t mean anything.

 

[duluoz]

If the strategy is just to smooth the edges off every idea and find the least offensive phrasing, you end up with a message that doesn’t land because it doesn’t mean anything.

You mean like how “make America great again” didn’t land?

And I don’t need the least offensive phrasing, hell I’d settle for phrasing that isn’t a big fat gift for every republican and their pundits to beat into the electorate, over and over, without even having to change a thing. Stay away from the red meat on a silver platter and that’s a great step in the right direction.

 

[Paine]

You mean like how “make America great again” didn’t land?

And I don’t need the least offensive phrasing, hell I’d settle for phrasing that isn’t a big fat gift for every republican and their pundits to beat into the electorate, over and over, without even having to change a thing. Stay away from the red meat on a silver platter and that’s a great step in the right direction.

“Make America Great Again” absolutely landed, and not because it was cautious or neutered. It landed because it was emotionally charged, morally simple, and embedded in a story people could feel. That’s exactly the kind of resonance I’m saying Democrats need to recover. Check out my posts on the other thread.

What doesn’t land is when a party scrubs every message of controversy in the hope it’ll be inoffensive enough to survive Fox News. That’s how you end up with messaging that inspires no one, motivates no base, and gets defined entirely by your opponents. If the whole strategy is to avoid “red meat,” you’re not leading, you’re just reacting.

And let’s be real: Republicans will call any Democrat a socialist. They called Obama one. They called Biden one. They’ll call anyone who proposes universal pre-K or raises the minimum wage one. So me actually calling myself a socialist doesn’t hand them anything new, it just means I’m not afraid of the label. I believe the values behind it, public goods, worker rights, shared investment, are defensible and popular when explained with clarity and conviction. Don’t you think neutering this attack is a boon in the long run?

Republicans win because they own their story, even when it’s built on lies. If Democrats can’t learn to tell the truth with the same level of conviction, they’ll keep losing, no matter how “safe” the language is.