Gen Z Democratic candidate running a campaign in the modern era

[altmin]

Young Democrats Are Running Very Online Campaigns In 2025 - Aftermath

Kat Abughazaleh's Congressional campaign wants to reach people both locally and online

aftermath.site

There was a specific moment that made Kat Abughazaleh realize the Democrats needed a new approach, and that maybe she could have a role to play. After years of warning politicians and the media about the right’s online tactics as a journalist, she watched everything she was afraid of play out during Trump’s 2025 inauguration.

“Everyone was sitting behind Trump [tech industry leaders like Musk, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Apple CEO Tim Cook], and I was like, ‘Okay, maybe, maybe this is an exception.’ Maybe [Democrats will] do something. And then they just didn't,” she says. “I just wrote in my planner that day: ‘I'm gonna run for Congress. Fuck it’.”

The 26-year-old blonde-haired, blue-eyed Palestinian journalist first built a career dispelling disinformation and exposing the alt-right for publications like Media Matters and Mother Jones, using TikTok to share her research because she saw the writing on legacy media’s wall years ago. Now she’s running for Congress on a platform that feels ripped from a progressive Reddit thread or lefty Discord chat logs, with the hope that she’ll be a blueprint for other young folks to run for office.

Her run for Chicago’s 9th District began just this past March and will continue through 2026, with the primary in March ahead of the election in November.

 

[4thgenheel]

 

[4thgenheel]

all jokes aside, this is good. the left desperately needs new voices and new ideas and outside the box thinking to combat the sheer insanity coming from the right.

 

[4thgenheel]

definitely pulling for zohran.

 

[Zoo_View]

Young Democrats Are Running Very Online Campaigns In 2025 - Aftermath

Kat Abughazaleh's Congressional campaign wants to reach people both locally and online

aftermath.site

There was a specific moment that made Kat Abughazaleh realize the Democrats needed a new approach, and that maybe she could have a role to play. After years of warning politicians and the media about the right’s online tactics as a journalist, she watched everything she was afraid of play out during Trump’s 2025 inauguration.

“Everyone was sitting behind Trump [tech industry leaders like Musk, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Apple CEO Tim Cook], and I was like, ‘Okay, maybe, maybe this is an exception.’ Maybe [Democrats will] do something. And then they just didn't,” she says. “I just wrote in my planner that day: ‘I'm gonna run for Congress. Fuck it’.”

The 26-year-old blonde-haired, blue-eyed Palestinian journalist first built a career dispelling disinformation and exposing the alt-right for publications like Media Matters and Mother Jones, using TikTok to share her research because she saw the writing on legacy media’s wall years ago. Now she’s running for Congress on a platform that feels ripped from a progressive Reddit thread or lefty Discord chat logs, with the hope that she’ll be a blueprint for other young folks to run for office.

Her run for Chicago’s 9th District began just this past March and will continue through 2026, with the primary in March ahead of the election in November.

Something wrong with “the 26 year-old……built a career……”

She’s 26 years-old and has lived in the Chicago area for weeks.

 

[rodoheel]

I think it is good to have young, charismatic, and ambitious people engaged with the Democratic Party and working to reach young people, who increasingly inhabit online spaces. The Dems are behind right-wingers when it comes to claiming territory and eyeballs in those spaces, which was a big deal this past election. At some level, we have to meet voters where they are.

I am concerned, though, that a trend towards having more "online" members in Congress is not really a good thing, no matter whose side they're on. A big part of the reason we're in the position we are now is that Congress has become steadily more dysfunctional over the past decades, for a number of reasons, and has essentially ceded a large amount of its power to the executive as a result. The slow creep (and now under Trump, rapid creep) of growing executive power, while Congress increasingly becomes something like the old Roman senate - a place for posturing and making speeches, but not actually making any laws or otherwise exercising power - is steadily degrading our government and is ultimately going to lead to our downfall.

We definitely need people who are proficient in speaking "online" and winning meme wars to combat the right-wing influence in those spheres; it was certainly a big oversight for Dems in the last decade. People like Kat Abu are very promising steps in that direction. But I don't think the left-wing answers to Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, etc. need to be (or even should be) Congresspeople. We need a working Congress that balances the executive by actually being focused on passing laws that move our country forward, not a body that increasingly cares more about messaging and flame-warring than doing the jobs they're supposed to do.

 

[rodoheel]

I think you’re right to be wary of Congress becoming just another arena for online posturing. But I also think figures like Zohran are showing what the best version of this new political style can look like.

Mamdani is extremely fluent in the digital world, and that matters. Young people are increasingly politicized through those channels. But he doesn’t stop there. What makes him compelling is how seriously he takes in-person organizing. His campaign isn’t just about viral moments. It’s rooted in canvassing, tenant organizing, and building real trust in his district. That’s the key difference.

The internet is just one tool. When used well, it doesn’t replace the hard, relational work of politics. It amplifies it. Mamdani’s model says: use online reach to energize people, then turn that energy into face-to-face organizing that creates community and power. That’s how left-wing insurgents win elections and build something more lasting than a news cycle.

I think everything you say is generally accurate when it comes to winning elections. And you have to win elections before you govern; that's just the way it is. But my concern is that winning elections isn't going to matter moving forward if it isn't followed up by legitimate Democratic attempts to govern. The Republicans have no interest in governing, and are happy for the country to slide further into autocracy. That means all they have to focus on is winning elections. But Dems know (or should know) that such a slide will ultimately doom out country in the long term. So I don't want the focus on winning elections to override having a plan of what to do when we win them. I hear a lot of things from progressives that basically sound like they want to win elections so that a Dem President can unilaterally and immediately do all the things they want done. Hence the progressive frustration when, say, Biden wins the election and won't just unilaterally do everything they want done. But if we get to the point where neither party is interested in governing and just wants things done by unilateral executive fiat - because that's basically what they keep promising the electorate to win elections - then we're well and truly doomed. Without returning to a functioning Congress, it honestly won't matter who wins elections in the future, because we're doomed either way.

 

[wmheel1287]

I have no idea who this is. Should I know?

 

[duluoz]

I like Mamdani. He will be among my ranked choices.

But when will these people realize that the label “socialist” of any kind, and calling each other “comrade” is political suicide in most cases and certainly in wider state/federal races.

The policies do not matter when you can’t package them and message them in a way that will be well received. For republicans, the policies don’t even matter at all, it’s all identity and messaging. But the Dems (especially the younger progressive ones) STILL don’t understand that races are largely won on messaging and vibes, not policies. Still toiling away in that little bubble of theirs.

 

[rodoheel]

I hear your concern, and I actually think it speaks to the core value of what Mamdani and others like him are trying to rebuild.

You’re absolutely right: winning elections is meaningless if it’s not followed by an effort to govern, and not just govern from the executive branch, but to actually reinvigorate legislative power. The problem is, the current Congress is hollow. It’s full of careerists and messaging husks who treat governing as a distant second to preserving their position or pleasing donors.

That’s why I think the kind of organizing Mamdani is doing matters so much. He’s not just campaigning to get better slogans on cable news. He’s using elections to create political infrastructure: tenant unions, canvassing networks, mutual aid efforts. These aren’t just tactics to win votes, they’re seeds for a different kind of politics. One that can actually pressure Congress to do its job, from the bottom up.

And on the executive power front: I agree we shouldn’t be building a politics that assumes the president should rule by fiat. But that’s not what most left-wing populists are asking for. We’re asking for boldness in the face of structural decay, and we’re trying to build the civic capacity that lets ordinary people push their representatives to act. That’s the only way we restore democratic governance, not by waiting for the current system to fix itself from within.

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.

 

[wmheel1287]

Ok, so i watched the video and I gather that he's running for mayor. I agree with a ton of what he says there. However, I have to throw a flag on the play when you say he's not just pandering...the remark about freezing rent. That's either pandering or moronic. Rent freezes have never worked and actually exacerbate housing shortages in every place they have ever been utilized. Its just patently dumb policy. I don't think the man is that dumb so ill go with "pandering" on that part at least.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for him if I was voting but I have to at least be honest about how silly that comment is.

 

[Kingpin]

I have no idea who this is. Should I know?

Paine smiling. He’s been advocating for this a lot

 

[superrific]

Ok, so i watched the video and I gather that he's running for mayor. I agree with a ton of what he says there. However, I have to throw a flag on the play when you say he's not just pandering...the remark about freezing rent. That's either pandering or moronic. Rent freezes have never worked and actually exacerbate housing shortages in every place they have ever been utilized.

New York City has a different experience. Rent control saved the city. It started to hollow out in the 1970s but rent control prevented too much flight. If not for rent control, NYC could have been like Detroit.

That's not to say that rent control going forward is a good idea. I haven't thought about the issue in a long time. Just please recognize that the NYC experience with housing is considerably different from virtually every other major US city.

 

[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. . . .

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.