Progressive

WASHINGTON — Progressive Senate candidates in at least two states are accusing a key Democratic Party campaign arm of actively working against them in primaries to help more moderate rivals favored by leadership as having a better shot of ousting GOP incumbents.

The efforts by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee come as the party seeks to retake the Senate majority from Republicans in 2020. But while early intervention may help prevent ugly primary battles, it is already heightening internal tensions between the party’s centrists and progressives, and rekindling allegations of unfair meddling by party leadership.

Progressive candidates in Colorado and Maine — two of the most competitive 2020 Senate races — say political consultants and vendors have refused to work on their campaigns after being warned that doing so would risk a future boycott by the DSCC, which endorsed other Democrats for those primaries.

“They want to blackball us,” said Andrew Romanoff, a Democrat who is hoping to take on GOP Sen. Cory Gardner in Colorado in next year’s election. “We heard the same from enough firms. It’s not an accident.”

The DSCC threw its support behind former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a pro-fracking moderate, almost immediately after he announced his bid for the Senate seat late last month.

Romanoff, who backs “Medicare for all” and aggressively combating climate change, said at least five political vendors that had expressed interest in working with him later told his campaign that officials at the DSCC, which helps recruit and finance Democratic candidates, said the vendors would get no other business from the committee if they worked for Romanoff’s campaign.

A political consultant at one of those firms confirmed the account but refused to be named for fear of retribution, saying that the firm was told by an intermediary for Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that “under no circumstances were we to work with Andrew Romanoff.” If it did, the firm would get no more DSCC-related business, including lucrative referrals to work on other campaigns or to put together outside political advertisements. Romanoff’s account was first published Thursday by the Intercept, a left-leaning online publication. Since then, Romanoff said he’s received offers from several firms offering to help his campaign, including one that he said wants to “get banned by Schumer.”

Schumer’s office referred questions to the DSCC.

DSCC spokeswoman Lauren Passalacqua said the committee has no policy that forbids vendors from working with Democratic candidates that it does not support.

But she added: “In our role as a campaign committee focused on winning Senate seats, we have ongoing conversations with strategists and advisors about battleground races.”

Maine Senate hopeful Betsy Sweet said she’s had similar trouble hiring finance staffers for her primary campaign. And Iowa Senate primary candidate Eddie Mauro said one vendor indicated that Washington Democrats “put pressure on them not to work with people like me” although he did not name the DSCC.

As in Colorado, the DSCC has endorsed more moderate Democrats in Maine and Iowa who they hope will beat sitting Republican senators in November 2020.

Vendors initially “are saying they’re excited [to work with the campaign,] and then they say they can’t do it,” Sweet said. “If you’re part of the political industrial complex and you’re making a career out of it, whether it is implicit or explicit, you don’t want to go up against that machine.”

The DSCC has endorsed Sara Gideon to take on GOP Sen. Susan Collins in Maine.

The intervention does not appear to be nationwide. Senate candidates in other races around the country said in interviews that they have seen no such interference in their campaign hiring.

But Sweet likened the DSCC’s meddling in her campaign to efforts made behind the scenes by the Democratic National Committee to bolster Hillary Clinton for president over Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries, moves that bitterly split the party.

“We in Maine have done a lot of work to reunify [since then]. This has just made it really hard,” she said. “It adds to the cynicism of people getting involved in politics.”

The DSCC’s counterpart for the House, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, adopted a new written policy on vendors this year. The committee forbids vendors from getting DCCC business if they work on a primary challenge to a sitting Democratic House member. In that situation, the DCCC is trying to avoid Democrats trying to kick a sitting Democrat out of office.

For Democrats, the stakes in the Senate couldn’t be higher. Both Democrats and Republicans admit there is a window for Democrats to take control of the chamber by flipping Republican-held seats in Colorado, Arizona and Maine. They’re hoping additional challengers in Iowa and North Carolina take off. And their chances became a little more positive last week when a Georgia seat came into play upon the sudden retirement of Sen. Johnny Isakson.

Democrats need to win three or four seats to take control of the Senate in the 2020 election. (The figure depends on which party controls the White House and with it, the ability to break a 50-50 tie in the Senate.)

So far this year, the DSCC has endorsed candidates in Democratic primaries in nearly all of the marquee Senate races. Dan Sena, a Democratic operative who ran the House’s DCCC in the last cycle, said early endorsements can help donors and political supporters prioritize which candidates to back and which races look promising.

“If we’re going to stop Mitch McConnell from gutting access to affordable health care, confirming partisan judges to lifetime appointments on the federal bench and Supreme Court, and attacking reproductive rights, then we need to win Senate seats,” Passalacqua said. “We’re working with candidates who will do exactly that and help Democrats take back the Senate.”

Many of the Democratic candidates, even those who said the DSCC is not interfering with their hiring process, said they resented the committee’s endorsement in their race instead of letting a primary play out among voters.

That anger is most acute in Colorado, where a competitive Democratic primary between a dozen candidates was well underway when Hickenlooper dropped out of the presidential primary contest and announced he would run for the Senate.

The DSCC’s quick endorsement incensed candidates who were already in the race, an anger undoubtedly fueled by Hickenlooper’s prior comments that he didn’t want the Senate seat and wouldn’t be good at the job. Several of the self-identified liberal Democrats in the race say Hickenlooper — who opposes progressive standard-bearers such as Medicare for all and the Green New Deal — is too centrist for Colorado. They argue that Gardner is so vulnerable that almost any Democratic candidate can beat him.

“It’s hard for me to get in their head on this because a blue rock beats Cory Gardner by 10%,” said Alice Madden, one of the Democratic hopefuls.

Madden and the five other Democratic women in the race signed a letter last week asking the DSCC to reconsider the endorsement, arguing that it implies “that we should defer to a male candidate because you seem to believe he is ‘more electable.’”

Schumer had long made no secret that he wanted Hickenlooper, who has tremendous name recognition in the state, to take on Gardner next year. Democratic strategists say polling shows that Hickenlooper’s popularity would survive intense negative messaging, making him the strongest candidate in both the primary and general election.

On Tuesday, 314 Action, a group that promotes electing Democrats with scientific backgrounds, touted a poll that showed 72% of Democratic primary voters have a favorable opinion of Hickenlooper — a former geologist — besting all other Democrats by more than 30 percentage points.

For his part, Hickenlooper “believes anyone should be able to work for anyone they want to,” according to his spokesperson, Jacque Montgomery. “And anyone who wants to throw their hat in the ring should step up and run for office.”

SACRAMENTO — Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento) has successfully defended a challenge from fellow Democrat Mai Vang to continue representing California’s 7th Congressional District.

The Associated Press declared Matsui the winner Tuesday afternoon over Vang, a Sacramento City Council member who entered the race pushing for a new generation of Democratic leadership.

Matsui, 82, was first elected to the House of Representatives in 2005, succeeding her late husband, Robert Matsui, who had served in Congress since 1979. She ran on her congressional experience and record of delivering federal funding for projects in the district. She lent her campaign more than $5 million this cycle.

“The votes have been counted and voters have spoken,” Matsui said in a statement. “I believe their mandate was clear: They want someone who shows up to work every day, seeks common ground, and who listens to their concerns. The voters of this new district chose the steady solutions I’ve delivered throughout my service as their representative. I promise to keep delivering for them.”

Vang, 41, is the daughter of Hmong refugees and previously served on the Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education, where she helped establish the Sacramento Children’s Fund for young people affected by poverty, violence and trauma.

The solidly Democratic district encompasses Sacramento, Elk Grove, Galt, Lodi, Placerville and El Dorado.

Proposition 50’s redistricting added conservative voters in the Sierra foothills to the district. In an effort to win over those voters, Matsui attacked Vang for appearing on left-wing streamer Hasan Piker’s platform and fundraising with him.

Matsui previously served as one of eight members of former President Clinton’s transition board. She later served as deputy assistant to the president in the White House Office of Public Liaison.

Two of California’s congressional races remained too close to call Tuesday evening: In Northern California’s 4th District, Democratic challenger Eric Jones led incumbent Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) by about 5 percentage points. In the 23rd District, which was considered to be a safe Republican seat, Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) narrowly led Democratic challenger Tessa Lynn Hodge by less than 2 percentage points.

Jane Kim, a progressive former San Francisco supervisor with no insurance experience, appears to have won the race to be California’s industry commissioner, topping veteran legislator Ben Allen, who represents the Pacific Palisades community devastated by the January 2025 wildfires.

Kim, 49, declared victory Friday in the contest to replace outgoing Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, ahead of a final vote count. However, a narrow gap between the two Democratic candidates has widened since election day. She also topped June’s primary field.

“We pay into the system so that when the worst happens, we’re protected. Californians have kept our end of that bargain, but insurance companies have broken their side of the promise by denying, delaying and underpaying valid claims and dropping coverage. Voters made clear in this election that they want — and deserve — that promise restored,” she said in a statement that called the vote a “rejection of the status quo.”

Allen, 48, issued a statement noting that he had congratulated Kim earlier in the day and wished her well.

“Jane ran a strong race, and it appears that she has won,” he said. “Assuming that is the case, I desperately want her to succeed, because if she succeeds, the state succeeds, especially the families in need that we’ve been fighting for across the state.”

“I ran for this office because of what I saw after fires devastated my community and region. Families in the Palisades and Altadena who had paid their premiums for decades and did everything right and who are now struggling to get the help they need,” Allen added.

Election officials continue to tally the votes in the race, and no winner had been declared by the Associated Press as of Friday afternoon.

The downballot contest didn’t draw attention like the race for governor or Los Angeles mayor, even as Kim will take office amid a state home insurance crisis in which private carriers have raised rates and dropped hundreds of thousands of residential policyholders amid rising wildfire risks.

The January 2025 wildfires that devastated Altadena, Pacific Palisades and nearby communities exacerbated the problems, with widespread complaints that some insurers were illegally delaying, underpaying or denying claims — including from smoke-damaged homes . The situation prompted investigations by the department and Los Angeles County.

The commissioner oversees an office with 1,400 employees that regulates more than 1,700 home, auto, workers’ compensation and other insurers, as well as more than 510,000 agents, brokers, adjusters, bail agents and other business entities.

Kim, the daughter of Korean immigrants who attended Stanford and has a UC Berkeley law degree, entered the race with little statewide recognition but serious progressive bona fides.

During her time on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors from 2011 to 2019, she led campaigns to sharply raise the minimum wage and make the local community college tuition free. She also served as California political director for the 2020 presidential run of Bernie Sanders, the progressive independent senator from Vermont who stumped for her commissioner’s bid.

She was endorsed by the California Federation of Labor Unions, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO that represents more than 1,300 state labor unions, while Allen got the Democratic Party nod.

Kim built her campaign around a novel proposal to establish a state-run insurance pool largely funded by homeowners that would cover wildfire claims and invest in programs to reduce fire risks for homeowners and communities. Insurers would continue to cover other claims.

The plan responds to the growing number of homeowners who can’t find insurance and are forced into the California FAIR Plan, the state’s privately operated insurer of last resort, which typically offers more expensive and less broad coverage than the open market. Though the plan’s growth has slowed, as of Sept. 30 it insured 677,000 residential policyholders, up from 271,000 four years earlier.

Kim was criticized during the campaign by Allen and others for failing to provide details on how her so-called “single payer” system would work. In late October, she released a policy brief with more details, including how coverage would be capped at a replacement cost to fully rebuild the typical California home, with more expensive homes needing additional private wildfire insurance.

The novel plan would require buy-in from Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra, the Legislature and the industry.

Allen, who called the plan unworkable and too expensive, campaigned on a platform that called attention to his three Senate terms in the Legislature, where he authored bills that cracked down on insurers and offered consumers more protection. They included higher up-front payouts in fire losses without requiring itemization by policyholders during states of emergency, and requiring insurers to fix any deficiencies uncovered by department examinations.

Kim was outspent by Allen, who raised $3.7 million compared to Kim’s $1.5 million. He also was the recipient of $2.3 million of spending by independent political action committees on his behalf.

Although Allen said he would not take insurance industry money for the race, Kim sought to tie him to the industry through past donations to his prior campaigns for office.

In her victory speech, she said insurers “lined up” behind Allen, a characterization he rejected.

The attempt to tie Allen to the industry followed controversies surrounding Lara, who The Times reported last year took at least 32 international trips but consistently failed to disclose who paid for luxury hotels, airfare and fine dining, while soliciting charity donations from those with business before the agency.

Lara has denied any wrongdoing and has pointed to his Sustainable Insurance Strategy as the reason for the slowing of the FAIR Plan’s growth. The strategy provided insurers with concessions such as the right to charge policyholders for the reinsurance carriers must buy to protect themselves from catastrophes, such as the January 2025 wildfires.

Kim’s victory brought congratulations across the business and political spectrum.

Denni Ritter, vice president of state government relations for the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., a leading trade association for home, auto and business insurers, said the group was “looking forward” to working with Kim, Becerra and lawmakers to resolve the state’s insurance issues.

“While recent reforms are beginning to stabilize the market, the insurance crisis is far from over, and a full recovery will take time. Protecting this progress is critical. Costly new mandates or regulatory actions that drive up costs or limit coverage options risk reversing this progress and worsening the crisis,” Ritter said in a statement.

The California Working Families Party, a grassroots progressive political organization that Kim served as founding director, said the “cozy relationship between the California Insurance Commissioner and the insurance industry is over. Jane’s bold proposals and plans for real accountability for insurers overcame a tsunami of special interest spending against her.”

Democratic candidate Randy Villegas has defeated Republican incumbent David Valadao in the race for California’s 22nd congressional district, clinching one of the state’s most closely watched congressional races and notching another win for the Democratic Party’s progressive left.

Villegas, an educator who grew up in the Central Valley as the son of Mexican immigrants, ousted the Republican representative after a campaign that won support from figures such as Senator Bernie Sanders and railed against the rising cost of living, healthcare cuts, and sweeping immigration raids.

“I want to take a moment to acknowledge my family. Both of my parents, who I’m blessed to have with me here today. I’ve gotta tell you, the reason I believe in this country, the reason I believe in the United States, is because of the sacrifices that they made,” Villegas said in remarks to his supporters gathered in the city of Bakersfield on Tuesday evening, calling the result a “historic victory for the Central Valley”.

“And let me tell you, that victory is not because of me. It is because of us,” he added.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the race.

Cost of living concerns

The story of the district fits a larger one playing out across the country as votes come in on election night: angry about surging prices that were driven partly by the Trump administration’s decision to launch a war on Iran, and overreach in areas such as ICE raids, voters decided to punish the president and his party.

Polls had indicated for months that the president had become deeply unpopular, and that this trend was closely linked to collapsing faith in his handling of the economy and cost of living, issues that had previously helped return him to the White House in 2024.

Despite his image as a relative moderate with strong ties to the Central Valley, Valadao did not escape that trend on Tuesday night.

Immigration raids trigger backlash among Latino voters

Following Trump’s win in 2024, much was made of the Republican Party’s successful inroads with Latino voters despite the party’s embrace of rhetoric vilifying immigrants and restrictive immigration policies.

Less than two years later, those promising gains have entirely evaporated.

Incensed over the administration’s aggressive and often indiscriminate approach to immigration enforcement and the toll of rising prices, Latino voters across the country swung heavily back towards the Democrats.

“We have people who said that they regret having voted for him [Trump], because he has not done what he promised,” a member of the United Farm Workers (UFW) labour union who knocked doors in Latino communities for Villegas, told Al Jazeera on Monday.

Residents and officials in the Central Valley said that ICE raids sent shockwaves through immigrant and Latino communities, with arrests of farmworkers and family members cutting against the administration’s claims that it was targeting criminals.

Villegas slammed the raids and linked them to Valadao’s support for a massive increase in the budget for ICE, one of the agencies at the centre of the mass deportation raids.

A recent survey from the Pew Research Center found that 56 percent of US voters now view ICE unfavourably, making it one of the least popular agencies in the federal government.

Progressives make the case for their competitiveness

Before facing off against Valadao on Tuesday night, Villegas had to win a hard-fought primary race against California State Assembly member Jasmeet Bains, a candidate aligned with the party’s establishment wing who warned that his progressive positions would be too far to the left in the traditionally conservative region.

But Villegas and his supporters challenged that premise. His populist message seems to have resonated in a race dominated by concerns about the cost of living and access to healthcare, and at a time when many feel that politics and the economy are skewed in favour of the wealthy and well-connected.

Villegas won endorsements from Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and energised supporters from the party’s base, including members of organised labour who pounded the pavement to get out the vote.

“We beat the Democratic establishment. We beat the Republican establishment. We beat corporate PAC money. We beat AIPAC!” Villegas told supporters on Tuesday night.

Villegas can now add his name to the list of elected officials seeking to prove that progressives can win tough races outside of traditional strongholds.

“Randy’s race has shown us that the Central Valley cannot be counted out of following the really urgent change that we need in every corner of our country,” said Manpreet Kaur, the progressive vice mayor of Bakersfield who was an early supporter of Villegas. “And the Central Valley is included in that.”

As the dust settles on the 2026 US midterm elections, two facts are clear: First, the Democrats have achieved a historic victory – and second, Donald Trump remains president for the coming two years.

That means Congressional Democrats will have three legislative lanes to pursue: The first is constraining Trump. This includes doing what they can through Congress to bring the Iran war to a conclusion, blocking many of his nominations, particularly to the judiciary, ending ICE’s aggressive immigrant detentions, and pursuing oversight of Trump and his allies’ financial networks and alleged corruption.

The second lane will be about demonstrating a positive policy agenda to inform the 2028 cycle, when Trump will be off the ballot. This is more about “messaging bills” focused on social issues, but could also include economic measures such as tax reform proposals, as well as significant reforms of US global defence cooperation authorities and shifts to major foreign policy questions, such as aid to Israel.

The final lane will be that – perhaps narrow – set of issues where bipartisanship and cooperation with the White House is possible. Putting guardrails around America’s burgeoning artificial intelligence (AI) sector may fit in that box, although some of Trump’s biggest funders are likely to do what they can to derail progress.

Many of the bills that will be put forward in the first and second lanes would be subject to presidential veto. Others will be toned down, as the Democratic establishment seeks to resist the progressive left’s ambitious agenda. These dynamics are likely to make the upcoming Congress less productive.

On foreign policy, in particular, Congress is able to pass just a slim set of acts without presidential endorsement, such as war powers legislation, limiting the president’s ability to wage war without Congressional approval; or measures like the recent Senate resolution advanced by Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen to demand reporting on Israel’s human rights record; or committee subpoenas, which can be used to investigate members of the Trump administration for wrongdoing. But they are likely to be ignored or stonewalled by the White House, leading to months, if not years, of fruitless litigation.

That is not to say that introducing “stand-alone” bills on issues, such as arms transfers to Israel, would not be important even if blocked by the president. They remain useful both for framing the conversation and for getting members of Congress on the record and establishing consensus positions.

In the Senate, where several incumbents are likely to throw their hats into the upcoming presidential nomination contest, such bills could be used to highlight the progressive credentials of some candidates – or to force more conservative members into awkward positions. That might ultimately make a difference in terms of the framing and debate for the 2028 election – and a potential Democratic administration thereafter. But it will not change anything in the immediate term.

There are at least three tools available to legislators where a fierce – and perhaps impactful – debate is likely to play out. The first is that enabled by Congress’ constitutional “power of the purse”.  If the current Republican majorities do not manage to pass an annual funding bill by the end of this calendar year, the Democrats will have both the current year and the next two years of US government funding under their control.

This includes, of course, Israel’s annual allocation of $3.3bn, which Trump himself put into doubt in a surprising and as yet unclarified statement on election day. If nothing else, the president’s call for an end to security assistance to Israel may accelerate what would likely have been a steady reduction under Democratic leadership.

The new Congress will also be able to reconsider a range of funding restrictions and requirements, such as the prohibition on funding the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), or the limitations on funding the Palestinian Authority.

Passing such bills will not be simply a matter of partisan rancour — we can expect some pretty tough battles to play out within the Democratic caucus itself on some of these issues. Then it is another matter of whether the Trump administration adheres to the law with the funding it ultimately receives.

The second area to watch is that of oversight. With the majority in hand, Democrats in the House and Senate can set the agenda – deciding which actions by the Trump administration are ripe for investigation, identifying witnesses, and using the committee gavels to drive the public debate.

Party leadership will be eager to focus on the issues that are most damaging to the current administration and its likely candidates for succession, such as Vice President JD Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio, while being least disruptive to party unity.

And because the system relies on seniority, control of the agenda of Congressional committees that can investigate the government would rest with Democratic establishment members who would be less likely than their newer or younger peers to be critical of the US-Israel relationship.

That said, it is hard to imagine a Democratic Congress that does not at least conduct oversight of Trump’s Board of Peace and its opaque sources of funding and influence. Another likely topic is the question of US involvement in the current war with Iran.

What the Democrats choose not to pursue via oversight will also be important: The weaponisation of anti-Semitism by the current and previous Congress to attack the US education sector and civil society should come to an end under the next Congress. Though certainly Democratic leadership will be keen to find ways to demonstrate that they still care about genuine concerns from the Jewish community, one would hope that these are pursued with a more concrete grounding in reality and shared security than as a tool for repressing pro-Palestinian speech.

But many in the Democratic base would like to see the party do much more – including holding hearings into the US role in enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza, a topic that would ensnare senior officials from the Biden administration in a very public accounting that the establishment is keen to avoid.

Here is where the details of the outcome of the midterms will truly matter. While there is no doubt that the centre point of the Democratic Congressional caucus has shifted to the left for the upcoming 120th Congress, particularly in the House, the size of the majority matters.

As recent Republican Houses have demonstrated, a small majority is a challenge for the speaker, as it empowers a small group of members to exert significant leverage through the threat of withdrawal of their support for basic procedural steps that are typically decided on a partisan vote basis.

As a result of the midterms “blue tsunami”, however, the Democratic majority is secure enough that leadership will have to make few real concessions to the left of their party, likely teeing up some tense, and almost inevitably public, tussling in the coming two years, particularly when it comes to appropriations bills.

In short, the Democrats’ campaign for legislative power has been a success, but particularly in the face of an imperious White House that has shown little interest in even longstanding legal precedent in its deference to Congress, it remains incomplete.

At the same time, being the party locked out of power has enabled the Democrats up to this point to dodge some degree of the internal wrangling that is already long overdue on key issues, such as foreign policy on Israel.

A majority in Congress may not give them complete control – but it does mean they will now own the legislative branch’s decisions. Whether they demonstrate a meaningful and proactive shift – or let themselves be constrained by establishment conservatism – may define the viability of their path to further electoral success in 2028.

Either way, the American people will be watching what Democrats do and do not do – as will the Republicans who, as Trump enters his “lame duck” years, are likely to undergo an evolution of their own on these key issues.

This makes progress in the coming Congress all the more acute an issue for the Democrats. The challenge for them is simple: take credible leadership on driving change or face the very real possibility of being outflanked by the “America First” right.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

In June, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani stood before a packed house of voters, rallying support for a new wave of candidates hoping to build on his progressive momentum by winning seats in Congress.

Inside Brooklyn’s historic Kings Theatre, the crowd answered chants of “Abolish ICE”, “Tax the rich” and “Free Palestine” with roaring applause, leaving little if any room for doubt about what the audience wanted from its politicians.

Within days, all three congressional hopefuls endorsed by Mamdani – Claire Valdez, Brad Lander and Darializa Avila Chevalier – had won their Democratic primaries, becoming the party’s candidates in the midterm election.

Lander, the former New York City comptroller, defeated Congressman Dan Goldman in a race in which Israel was the defining issue.

Avila Chevalier, a community organiser, unseated longtime Congressman Adriano Espaillat. Valdez, a lawmaker in the New York State Assembly and member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), won the contest to succeed retiring Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez.

Both Valdez and Avila Chevalier had the backing of New York City’s DSA chapter.

The candidates’ heavily Democratic districts mean they are likely to win congressional seats in Tuesday’s midterm elections. The June Democratic Party primaries effectively served as the main event for voters.

In the final hours before Tuesday’s midterm election, New York City – a place colloquially dubbed the city that never sleeps – is more politically sleepy, with canvassers a bit harder to find than they were in the final stretch before the primaries.

For the three progressive candidates, the past few months have been a test of how to turn bold campaign promises into policy they can actually deliver. The often slow minutiae of daily governance stand in stark contrast to buzzword-laden campaign slogans on the posters and signs galvanising their base of voters.

Unique paths to politics

The three congressional candidates’ platforms overlap on issues like abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ending US military aid to Israel and establishing a public healthcare system dubbed Medicare for All. But their paths into progressive politics differ.

Lander spent years in the New York City government, most recently as comptroller overseeing the city’s finances. After losing to Mamdani in the 2025 Democratic mayoral primary, he backed Mamdani in the election.

But Lander’s congressional campaign against incumbent Goldman brought him national attention, with Israel and Palestine emerging as the defining issue in the race to lead a district with one of the largest Jewish populations in the United States.

Lander has described Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as genocide and its occupation of Palestinian territory as apartheid. He also identifies as a Zionist who embraces pro-Palestinian activism, arguing that the positions are not mutually exclusive. Lander has long supported a two-state solution.

“It’s straightforward that some approach to more shared safety for Israelis and Palestinians and for Jews and Muslims and everybody else here makes more sense,” Lander said. “I also want to be able to listen across those divides and have thoughtful policy debates.”

Two weeks before Tuesday’s election, Israeli forces detained Lander in the occupied West Bank while he was volunteering to help with the olive harvest. Israeli authorities have since revoked his travel documents for a planned return visit.

“The main story I come home with is not the story of my detention or the revocation of my travel authorisation,” Lander said. “The main story that I come with is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank, which I just saw with my own eyes.”

Lander has also long called for ICE to be abolished, including during President Donald Trump’s first term in office.

Pro-Palestinian activism 

Avila Chevalier’s political rise was similarly shaped by immigration and Palestinian rights, though she has taken a more uncompromising approach.

After interning at a youth organisation in Nablus in the occupied West Bank in 2014, she returned to the US and became an advocate for Palestinian communities.

Her “Babies Not Bombs” platform calls for redirecting military spending, including aid to Israel, towards domestic priorities such as childcare and healthcare.

“It’s important for us to see our budgets as moral documents,” Avila Chevalier told Al Jazeera. “Our resources should be going towards the things that make our lives dignified and make our communities thrive – not towards war, not towards ICE or things that are harming our communities.”

Valdez, meanwhile, came to progressive politics through the labour movement. A former union-organiser-turned-state-assemblymember, she supports stronger labour protections, including federal legislation such as the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act to make union organising easier.

Valdez also backs national rent control and a government-run healthcare system to provide wider healthcare access than the country’s private-sector insurance model.

“Public programmes and entitlements have been under attack by the right,” Valdez told Al Jazeera as she exited a polling location in her district on the first day of early voting. “I think not just clawing those back but really advancing a vision for what those things should be will be top priorities.”

Abolishing ICE and ending military aid to Israel are lofty, ambitious goals, and neither is likely to be achieved without navigating competing interests in Congress and the White House. With the balance of congressional power potentially shifting towards Democrats in the midterms, the newcomers will have to decide which priorities to pursue first.

That means looking for more immediate wins comparable to Mamdani’s move to fill 200,000 potholes when he took office as mayor, according to progressive political strategist Nomiki Konst.

“[Get] on the same page about an issue that we all agree on and leverage that in the Democratic Congress because there’s no better time than the beginning,” Konst told Al Jazeera.

For Lander, one such measure is banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks.

“Maybe that restores a little bit of trust,” Lander said. “People say that’s gross that members of Congress trade stocks. At least this new Congress is doing something, you know, to show me they’re not just all in it for themselves.”

Lander also sees an opportunity to restore enhanced government subsidies that expired at the end of 2025, raising premiums for many people who buy their private-sector insurance plans individually.

“We can say we’re not going to pass a budget that doesn’t do that and force Republicans to vote one way or the other and see what Trump does,” Lander said.

For Avila Chevalier, an early priority would be her “Babies Not Bombs” agenda, redirecting funding towards domestic needs. Valdez wants to pass the PRO Act.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sets a precedent

The three would not be the first progressive New Yorkers to enter Congress promising major change.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her legislative seat in 2018 by defeating longtime incumbent Joe Crowley. Since then, she has occasionally worked with Republicans on shared priorities.

In 2025, Ocasio-Cortez introduced legislation with Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida to cap credit card interest rates at 10 percent, echoing a proposal from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri.

The question, Konst says, is whether Mamdani’s endorsed candidates can turn ideological commitments into legislative results. Doing so will require compromise, including setting aside some priorities to advance others.

Avila Chevalier is under the microscope after calling for New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch to resign over a man being shot in his car by ICE while his child was in the backseat. Avila Chevalier said she was later shoved to the ground by New York City police officers during protests following the shooting.

Mamdani reportedly appointed Tisch on the recommendation of Governor Kathy Hochul, whose support was important to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. An Atlantic magazine report suggested that her endorsement of Mamdani, whose more progressive platform included universal childcare and government-operated grocery stores, hinged on Tisch’s appointment.

“Everybody wants to have their agenda passed, right? I think being really thoughtful about when to hold fire, when to fire, when to be bold, when to hold back, and when to say what you feel so you’ll get the most support,” Konst said.

But Avila Chevalier said she is willing to work with anyone to advance her priorities.

“There is always something that two people can agree on. And that’s where I plan on starting because I think organising is about meeting people where they’re at,” Avila Chevalier said.

“There are so many folks who really want to see healthcare transformed in this country, who really want to see a moratorium on data [centres]. That is a bipartisan issue for so many.”

Rep. Jimmy Gomez’s reelection bid, once helped by his high-profile fight against President Trump’s immigration policies, is in peril as he tries to recover from allegations of sexual misconduct.

The accusations, which Gomez denies, have left the 51-year-old Eagle Rock Democrat vulnerable to an upstart challenger from Highland Park who earned a reputation for antagonism while serving on the area’s neighborhood council.

Angela Gonzales-Torres, 31, is seizing on Gomez’s issues in the race to represent California’s 34th Congressional District, a Latino-majority territory spanning Koreatown, Boyle Heights, East Los Angeles, Glassell Park and adjacent neighborhoods.

Gonzales-Torres, who has worked part-time jobs as an academic counselor for formerly incarcerated students and at an affordable housing development, is backed by the Democratic Socialists of America and counts support from other national progressive organizations.

Over the last week, she campaigned at UC Berkeley alongside fellow progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), appeared on left-wing streamer Hasan Piker’s show and rallied in Los Angeles with Parkland, Fla., school shooting survivor and activist David Hogg.

Gonzales-Torres has linked the accusation against Gomez to the politician’s onetime ally former Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Bay Area Democrat who saw his campaign for governor derailed when several women came forward with allegations of impropriety. Swalwell has also denied wrongdoing.

“We’re going to take on this apparent culture in Congress in which men appear to abuse their positions of power and abuse women and younger staffers,” she said on Piker’s show.

In August, attorneys representing a woman released a statement accusing Gomez of sexual assault. Days earlier, the House Ethics Committee had announced an inquiry into Gomez, elected in 2017, over alleged “inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer.”

Gomez denied wrongdoing while acknowledging mistakes outside his marriage — a sharp contrast with his image as the lawmaker who founded the Congressional Dads Caucus to champion family-friendly policies and famously carried his infant son in a baby carrier during the protracted votes for House speaker in 2023.

Gomez has avoided the public eye since the accusations surfaced, declining media interviews and campaign appearances, giving further momentum to his opponent.

“They’re trying to fly so far under the radar to not bring attention to the [allegations] or to me,” Gonzales-Torres said during a get-out-the-vote event in Eagle Rock.

Gonzales-Torres’ history in Highland Park

Gonzales-Torres, who graduated from UCLA, has described a childhood in Highland Park, where she was raised by her mother after her father was deported to Mexico following a domestic violence charge.

Reflecting the anxieties of thirtysomethings like herself, she’s talked about going without health insurance, working multiple low-wage jobs and questioning whether she can afford children.

In 2023, she was elected to the Historic Highland Park Neighborhood Council, on which she served two years advising City Hall on issues and policy matters. She opposed new liquor licenses and took stances against gentrification, a hot-button issue in Highland Park, where some longtime business owners and residents feel squeezed by rising rents.

Her year as president on the area council proved contentious, prompting several former colleagues to issue a statement Saturday criticizing her congressional bid.

Jens Jonasson, a member of the neighborhood council’s board of directors, characterized her tenure as chaotic, arguing that her unwillingness to compromise derailed board initiatives, including a proposed resolution supporting the Gaza Strip.

“She is not ready for the office she is asking voters to entrust to her,” Jonasson and three other board members said in the joint statement.

Darren Gold, who succeeded Gonzales-Torres as board president, alleged that she falsely accused him of shaking her. Gold was briefly removed from the board during an inquiry but reinstated after a city investigation.

In a 2024 podcast interview with Hear in L.A., Gonzales-Torres referred to Gold as a “very Zionist gentrifier man, a white man” and a “threat to my community.”

Gold told The Times he had never publicly staked out a position on Israel or Gaza.

“If she assigned me that label because I’m Jewish, that is antisemitic,” Gold said. “My concern is less about what she called me than whether she can turn her rhetoric into results and treat people respectfully when they disagree with her.”

Another board member, Caroline Aguirre, filed a police report in 2024 accusing Gonzales-Torres of aggressively pointing a finger at her during a meeting. The report did not result in an arrest or charges.

Gonzales-Torres declined to comment on the incidents involving Aguirre and Gold.

In 2025, Gonzales-Torres mounted a bid for one of 13 at-large neighborhood council seats, finishing last in a field of 23.

Her supporters pointed to her dedication to Highland Park and the work she’d done to help previously incarcerated youths.

Jesse Rosas, a Figueroa corridor business leader, echoed her concerns about neighborhood displacement and wants a representative more involved in the area.

“She’s a young lady who can bring change to the community for the better,” Rosas said. “I’ve seen her trying to do the best that she can.”

State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Pasadena-area Democrat who met Gonzales-Torres through her work as an academic counselor, said she’s impressed with her interest in challenging federal immigration laws.

“She’s had a firsthand account into some of the way that the immigration raids are directly impacting our students,” Pérez said.

Gomez runs on anti-Trump record

Despite the abuse allegations, Gomez has the power of incumbency and name recognition in a vast and diverse district.

A spokesperson pointed to his lawsuit challenging the Trump administration over access to immigrant detention centers as well as his advocacy for tenant protections and affordable housing.

If reelected, Gomez said in a statement, he aims to reverse federal healthcare cuts, lower living costs for working families and push for an end to the Iran war.

“Anyone can promise to stand up to Donald Trump, but I’ve proven I can take him on and win, whether it’s in Congress, on the picket lines, or in the courts,” Gomez said.

Both candidates back progressive priorities such as a Green New Deal and Medicare for all. Gomez advocates redirecting funding away from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while Gonzales-Torres calls for abolishing ICE.

Gonzales-Torres is also criticizing Gomez for receiving financial support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. An AIPAC-affiliated political action committee spent more than $1.7 million supporting his 2024 campaign, and the group helped direct donations this cycle.

For some voters in the district, neither candidate is ideal.

Ray Rios, president of the Hillside Homeowners Assn. in El Sereno, wants to see more from Gomez when it comes to federal funding for the district. He also voiced skepticism over the DSA’s anti-policing platform and questioned whether Gonzales-Torres can build the institutional relationships needed to deliver federal resources.

“Her lack of experience is a consideration, a big consideration,” said Rios, who intends to vote for Gomez.

While Gomez beat back progressive challengers in recent election cycles, the local DSA chapter has built momentum across the district, winning City Council seats, noted Fernando Guerra, director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.

“Even without the allegations, this would be a competitive race,” Guerra said. “Then you add that, and that really hurts him.”