U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) shows her Congressional pin as she gives a tour of the U.S. Capitol to a group of middle school students from her home district, on the first day of a partial government shutdown, at the U.S. Capitol, in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 1, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
In two weeks — on Tuesday, November 4, 2025 — Democratic and GOP strategists will be closely watching a variety of elections in the hope of gauging what might lie ahead in the 2026 midterms. The elections include gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, a mayoral battle in New York City, three Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections, and a Philadelphia district attorney race.
Polls are showing Democratic NYC mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani way head of his challengers, who include former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and The Guardian Angels' Curtis Sliwa (the GOP nominee). While Mamdani is a self-described "democratic socialist," the Democratic gubernatorial nominee who is ahead in the polls in Virginia — former Rep. Abigail Spanberger — is a centrist and a former CIA agent.
Mamdani and Spanberger represent two different visions of the Democratic Party at a time when political strategists are wondering where the party goes from here.
In an editorial published on October 20, the New York Times' editorial board argues that Democrats must make a concerted effort to reach the center.
The Times board writes, "American politics today can seem to be dominated by extremes. President Trump is carrying out far-right policies, while some of the country's highest-profile Democrats identify as democratic socialists. Moderation sometimes feels outdated. It is not. Candidates closer to the political center, from both parties, continue to fare better in most elections than those farther to the right or left. This pattern may be the strongest one in electoral politics today, but it is one that many partisans try to obscure and many voters do not fully grasp."
The Times' editorial is generating a lot of feedback on X, formerly Twitter.
Plenty of centrists, moderates and independents are praising the editorial.
Open Philanthropy's Otis Reid, for example, described the editorial as "very good" and highlighted it for "hitting a bunch of important points."
But some progressives aren't happy with the editorial at all.
X user Ashley Smith wrote, "The New York Times trumpets the capitalist establishment's bland, losing strategy — enforcing the wretched status quo — that has paved the way for the far right throughout the world."
Journalist David Swanson tweeted, "The @NYTimes finds incumbents win (who knew?) and that a couple of lackluster 'non-moderates' who wouldn't know an inspiring progressive policy unless it bought them a thousand tv ads have lost. And therefore you cannot have good candidates."
X user Philly's Black Marxist posted, "Like Americans are obsessed with partisan loyalty to a party that has openly stated how much they value bipartisanship and the moderate center. They can only do so by catering to the moderates and right wing politically. That…. Empowers the far right. There's no opposing pull."
Philly's Black Marxist also wrote, "This is why Dems are getting housed right now. MAGA isn't unique. In reality all maga is doing is treating moderates and democrats the way democrats treat progressives and third parties. They're just cutting them out the equation."
Meanwhile, Bill Faulk, a self-described "government affairs professional," saw the editorial as simplistic.
Faulk wrote, "So much to unpack here. Is it just 'running a centrist' campaign? Is it branding? The Poli Sci 101 'left-right' spectrum is more complex than just 'oh just as a centrist.'"
Read the full New York Times editorial at this link (subscription required).