Mike, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the Abundance movement, as laid out in the book of the same name by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein. I was hoping their framework might help nudge the Democratic Party toward a more centrist position—one that can actually win general elections.
Thompson recently did a podcast with Mamdani, and I have to say, Mamdani didn’t sound crazy. He came across as smart and charismatic, even if some of his ideas are out there. If he were to adopt parts of the Abundance agenda, I could really see myself getting excited about him.
I really liked the “Abundance” book. Joe Walsh and I touched on it on yesterdays live…but you should know this book to me sounds an awful lot like Jack Kemp conservatism. Sometimes government needs to get out of the way and/or limit its natural growth tendencies to do better by people. That’s essentially why I’m a conservative (at least in the classical sense).
The tea party was an astroturfed movement funded by the Koch Brothers and other wingnut billionaires to further their agenda of lowering taxes by appealing to bigots determined that black people get no free shit (or leftist as you call it). This is comparable to a Democratic Socialist progressive win in the NYC democratic primary because you see some young people you claimed voted for Trump voted for Mandami?
I think the backing of the various NYC based billionaire PAC's of Cuomo in order to stop a progressive movement is more like the tea party
While I agree with you broadly that the Democratic establishment has much to learn (or just really should retire). I think we miss the real message if we focus too much on the "disruption" broadly and not the specifics.
Mandami ran a campaign that was predicated on specific proposals to improve quality of life: free childcare, free busses, rent control, and support for food deserts that lack grocery stores. Of those proposals (which some call pie in the sky) 3 are already legislatively done with NYC offering Pre-K free, a free Staten Island ferry, and existing rent control boards. And he proposed to pay for it with taxes on the rich (which is broadly popular).
If we make the discussion just about the narrative we ignore the fact that there are real policy proposals here which poll well. I would argue that what voters also hunger for (at least in my experience going door to door for Harris), is policy specifics that they can believe in and which will help them, not vague change or worse yet, no change at all.
This is where I think the analogy to the tea party breaks down a bit. The Tea Party was and remains a more vague ending of government movement which is why you see them embrace shutdowns as a tactic. Mandami, Sanders, and AOC and other leftists are more about building things. To the established centrists that looks the same of course, but I don't think it speaks to the same impulse in voters.
The Democratic Establishment has a lot to ponder, including backing a disgraced politician who resigned amid sexual harassment allegations. Cuomo got a lot of votes, but how many votes did his very recent past cost him?
And those votes that the disgraced politician did get? Mamdani's win may reflect the rise of populism and a Tea Party movement within the Democratic Party, but Cuomo's support shows another similarity with MAGA: troubling behavior against women isn't a deal breaker.
I understand your concerns of what happens next, Mike. Populism is not my favorite word. I've seen what some other populist rulers in other nations implementing populist policies does. While not world ending, it's not good, at least economically and national debt speaking.
But Mamdani strikes me as someone that I could work with. Sure he has some populist tendencies, like "freeze the rent", but I saw a few genuine ideas that I think will help people, like build more homes.
He also didn't ran a negative campaign like MAGA does, but rather had a positive message and focused on making bridges with other wings of the party, different from how uncompromising MAGA is or how Bernie Sanders was in both 2016 and 2020. Without cross endorsements from other candidates like Lander, things could have gone differentely. Also, he ran against Cuomo, who my NYC social media follows describe as a "Dem Trump", someone with a history of sexual assault and very vindictive (him only ranking himself makes me think that is true).
If Mamdani is willing to work with others while in office if he wins the general and not go full blazin populism while being pragmatic with how he governs, it could be really good long run as a blueprint of how these Dem Tea Party candidates operate after winning. An idealistic message in the campaign and a pragmatic governing approach.
Your insights are greatly appreciated, Mike. Hope for the best.
I would point out that our debt is skyrocketing now due to policies that are absolutely *not* populist. If you tell me we will go into debt feeding children or go into debt coddling billionaires I won't worry about the debt. And Mandami as well as people like Sanders have a clear solution for that, tax the billionaires.
I do agree that billionaires must pay their fair share, and the GOP has given them giant tax cuts that has massively increased debt. But something I should point out, those other nations populists, the ones I'm thinking about specifically, want to increase taxes on anyone they perceive as "super wealthy", which includes middle class people. I don't think it's alright to tax middle class people into oblivion just because they have some wealth. That's extremely unfair.
I agree that billionaires need to be taxed, but we must consider how much is fair and what counts as "super wealthy".
Oh I agree. Fairness in taxes is not a simple problem. Sooner or later you are forced to debate what is "wealthy" versus "merely comfortable" and to debate issues like the amount of money someone needs. I would argue though that taxing the hell out of the middle class to pay for things is also what we do now. After all our tax code is skewed so that the very poor pay a lot of taxes for sales but little for income (because they have none), the middle class pay a lot of sales, income, and property taxes, and the very rich pay almost nothing because their forms of wealth are untaxed (e.g. capital gains and the Jobs Exemption) or because they can simply skip paying taxes knowing that the IRS cannot do anything (see Trump's cuts of the IRS).
The net upshot of this is that the middle class in the US is already bearing much of the brunt of the tax burden but they are bearing it not to pay for things that others get so much as to subsidize the lifestyle of billionaires and half-trillionaires. That, I would argue, is patently unfair.
Perhaps we are using the terms differently. "Populism" as I see the term used is quite broad and encompasses policies ranging from nativist protections and land seizures to free busses and childcare. I agree Mandami's policies are leftist but clearly many consider them to be populist as well or dismiss them as such. But in any event while the term 'populist' is broad extending tax cuts for the 0.01% definitely isn't populist in any way shape or form, especially when it is (partially) covered by massive cuts to social programs.
So what I took to be the Giglio's point is that "populist" policies can trigger debt crises and yes I will agree that some do. But as I was pointing out we are already getting a debt crisis for anti-populist policies so clearly debt is not the concern.
Use/share this spreadsheet as a resource to call/email/write members of Congress, the Cabinet and news organizations. Reach out to those in your own state, as well as those in others. Use your voice and make some “good trouble” ❤️🩹🤍💙
Did you know that Texas has the most progressive Democratic platform in the country? It kinda makes sense, because Ted Cruz and other Tea Partiers have been manhandling at least half of the state Republicans for decades. Check out this article that came out today (and for you Latino Vote fans, Chuck is quoted in it).
I think the Democratic establishment did not coalesce around a mainstream candidate without baggage quickly, which enable Cuomo sucking all the oxygen while the socialist upstart staged this upset. If the Dems are serious about not having their tea party revolution, they need stronger leadership and willingness to kneecap figures like Cuomo from the get go.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I saw people in 2016 who first supported Bernie Sanders, but would support Trump if Bernie was not nominated. It was founded in the populism and economic message, and the promise to shake things up at a fundamental level, not traditional R/L politics, and certainly not identity politics. If Democrats don't learn that lesson, they are in deep trouble.
Spot on. Most recently, the Dem base has been screaming at elected Dems since January to fight for us, and with a few notable exceptions, they just have not.
Think they’ll start listening now? If not, expect a metric ton of primarying.
I don't pretend to fully grasp the ramifications of this, but if Dems are heading down the populist rabbit hole, I at least hope that we end up with better "populist" candidates than those that arose on the Republican side from the Tea Party. God help us if we end up with progressive versions of the likes of MTG!
From what I hear and read, Mamdani is a really nice guy. He ran a positive campaign and focused on coalition building, despite of a couple of gaffes he committed. Someone who runs a campaign like that doesn't strike me as a MTG-like person.
Maybe the personalities that come out of this Dem tea party will be less uncompromising, insane, a-holes and more people with varying degrees of progressive or moderate ideology, but all have in common a desire to "fight the bad guys" and a genuine desire to make people's lives better. But that's just me speculating based on my view of what happened.
Mike, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the Abundance movement, as laid out in the book of the same name by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein. I was hoping their framework might help nudge the Democratic Party toward a more centrist position—one that can actually win general elections.
Thompson recently did a podcast with Mamdani, and I have to say, Mamdani didn’t sound crazy. He came across as smart and charismatic, even if some of his ideas are out there. If he were to adopt parts of the Abundance agenda, I could really see myself getting excited about him.
Didn't Mamdani talk about abundance in one of those podcasts? I seem to remember him talking about it in a positive manner about some of those ideas.
I think he mentioned it on Pod Save America and rebuffed the critics of the concept there.
I really liked the “Abundance” book. Joe Walsh and I touched on it on yesterdays live…but you should know this book to me sounds an awful lot like Jack Kemp conservatism. Sometimes government needs to get out of the way and/or limit its natural growth tendencies to do better by people. That’s essentially why I’m a conservative (at least in the classical sense).
If the tea party shook up the republicans, the Chai party just shook up the democrats
The tea party was an astroturfed movement funded by the Koch Brothers and other wingnut billionaires to further their agenda of lowering taxes by appealing to bigots determined that black people get no free shit (or leftist as you call it). This is comparable to a Democratic Socialist progressive win in the NYC democratic primary because you see some young people you claimed voted for Trump voted for Mandami?
I think the backing of the various NYC based billionaire PAC's of Cuomo in order to stop a progressive movement is more like the tea party
While I agree with you broadly that the Democratic establishment has much to learn (or just really should retire). I think we miss the real message if we focus too much on the "disruption" broadly and not the specifics.
Mandami ran a campaign that was predicated on specific proposals to improve quality of life: free childcare, free busses, rent control, and support for food deserts that lack grocery stores. Of those proposals (which some call pie in the sky) 3 are already legislatively done with NYC offering Pre-K free, a free Staten Island ferry, and existing rent control boards. And he proposed to pay for it with taxes on the rich (which is broadly popular).
If we make the discussion just about the narrative we ignore the fact that there are real policy proposals here which poll well. I would argue that what voters also hunger for (at least in my experience going door to door for Harris), is policy specifics that they can believe in and which will help them, not vague change or worse yet, no change at all.
This is where I think the analogy to the tea party breaks down a bit. The Tea Party was and remains a more vague ending of government movement which is why you see them embrace shutdowns as a tactic. Mandami, Sanders, and AOC and other leftists are more about building things. To the established centrists that looks the same of course, but I don't think it speaks to the same impulse in voters.
Gowl dang it Dems! It's about time we got our shit together and realized this is NOT your Grandpa's party any longer!
Thank you, Mike! You make TOTAL sense!!
I'm DEFINITELY passing this on!
The Democratic Establishment has a lot to ponder, including backing a disgraced politician who resigned amid sexual harassment allegations. Cuomo got a lot of votes, but how many votes did his very recent past cost him?
And those votes that the disgraced politician did get? Mamdani's win may reflect the rise of populism and a Tea Party movement within the Democratic Party, but Cuomo's support shows another similarity with MAGA: troubling behavior against women isn't a deal breaker.
I understand your concerns of what happens next, Mike. Populism is not my favorite word. I've seen what some other populist rulers in other nations implementing populist policies does. While not world ending, it's not good, at least economically and national debt speaking.
But Mamdani strikes me as someone that I could work with. Sure he has some populist tendencies, like "freeze the rent", but I saw a few genuine ideas that I think will help people, like build more homes.
He also didn't ran a negative campaign like MAGA does, but rather had a positive message and focused on making bridges with other wings of the party, different from how uncompromising MAGA is or how Bernie Sanders was in both 2016 and 2020. Without cross endorsements from other candidates like Lander, things could have gone differentely. Also, he ran against Cuomo, who my NYC social media follows describe as a "Dem Trump", someone with a history of sexual assault and very vindictive (him only ranking himself makes me think that is true).
If Mamdani is willing to work with others while in office if he wins the general and not go full blazin populism while being pragmatic with how he governs, it could be really good long run as a blueprint of how these Dem Tea Party candidates operate after winning. An idealistic message in the campaign and a pragmatic governing approach.
Your insights are greatly appreciated, Mike. Hope for the best.
I would point out that our debt is skyrocketing now due to policies that are absolutely *not* populist. If you tell me we will go into debt feeding children or go into debt coddling billionaires I won't worry about the debt. And Mandami as well as people like Sanders have a clear solution for that, tax the billionaires.
I do agree that billionaires must pay their fair share, and the GOP has given them giant tax cuts that has massively increased debt. But something I should point out, those other nations populists, the ones I'm thinking about specifically, want to increase taxes on anyone they perceive as "super wealthy", which includes middle class people. I don't think it's alright to tax middle class people into oblivion just because they have some wealth. That's extremely unfair.
I agree that billionaires need to be taxed, but we must consider how much is fair and what counts as "super wealthy".
Oh I agree. Fairness in taxes is not a simple problem. Sooner or later you are forced to debate what is "wealthy" versus "merely comfortable" and to debate issues like the amount of money someone needs. I would argue though that taxing the hell out of the middle class to pay for things is also what we do now. After all our tax code is skewed so that the very poor pay a lot of taxes for sales but little for income (because they have none), the middle class pay a lot of sales, income, and property taxes, and the very rich pay almost nothing because their forms of wealth are untaxed (e.g. capital gains and the Jobs Exemption) or because they can simply skip paying taxes knowing that the IRS cannot do anything (see Trump's cuts of the IRS).
The net upshot of this is that the middle class in the US is already bearing much of the brunt of the tax burden but they are bearing it not to pay for things that others get so much as to subsidize the lifestyle of billionaires and half-trillionaires. That, I would argue, is patently unfair.
That’s Leftist not populist
Perhaps we are using the terms differently. "Populism" as I see the term used is quite broad and encompasses policies ranging from nativist protections and land seizures to free busses and childcare. I agree Mandami's policies are leftist but clearly many consider them to be populist as well or dismiss them as such. But in any event while the term 'populist' is broad extending tax cuts for the 0.01% definitely isn't populist in any way shape or form, especially when it is (partially) covered by massive cuts to social programs.
So what I took to be the Giglio's point is that "populist" policies can trigger debt crises and yes I will agree that some do. But as I was pointing out we are already getting a debt crisis for anti-populist policies so clearly debt is not the concern.
Keep cracking the system!
Call. Write. Email. Protest. Unrelentingly.
Use/share this spreadsheet as a resource to call/email/write members of Congress, the Cabinet and news organizations. Reach out to those in your own state, as well as those in others. Use your voice and make some “good trouble” ❤️🩹🤍💙
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13lYafj0P-6owAJcH-5_xcpcRvMUZI7rkBPW-Ma9e7hw/edit?usp=drivesdk
Did you know that Texas has the most progressive Democratic platform in the country? It kinda makes sense, because Ted Cruz and other Tea Partiers have been manhandling at least half of the state Republicans for decades. Check out this article that came out today (and for you Latino Vote fans, Chuck is quoted in it).
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/25/greg-casar-midterms-2026-democrats-economic-populist-message/?_bhlid=15a7300fb20fa050d80882205ef7bcee670d6339
P.S. This Lonestar Left newsletter goes over the populists in TX if y’all are interested.
https://open.substack.com/pub/lonestarleft/p/the-most-progressive-democratic-party?r=1r6229&utm_medium=ios
I think the Democratic establishment did not coalesce around a mainstream candidate without baggage quickly, which enable Cuomo sucking all the oxygen while the socialist upstart staged this upset. If the Dems are serious about not having their tea party revolution, they need stronger leadership and willingness to kneecap figures like Cuomo from the get go.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I saw people in 2016 who first supported Bernie Sanders, but would support Trump if Bernie was not nominated. It was founded in the populism and economic message, and the promise to shake things up at a fundamental level, not traditional R/L politics, and certainly not identity politics. If Democrats don't learn that lesson, they are in deep trouble.
Younger democrats like David Hogg seem to have learned that. The trouble is that the party leadership still does not want to.
Dems, ignore at your peril! Adapt or expect to be replaced.
Spot on. Most recently, the Dem base has been screaming at elected Dems since January to fight for us, and with a few notable exceptions, they just have not.
Think they’ll start listening now? If not, expect a metric ton of primarying.
What young David Hogg has been representing just got approved by NYC.
This isn't a contradiction, it's clarity. Just brilliant, Mike. Thanks.
I second. Thanks Mike. Your opinion and writing is invaluable.
I don't pretend to fully grasp the ramifications of this, but if Dems are heading down the populist rabbit hole, I at least hope that we end up with better "populist" candidates than those that arose on the Republican side from the Tea Party. God help us if we end up with progressive versions of the likes of MTG!
From what I hear and read, Mamdani is a really nice guy. He ran a positive campaign and focused on coalition building, despite of a couple of gaffes he committed. Someone who runs a campaign like that doesn't strike me as a MTG-like person.
Maybe the personalities that come out of this Dem tea party will be less uncompromising, insane, a-holes and more people with varying degrees of progressive or moderate ideology, but all have in common a desire to "fight the bad guys" and a genuine desire to make people's lives better. But that's just me speculating based on my view of what happened.
From what I have heard, I have the same impression as you about Mamdani.