5 questions about the Democrats' Tea Party moment

Vox

5 hours ago

Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, speaks during a press conference celebrating his primary victory on July 2. Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images
Last weekend, my colleague Christian Paz wrote about how the Democratic Party could be on the brink of a grassroots takeover, similar to what the GOP experienced with the Tea Party movement. It's a fascinating piece that could have huge ramifications for Democratic politics, so I sat down with him to chat about his reporting for Vox's daily newsletter, Today, Explained.
Our conversation is below, and you can sign up for the newsletter here for more conversations like this.
Hey, Christian, how are you? Remind us what the original Tea Party was. What is this movement we're talking about?
The movement that I'm talking about started before Obama was elected. It was a mostly libertarian, grassroots, localized, not-that-big movement — a reaction to the bailouts at the end of the Bush administration. The idea being there's too much deficit spending and government is becoming way too big and becoming unmoored from constitutional limited-government principles.
It evolved when Obama was elected into a broader anti-Obama backlash and then a major explosion because of the Affordable Care Act fights. It basically turned into an effort to primary incumbent Republicans, an effort to move the party more toward this wing and eventually try to win back control of Congress.
After it took off, what happened to the GOP?
They were able to win, I believe, five out of the 10 Senate seats that they were challenging. Something like 40 members of Congress were Tea Party-affiliated.
The primary thing was that they were successful in massively mobilizing Republican voters and getting people to turn out in the 2010 midterms, which turned out to be one of the biggest 'shellackings,' as Obama called it, that Democrats or that any incumbent president and their party had sustained. Democrats lost control of the House and lost seats in the Senate, and that was a massive setback.
From then on, what happened was a successful move by more conservative primary challengers in future elections, the most iconic one being in 2014 — the primary that ousted Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, in favor of a Tea Party activist. It also forced the party as a whole to move to the right, making it more combative, more extreme, and more captive to a more ideological part of the Republican base.
Why are we hearing about this now with the Democratic Party?
The underlying idea is that there's a divide between the establishment Democrats and populist-minded progressive Democratic candidates. And that's part of the reason why we're hearing this now, because there was a victory in New York City's mayoral primary by Zohran Mamdani, a candidate who is fully in that latter category — a self-described democratic socialist appealing to this idea of bringing out new parts of the electorate, mobilizing people with populist appeal, with targeted, non-polished messaging, and taking more left-leaning positions on policy.
The big thing fueling talk about this Tea Party moment for Democrats is that the base has never really been as angry as it is right now. What we're seeing is a combination of anti-Trump anger, wanting a change in direction, wanting a change in leadership, and also some folks who are like, Maybe we should become more progressive as a party.
Today, Explained
Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
So tell me about that. A change in leadership, a change in the establishment — what does this movement actually want?
It's interesting. Because at least back with the original Tea Party movement, you could point to a core list of priorities there were about repealing Obamacare, about never repeating a bailout, about limiting the federal government's ability to spend.
Something like that doesn't exist right now, because it is a pretty disparate energy. The core thing is Democratic voters do not want the current leadership in Congress. They don't like Hakeem Jeffries's style of leadership in the House. They don't like Chuck Schumer's style of leadership in the Senate. There's frustration at older members of Congress being in Congress and serving in leadership capacity right now.
In the polling, over and over again, we see, Democrats should be focused on providing a working-class vision for Americans. They should be more focused on kitchen table affordability issues. And that is the thing that most Democratic voters can actually agree on, and basically saying that that's not what they think their current leadership is focused on.
What would it look like for the Democratic Party if this actually happens?
There are some strategists and activists who are drawing up lists of potential candidates to primary. There are already some challenges underway. I'm thinking of some House seats in Arizona, House seats in Illinois. There's talk, especially after this New York City mayoral contest, about primarying Kirsten Gillibrand or Chuck Schumer and finding challengers to some more moderate House members in the New York area.
I'd be looking to see if there actually are younger people launching primary campaigns targeting older or centrist Democratic members of Congress. Once we get to primary season next year, how successful in fundraising are these candidates? Is there an actual effort by some established progressive members of the House to try to support some of these younger candidates?