THE OUTCOME OF Tuesday’s off-year elections in the United States was not hugely surprising, yet in the round, the Democratic sweep is remarkable nonetheless. The party has been adrift, arguably unmoored and desperate to chart the best possible way forward since Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2024.

This internal conflict is evident in the publication of a compelling, research-based report, entitled “Deciding to Win” and authored by committed moderate Democrats who believe strongly that their party has veered too far left in recent years and urge a pivot to the centre. (Due disclosure: I am in their tribe and am personally sympathetic to their analysis).

Progressives have pushed back vociferously in response. They claim, on one hand, that there has not been a genuine leftward lurch. On the other, they deny that any perception of such a move has resulted in a loss of support. (A further due disclosure: I think they are demonstrably wrong on each count).

This is the latest outgrowth of the oft-cited, left vs centre battle between the cohort purportedly led by US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and US Senator Bernie Sanders and the one supposedly embodied by the Clintons, the Obamas, Joe Biden, James Carville, et al.

The question this week is, in the wake of an undeniably successful round of elections, where should Democrats pitch their tent as the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential contest approach in the land of the eternal campaign?

In New York, a self-identified Democratic Socialist, Muslim and Ugandan immigrant, the youthful Zohran Mamdani, emerged from relative obscurity to beat the state’s former governor, Andrew Cuomo. More than 50% of voters in the Big Apple chose him to serve as their mayor. He pulled off the upset with the help of an army of volunteers attracted to his upstart candidacy, above all, by his unapologetically radical plans to cut the exorbitant cost of living in the city.

Mamdani’s lengthy victory address was forthright and combative. Commencing with a quote from legendary American socialist Eugene Debs, he steadfastly defended members of the Trans community; he condemned Islamophobia; he pledged not only to defend New Yorkers against Trump, but also “the next one”; he guaranteed he would protect tenants from landlords when necessary; and he assured the crowd he will be an unflinching champion of labour unions “because…when working people have ironclad rights, the bosses who seek to extort them become very small indeed.”

Conciliatory language this was not. There was little in the form of outreach to adherents of Cuomo, who was actually quite generous to Mamdani in defeat, or to those who opted for the third hopeful, Curtis Sliwa, of the GOP. And the audience loved every second of it. Many who were present also expressed, in colourful words, their extreme distaste for establishment Democrats who declined to endorse their man. The left has a new hero.

Dire predictions about what will befall New York City and its people when an inexperienced, “tax the rich” socialist is sworn into office now abound. They are likely overwrought. Mamdani, however, has promised promiscuously and will inevitably let some of those who rallied to his cause down. But he has accomplished an extraordinary feat and is certainly the man of the moment, even as President Trump and leading conservatives see him – for obvious, not very nice reasons – as an ideal bogeyman who they intend to turn into the national face of the Democratic Party.

Two of Mamdani’s fellow Democrats, Mikie Sherrill in neighbouring New Jersey and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, performed similarly well. That said, these centrists employed entirely different tactics in their campaigns. They and their advisers clearly learned lessons from the dismal presidential bid of Kamala Harris and from other colleagues who failed to win races that were there for the taking.

In short, and without using the rhetoric that bolstered Mamdani in America’s largest metropolis, Sherrill and Spanberger honed in on inflation and associated “bread and butter” topics that Democrats have forever had the advantage on.

Simultaneously, and without disavowing their convictions, they avoided the “Trump is a threat to a republic” line of attack that falls on the deaf ears of a jaded citizenry and de-emphasised the culture wars which Republicans have exploited to great effect. This shrewd messaging facilitated their triumphs. Democrats made gains in territory less favourable than New Jersey and Virginia, too.

So, neither is probably the answer to the question posed previously as to whether the party of Mamdani, Sherrill and Spanberger should go definitively centrist or left. Instead, the answer is that, in the US, a vast, diverse country with a nonsensical two party system, the tent should be broad enough to include those drawn to both factions. Given that individuals within them have sincere differences on multiple social and economic issues, that’s not easy.

It means that the Democratic tent must have room for unabashed leftists on the coasts and in urban areas, as well as moderate to conservative populists in Middle America. That will require a lot of “sucking it up” – cognisant that allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good is not a tenable 50-state strategy, no matter what the rigid ideologues, moneyed special interests or high-powered lobbyists say.

The struggle for the past while has been one that will be readily apparent to readers in Ireland, where political parties are much more cohesive and disciplined entities.

What is there to unite this putative Democratic coalition when their views and bearings more generally are, at times, divergent?

And here is why the elections this week are significant, in the immediate and perhaps longer terms. They reveal what the clarion call is at this juncture: the affordability agenda. In the US, just about everything – from health care, to higher education, to hamburgers – is extortionate.

Hammering home that reality, which is currently devastating so many women, men and children, together with developing concrete, feasible initiatives for improving things, can unite Democrats of all stripes and win over a decent sized cadre of Americans so beleaguered that they went for Donald Trump.

But do they have it in them collectively to grasp the nettle?