There is an America that has long existed in the political imagination, at home and far beyond its borders: a country associated with the promise that, however imperfect its institutions and however powerful its political interests, citizens ultimately retain the ability to determine who governs them. That image has weakened in recent years.

By Zeina Moneer
Pew Research Centre's international surveys show that many people around the world who once regarded American democracy as a model no longer believe it provides the example it once did. The electoral successes of Zohran Mamdani in New York and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan offer an intriguing glimpse of the democratic ideal behind that fading image: money and powerful interests may shape the electoral competition, but voters can still refuse the outcome those forces seek to produce.

Their victories should not be romanticised as evidence that money has suddenly lost its power in American politics, nor can two elections establish a political realignment. Their significance lies elsewhere. Both candidates emerged from progressive movements that challenged established political orthodoxies while relying heavily on grassroots mobilisation.

Mamdani defeated a far better-funded Andrew Cuomo through a campaign built around an extensive grassroots operation of more than 10,000 volunteers and over one million doors canvassed. Despite more than $25 million in super-PAC support for Cuomo.

El-Sayed's victory provides an even more striking example: he defeated Haley Stevens despite more than $60 million in outside spending supporting her, including more than $30 million from AIPAC and its affiliates, while building a volunteer network of roughly 12,000 people.

This is why the story is larger than the tempting headline that “AIPAC spent millions and lost.” The more consequential lesson is that political money can shape the battlefield without necessarily determining the result.

Mamdani and El-Sayed raise a larger question: are these isolated victories, or early signs that changing voters and grassroots politics are beginning to redraw the boundaries of what can succeed at the ballot box?

When organised money meets the ballot
Few organisations illustrate the power of organised political influence in Washington as clearly as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Its influence has historically extended beyond campaign spending to lobbying, political networks and sustained engagement with lawmakers.

AIPAC is explicit about its electoral objectives: the organisation says its members work to help pro-Israel Democrats and Republicans win elections while helping the organisation defeat candidates it considers “detractors” of the US–Israel relationship.

Money is hardly peripheral to American electoral politics. According to the Federal Election Commission's latest campaign-finance summary, candidates for the House and Senate raised more than $2.1 billion and spent $1.3 billion between January 2025 and March 2026; federal PACs raised another $6.3 billion during the same period.

Within this vast political-finance ecosystem, the AIPAC-backed United Democracy Project (UDP) stands out as a formidable electoral actor. Current Federal Election Commission records for UDP show that the super PAC has reported approximately $104 million in total receipts during the 2025–26 election cycle.

These figures illustrate the scale of the financial environment in which American elections now take place-and why victories in the face of heavily financed opposition deserve attention. In addition,  it illustrates the scale of the financial environment in which American elections now take place—and why victories in the face of heavily financed opposition deserve attention.

Yet the recent elections expose the other side of American politics. El-Sayed prevailed despite the extraordinary outside spending surrounding the Michigan contest. This does not demonstrate AIPAC's demise: indeed, AIPAC itself points to previous races in which its electoral intervention helped defeat candidates it opposed.

AIPAC highlights those electoral victories in its own assessment. What Michigan demonstrates is something subtler. Political money can influence the choices presented to voters, but it cannot guarantee the choice voters ultimately make.

A changing electorate
The limits of political money become more understandable when viewed against a deeper transformation in the electorate itself. For decades, support for Israel occupied unusually secure bipartisan territory in Washington. That consensus is now increasingly fractured, particularly among younger Americans and Democratic voters.

The shift has accelerated since the war on Gaza, which has brought Palestinian civilian suffering, US military assistance to Israel and the boundaries of unconditional support for the Israeli government much more forcefully into American political debate. The generational change is striking. Gallup's 2026 polling found that 53 per cent of Americans aged 18–34 sympathised more with Palestinians, compared with 23 per cent who sympathised more with Israelis-the first time a majority of this age group had expressed greater sympathy for Palestinians.

A similar shift is visible among Americans aged 35–54: 46 per cent said they sympathised more with Palestinians, compared with 28 per cent who sympathised more with Israelis. This represents a near reversal from 2025, when 45 per cent of this age group sympathised more with Israelis and 33 per cent with Palestinians.

What was once politically risky territory for many Democratic candidates, openly challenging established US policy toward Israel, is increasingly being contested by an electorate whose attitudes appear to be moving faster than Washington's traditional foreign-policy consensus.

This is particularly evident among younger Democrats. A 2026 Pew Research Centre survey found that 72 per cent of Democrats under 30 held favourable views of Palestinians, compared with just 26 per cent who viewed Israelis favourably.

Mamdani and El-Sayed are products of this transformation, but also agents of it. They belong to an emerging generation of politicians seeking to reclaim politics as an instrument of social transformation rather than merely crisis management, while connecting Palestine to a broader progressive agenda that encompasses everyday economic concerns, inequality, and the halt of military aid to Israel.

El-Sayed's Michigan victory may also carry significance well beyond Michigan, potentially positioning him as an influential figure in the 2028 Democratic presidential nominating process, particularly given the state's strategic importance in presidential politics.

The power-and limits-of political money
The tension exposed by these elections is hardly new. American scholars have long questioned whether a democracy characterised by vast wealth inequalities can deliver equal political influence in Affluence and Influence.

Martin Gilens argues that American policymakers respond far more strongly to the preferences of economically advantaged citizens than to those of less affluent Americans. His analysis places this disparity within a broader system of political inequality shaped by interest groups, parties and elections.

Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig went further in Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It, examining how campaign financing, corporate lobbying and the growing power of special interests have created a political system in which money can exercise disproportionate influence over representative government.

And in the more specific realm of US Middle East policy, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt controversially argued in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that a broader coalition of organisations and individuals-notably AIPAC- actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro‐Israel direction. Their thesis remains contested, but AIPAC's subsequent expansion into direct electoral spending has given renewed relevance to the underlying question they raised: how far can organised interests shape political choice in a democratic system?

The recent elections offer a cautiously hopeful answer. They do not invalidate concerns about the power of political money. Nor do they suggest that financial inequality has ceased to distort the conditions under which American elections are fought. They reveal an important distinction between influence and control instead.

Money can buy visibility, amplify messages, dominate advertising and make it difficult for less well-funded candidates to compete. But influence over the conditions of political competition is not the same as control over its outcome. That distinction is where the resilience of democracy becomes visible: Perhaps this is the America many have long imagined-not a democracy free from money, lobbying or unequal power, but one resilient enough to challenge them.

Mamdani and El-Sayed may or may not herald a lasting political realignment. Their victories nevertheless remind us of something more fundamental: the promise of democracy was never that power would disappear, but that power could be challenged. And sometimes, against the weight of money and established influence, the ballot still prevails.

Dr Zeina Moneer is an academic and senior climate practitioner specialising in environmental politics, climate justice, and green transitions across the MENA region and Africa. She holds a PhD in Environmental Politics from Freiburg University in Germany. She has served as a visiting scholar at prestigious institutions, including the Nordic Africa Institute and the University of New Hampshire as a Fulbright Scholar. This is his first contribution to The Liberum.