Graham Platner’s victory in the Maine Democratic primary, despite controversies that would sink more conventional candidates, shows us that voters are not simply rejecting incumbents. They are responding to candidates – even those with pretty dire baggage – who speak to a widespread belief that the economic system is increasingly rigged in favour of billionaires and large corporations.
In my research with Harvard professor Taeku Lee, based on surveys of more than 36,000 voters across the US, UK, France and Germany, we see a hidden wave of voter opinion that is hostile to big corporations and billionaire influence.
Strikingly, it’s a sentiment that cuts across traditional party lines, which is why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have both floated the idea of taking public equity in AI companies. This means it’s not just important for the Democratic primaries, but that it could decide the races in November.
Read more:Paul Pogba: 2026 France team better than 2018 World Cup winners
This is a potent electoral cocktail. We call it “good populism”, in the sense of being good for democracy. “Good” populist views, which we see across all of these wealthy democracies, are driven by a sense of economic unfairness. Voters worry about tech companies shaping their children’s lives and don’t trust AI firms to act in their interests. They are wary of private equity in housing, and many doubt their children will ever be able to buy a home. They are willing to hold their noses and vote for candidates with flaws if they speak to these issues.
Voters driven by this sense of unfairness blame billionaires and big corporations. But this does not mean they are anti-business. These voters also see small companies as victims. They don’t want to dump capitalism – they want to save it from the largest companies and big government.
This view contrasts with the familiar populist sentiment that we also see in the data. This view is based on failure of political institutions – parties, the mainstream media, and elections. We call this “bad” populism, because it disavows the inclusive society necessary for democracy to flourish. This view is linked to hostility toward immigrants, minorities, and Jewish people. And the strength of that feeling has also led voters to choose flawed candidates.
Politicians and pundits face a choice. They can treat Platner’s victory in Maine as a generic rejection of incumbents, strong enough to outweigh sexts and allegations of abusive behaviour. Or they can see what voters see: a lobster fisherman talking nonstop about a system he believes is rigged.
Platner’s win is not because voters are simply repudiating elites, though the Democratic leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, should definitely be worried. Voters want someone they trust to change the economic deal – and it ain’t Schumer.
What does this mean for future primaries? While many Democrats hope for a familiar “blue wave” in November, Platner’s success suggests that candidates who tap into concerns about concentrated economic power may be mobilising something deeper: a form of “good populism” rooted in economic unfairness rather than hostility to democratic institutions, minorities or immigrants. Anti-billionaire sentiment is cresting, and those who ride it will win in November.
In Michigan, this means the candidate who sounds most like Platner – Abdul el-Sayed – is likely to romp home to victory, despite what polling shows is a tightly contested primary. If, like many populists, you don’t want to trust supposed experts, then just look to prediction markets like Kalshi, which are currently pricing in a 70% chance of an el-Sayed victory in August.
Read more:Judge denies Kennedy Center request for pause in ruling ordering Trump’s name removed from building
This would echo the success of candidates with good populist programmes like Zohran Mamdani and James Talarico, who have thumbed their nose at the views of the Democratic establishment as they surfed their own good populist waves to victory.
Good populism offers candidates a chance to mobilise swathes of voters across the political spectrum by tapping into how they are feeling. Populism can bolster democracy if it is grounded in fairness – and policies that respond to it – rather than fear. And the “good populists”, like Graham Platner, may just have a point.
