How To Rebuild the Democratic Coalition

As the Senate joins the House for the summer recess, the Democratic Party remains profoundly stuck over how to rebuild a winning coalition. Conflating image-making with a political strategy, Democrats such as Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, Representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, and California Governor Gavin Newsom have attempted in different ways to reanimate the anti-Trump “Resistance.” While most of the public seems unmoved by their respective gibes, denunciations, and sermons, it is unclear whether the populist left, still inflected with identity politics, is faring much better. Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City, has undeniably captured the imagination of younger progressives through a uniquely upbeat anti-establishment message. Still, it is dubious that Mamdani, despite his political talents, offers a model for potential insurgents in districts plainly averse to “check all the boxes” cultural progressivism.

Indeed, as the trajectory of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shows, there is a stark difference between attaining a celebrity-like influence within a coastal progressive stronghold and becoming a deft policymaker—let alone inspiring a populist insurgency against Republican rule in conservative-leaning states. Democrats certainly need fresh blood and fresh ideas in solid blue districts—and a willingness to take on vested interests and veto players on their home turf. But to actually win a mandate to govern—one that demonstrably enjoys ample working-class support in every region—they need to be doing what should have started over a decade ago: reconnecting with people and places stripped of their relevance and dignity within the national economy.

The much remarked upon Senate campaign launch of Roy Cooper, North Carolina’s former governor, is the latest sign that some Democrats outside the progressive bubble are finally taking this lesson to heart. Along with Kansas Governor Laura Kelly and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Cooper’s populist-tinged bid suggests a few of today’s Democrats have the chops to prevail in Trump country. To make any lasting headway, however, the party as a whole needs to do three things that convey it grasps the root of its rejection by millions of working people.

---

First, it must digest, posthaste, the harsh facts. Although it is nearly a year since Kamala Harris became, by a twist of fate, their presidential nominee, Democrats still seem in denial about the breadth of Trump’s 2024 coalition. Undoubtedly, that has slowed efforts to confront the main reasons behind the party’s nadir. And the public is unimpressed. Elected Democrats’ favorability rating is at its lowest level since the end of the Cold War—no tremendous surprise, of course, given what we know about Donald Trump’s “triple-trending counties,” Republican gains in deep blue cities, the growth in registered Republicans in key states, and the increase in nonvoting among registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning constituencies.

Importantly, this unpopularity is about more than failing to “stand up to Trump,” as those nostalgic for peak #Resistance would have it. Yes, some voters who previously supported Trump have their criticisms and regrets. But Democrats are viewed as insufficiently committed to pro-worker economic reforms while being too tethered to sociocultural litmus tests and what some critics call “luxury beliefs.” If many right-leaning independents and Trump 2024 converts now disapprove of Trump, particularly his approach to trade, immigration, and foreign policy,

Democrats are still seen by disaffected voters as incompetent and/or incapable of offering credible, revised stances on the issues they fumbled badly during the Covid and Biden years.

Democratic leaders must also absorb an equally devastating vote of no confidence in cities and states where Republican influence is quite limited. As illustrated by the decade-plus trend of internal migration from Northern and West Coast cities to the South, many people aspiring to join the middle class have concluded deep blue regions are too expensive and no longer offer sufficient opportunities for upward mobility. Accelerated by the pandemic, rent inflation, and housing scarcity, this migration—led not by older whites but by young families, blacks, and other minorities—will almost assuredly add Electoral College votes to Republican-leaning states after the 2030 Census, thereby reducing the solid Democratic bloc’s vote share.

Some progressives may hope this migration may eventually turn bigger red states such as Texas purple. But for now it promises to increase after 2030 the number of House districts that will tilt Republican or fall under Republican control outright. Combined with Republicans’ aggressive redistricting scheme for the Lone Star State, this projected redistribution of regional political power severely threatens Democrats’ odds of winning and sustaining a House majority in the next decade.

To avert becoming a regional party consigned to minority status in Congress—the very fate Democratic strategists wrongly prophesized the GOP would meet—party leaders and their deep-pocketed advocacy networks must therefore grant Democratic candidates in competitive districts and red states much wider latitude on all the proverbial wedge issues. The second imperative, then, is to fully eschew absolutist, Manichean stances that have sunk Democrats’ reputation, namely on border enforcement, gender medicine, and “DEI” (at least as understood by skeptical working-class voters). To be clear, Democrats don’t have to—and shouldn’t—abandon positions that are fundamentally humane, egalitarian, and consistent with American liberty. Progressives are right to want to root out heinous abuse and coercion in the immigration system, ensure the safety and dignity of gay and gender-non-conforming adults and adolescents, and push for equal opportunity and equal pay for nonwhites and women.

They cannot, however, advance toward these goals from a place of electoral weakness, made worse by a haughty view of Americans without a college degree. And they won’t as long as the most dogmatic activists demand positions that not only sound untenable or absurd to reasonable, thoughtful voters but are actually illiberal in means and ends, detrimental to social trust, or undermine enforcement of the nation’s laws (including its labor laws).

By the same token, Democratic politicians from all locales should have the courage to defend freedom of conscience and reject (not merely deemphasize) sectarian identity politics. This does not mean leading contenders for the presidential nomination have to orchestrate some sort of “Sister Souljah” moment, but rather that Democrats should be free to say that a given position or piece of rhetoric is wrongheaded, counterproductive, or defies common sense. Many activists espouse a philosophy of social justice that they insist will remedy America’s historical and present-day inequities—even as they also frequently declare America is beyond redemption. Put into practice, this philosophy has sown anxiety and cynicism, denigrated dissenting Americans as full-throated reactionaries, divided people into those deserving and undeserving of special recognition, and fueled an ugly anti-intellectual backlash in GOP-dominated states such as Florida and Iowa.

Perhaps most damningly, it has done very little to improve life chances for the bottom sixty percent; income and wealth inequality are nearly as bad in big coastal metros as they are in the Deep South, while Democrats’ poor standing in culturally conservative regions has perpetually put raising the federal minimum wage and expanding collective bargaining on the backburner.

This brings us to the third task paramount to changing perceptions of the national Democratic Party. In the spirit of forging a more ideologically heterogeneous, regionally diverse coalition, party reformers and associated voter mobilization groups should develop strategies tailored for each major type of elected office. As embattled leaders like DNC chair Ken Martin and various campaign committees regroup to prepare for the 2026 midterms, it would be prudent of them to consider these points:

• The House is where the inchoate new anti-monopoly movement will flourish or wilt. In a populist age, Democrats ought to recruit more candidates like Reps. Chris Deluzio, Jared Golden, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and Josh Riley if they are serious about rebuilding the middle class. Still, to dominate the House like they did between 1955 and 1995, they’ll need members even more attuned to the cultural sensibilities of working-class districts and blue-collar immigrants who swung dramatically to Trump over the last three presidential elections.

• The Senate should likewise be more involved in tackling major questions of national development and promoting shared prosperity in ways that go beyond means-tested programs. While the odds of gaining a Senate majority in the next two election cycles are virtually nil, Democrats nevertheless must take chances in states that were once highly competitive. That means giving ample backing to battle-tested red-state Democrats like Roy Cooper but also supporting insurgents such as Iowa’s Nathan Sage, a dark horse contender for Republican Joni Ernst’s Senate seat.

• Negative partisanship, regional polarization, and the sense that all political contestation is existential seem to be disproportionately fueled by whoever occupies the White House. Hard as it may be, Democrats should rally to candidates for the nation’s top office who seem genuinely capable of breaking this cycle. Although it was, in retrospect, naïve of Barack Obama to attempt to rise above the partisan fray, Democrats would do well to remember that the presidency offers both the bully pulpit and the chance to define (and elevate in importance) the nation’s common ground. As FDR routinely proved, the president is uniquely positioned to attack greed, coercion, and humanity’s basest impulses while also commending and encouraging all that strengthens the civic fabric. In addition, the special obligation to train the nation’s sights on the future extends to setting the coordinates for America’s role in what is, increasingly, a multipolar world. For all their hackneyed remarks about needing to clean up Trump’s mess, Democrats are right that much will be required of the next Democratic president to reset our alliances, strengthen democratic norms abroad, and reestablish public confidence in the merits of international aid and development, all while refining the foreign policy realism preferred by voters across the political spectrum. Those Democrats who are least consumed with scoring rhetorical points against Trump—and have a proven record of boosting the welfare of their constituents—are probably best equipped to offer such leadership.

---

In theory, attending to these tasks should be fairly straightforward so long as Democrats can agree that improving the economic well-being of workers and preventing (not simply penalizing) economic predation are top goals that cut across regional and cultural lines. Yet the relentless “nationalization” of all politics—unhelpfully pushed along by ultra-progressive advocacy groups, their right-wing counterparts, and social media—has made it next to impossible to stake out nuanced but principled positions on other issues salient to working-class voters. This has only exacerbated the Democrats’ regional woes while inhibiting the formation of a legislative agenda that can withstand a single midterm cycle.

Of course, ditching the sectionalist and elitist tenor of modern progressivism will not happen overnight. Nevertheless, party reformers and would-be insurgents will have to move quickly if Democrats are to stop the GOP from consolidating a political realignment. Given the looming disadvantages the party faces in the House—both the Cook political report and Larry Sabato’s Center for Politics note that the number of swing districts has fallen significantly in the last twenty years—accommodating and encouraging “independent,” culturally moderate Democrats to challenge Republican incumbents in districts that have spurned the national brand is of utmost importance. Although it might be painful, this will force the party to shed the baggage of sectarian identity politics. And the benefits will surely outweigh the costs. By expanding its foothold outside the coasts and championing the left behind, Democrats will be better positioned to credibly defend pluralism and liberty against right-wing overreach.

Denial, it is commonly said, is a powerful drug. But by now it should be self-evident that the current “wait for Trump to fail spectacularly” strategy is a dead end. Democrats are weak not primarily because their messaging about Trump is exhausted—although this is true—but because they are in denial about the extent of their regional woes and voters’ mistrust. To return to power, Democrats must reimagine how to build it and how to wield it. That is only possible, however, if the party commits to making dramatic inroads in places they have ignored and abandoned—and by bringing in more voices who understand that a coalition guided by common interests is far greater than one guided by common fears.