“Rust Belt Insurgents Clinch Democrats’ House Takeover, Repair Blue Wall.” A little over a year from now, a headline like that will convey the state of the electorate—if Democrats prevail in the 2026 midterms.
The above may well be correct, but the bottom line is not how these more relatable new Dem candidates will campaign, but how they will vote if Gavin Newsom sits in the WH.
Tim Ryan and Sherrod Brown sat in DC and watched Ohio middle class living standards deteriorate under Biden, at the speed of light. At one point Brown, supposedly a labor lion, was reduced to championing an Ohio factory staffed by a group of Haitian migrants. Their "good jobs" paid roughly $18 bucks an hour. Dems seriously bragged about Ohio factory work, for foreign labor, that paid less than $40K a year. In 1988, it was hard to toss a rock in Ohio and not hit a factory paying that, or something near it.
Neither Ryan or Brown, the latter who will ask voters to return him to DC at the spry age of 75, ever once insisted Biden close the border, or trim trillions in Green spending. For new candidates to really capitalize on being Dem fresh faces, they will need to disavow most of what transpired during Biden's term. It will be interesting to see if any will take the plunge.
Inflation will be the most important Midterm issue, but we are unlikely likely to reach the 2026 election, without other political Black Swans. In Texas rumors of Cartel bounties on ICE Agents abound. Biden handed Cartels people trafficking revenue of $13 billion dollars annually. They would like some of it back. Terrorizing ICE agents to cause resignations, is said to be part of the plan. This, as Pritzker refuses to allow IL law enforcement to aid ICE agents in IL. We will all be lucky, if the next few years do not produce an immigration Kent State, with Cartel members playing the role of Ohio Guardsmen.
Much depends on whether Trump and the GOP decide to continue with policies like these foolhardy (and completely unnecessary) military occupations of the political opposition's cities. If they do, the Democrats may not need to disavow anything to win in 2026 and perhaps even in 2028, even if such disavowals would be beneficial.
Because I can think of no greater turnout engine for Democrats, whether in the midterms or 2028, than Republicans continuing to send the armed forces into their neighborhoods with no major inciting incidents to justify them, as has been the case thus far. Especially if the Republican POTUS continues to do things like call them 'the enemy from within' in front of the heads of those armed forces and such.
Recall that if Democratic turnout in 2024 had matched Democratic turnout in 2020, Trump would have lost. The Democrats will get that differential and then some if the occupations and/or similarly repressive policies and police state tactics continue to be implemented. "Vote for us and you can go to Starbucks without walking through a phalanx of armed soldiers like you're living in Baghdad circa 2007" will be message enough.
The giveaway is your use of the word "perception" which you suggest the liberals need to address. To quote a favorite: it's the reality. stupid. As long as the left arrogantly continues to believe that they are right about everything, they will refuse to consider that just might not be true, and therefore perception is not their problem at all. In fact, that attitude suggests that their detractors are too stupid to see their superior knowledge. It could also be said that the attitude is a good part of the problem, along with the dependence on lies and schemes and hoaxes....including an entire presidency! What is it about truth that is so scary to liberals?
Dan Osborn (I) lost his last Senate race, promptly set up a PAC and pays himself to be a perennial candidate. Democrats in Nebraska have endorsed him and are not running a candidate in the race. He fundraises through ActBlue with 90% of his donations coming from out of state. He agrees 100% with progressive policies. Voters aren't dumb: He is a Democrat.
Why not work for himself as a candidate. It doesn't take much income to be more than blue collar wages. Yes he gets money via act blue and I'd think mostly from out of state and Democrats would love to see him elected even if he didn't caucus with them. I'm sure once elected and voting they'd bring out the long knives (figuratively)
On the upside senators who are on the fence are often the deciders on legislation. They are that last vote needed to pass filibuster. I could easily imagine him voting for a Republican immigration bill as did congress critters Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Jared Golden of maine and 3 other dems.
Osborn won't reveal how he feels about immigration, or offer other concrete policies or specific solutions. He won't say who he would caucus with. Lots of platitudes (affordable housing, affordable medical care, etc.) but no specifics. How did I Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Jared Golden vote on whether to shut down the government? Rep Perez opposed a shutdown but didn't vote and Rep. Jared Golden opposed a shutdown and is now being primaried on the left.
The senate are the folks shutting things down. Perez and Golden are house side.
I too have reservations, but if they misjudge ever so slightly they could be on the receiving end of tons of negative publicity like Sinema and Manchin. Interns and staffers of other representatives are much more extreme often than the representative, and those staffers wield a lot of power. What matters is how they vote on legislation.
Also movement doesn't come all at once, people take baby steps, then some unknown is encouraged to leap. I disagree with centrists all the time, but less so than extremists.
Tip O'Neil is gone and most politics is national now. Democrats need to make an example of some of the worst. The homicidal maniac in VA would seem a good place to start but the Establishment is doubling down. Might actually work in VA but there will be a price nationally.
From 2000 to about 2018, I saw the Rs as the dangerous party. That’s changed, and I’m now far more concerned about what the Ds would do if they had too much power. This is due in large part to my state of residence: California.
California houses trans-identified nails in women’s prisons. There have been rapes, some by cellmates. Imagine the kind of government that would lock a woman into a cell with a male rapist. How many historical evils have been carried out by governments claiming to be virtuous?
California requires health plans to cover gender affirming care, including hormone therapy, mental health, and surgical interventions. It bans therapists from so-called “conversion therapy,” which means that therapists must affirm a child’s chosen gender, regardless of any consideration. Reality is now “conversion” in California.
California gives free medical care to many people living here illegally, and will be adding 700,000 more to those rolls in a year and a half.
And Newsom wants us to vote to gerrymander this state so that there will be an even larger Dem majority in the state legislature. They’ll never give this up if they win. This special election is a perfect example of how people hand their power to others bent on stomping all over them.
I know the Republicans can be cruel. I know that. But these days, the Dems terrify me. Times have changed.
“Connecting with the downtrodden and ignored shouldn’t be that difficult”. It sounds like you are referring to many of the commenters here, who have left the party. Might ask what it would take for them to again vote for a Democrat candidate.
For one thing, the Democrats would have to make good on their promises. Their 2020 platform said they would repeal Trump's 2017 tax cuts; the Democrats left them in place. The platform said the Democrats would raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hr; the Democrats left it at $7.25. The Democrats' platform promised a "21st Century immigration system," which turned out to mean 12 million more illegal aliens. The Democrats passed an Inflation Reduction Act which did not reduce inflation but spent 75% of its appropriations on renewable energy. The Democrats' campaign strategy seems to be "Promise the voters what they want, give them what they don't want, and hope they have short memories."
For me to vote D again, the candidate would have to embrace equality over equity and reject the idea that men can become women and reject the use of drugs/surgeries for gender-confused children. They'd have to stop labelling people who disagree with them as stupid, hateful, racist, etc.
And they'd have to show us that they can get stuff done: bring back job security for the millions of Americans trapped in the gig economy, raise minimum wage, and etc. So no D running for president who hasn't shown that s/he can execute on policies, not just talk about them.
There are no independent Democrats in the Democrat party except John Fetterman. It was his stroke that was the stroke of luck that got him elected... today he would be never be candidate they would allow. The Democrat party is run by radical 3rd wave post modernist feminists and their low-T male lapdogs. They are 100% collectivist. They can no longer push off fake centrists. And if they manage to get one through the primaries, the general election debates will destroy them because they will be stuck with their demand to pledge fealty to woke ideology.
The Democrats plan to flip the crime issue is more gun control. Yeah, that is the ticket. Just ask Bill Clinton how well that worked. Based on polling data supplied by Giffords who absolutely wouldn't fix a poll in favor of their pet issue. It will play especially well in the swing districts being talked about here. Just another example of the pernicious influence of the groups.
Every state in the US has "gun enhancements" this add years to a sentence if a gun is used in the commission of a crime. They are laws likely 98% of both Dems and Reps support, but they are often not charged in Blue districts, seeking to mitigate prison time.
Am often not a fan of Reps withholding federal funds, because eventually a Dem will hold the WH, but wish the federal government would demand any crime with a gun, automatically be charged withg the gun enhancement to receive federal funds. It is gun control nearly all but Progressive DAs support.
Nice glittering generalities about some Democratic candidates at least sounding less crazy Left on social issues. Some of them will tone down the rhetoric of their (self-perceived) moral superiority, but the likelihood is that the substance of what they really believe - and how they will vote in Congress if elected - will not change.
The current Democratic party is hardcore Woke. As the author noted, only a serious recession guarantees them a House majority after 2026. One sliver of hope for Democrats will be there through 2028: many people are so repulsed by how Trump acts - even when they mostly agree with him on policy - that they won't for other Republicans no matter what.
The main answer is simple. Dems need to prove citizens have replaced the illegals as their primary focus and who come first. How do you do that with millions running around loose.
And least we forget, every anti trump Dem in the spotlight now days said no one wants the worse of the worse to remain in their jurisdiction. How many have Prizker, Brandon, and bass turned over. There would be no reasons for raids if the locals took care of it and turned them over to ICE.
Very nice long article, but the Republicans will maintain control of both the house and Senate after the midterms and Donald Trump will still be president for two more years. So just get used to it.
Trump closed the border already, without deportations it still an open border waiting for the magic words. When are Democrats going to come up with some ideas for things like a universal level of health care for everyone that isn't tied to the for profit medical complex model? The senate has shut us down over competing versions of screwing people over on health care. We need to tax and a lot of the people who will be taxed are Democrats who think anything below a billion dollars is poverty. What of a $20 min wage, a forty hour week, and paid holidays, a liveable pension?
Win or lose, change will come, the question is will the Democratic Party be able to avoid being part of that change for one more election cycle or not.
Healthcare is going to be a huge issue, because costs just keep climbing, and ER waits just keep getting longer. Until all healthcare prices are required to be posted like menus in Paris, and everyone has some financial skin in the game, we will never bend the cost curve down.
40% of Californians are now too poor for subsidized Obamacare, and are now enrolled on Medicaid. That stat should scare the rest of the US half to death. That is roughly more than 50% higher than US national average for Medicaid enrollment. What happens when more of the US is more like CA?
I'd be ok with that. We already have a nationwide system of clinics for low income, indigent, etc. Mostly used for Medicaid now, they also have pharma, dental, vision, birth control, immunizations, basic health care, and referrals for things beyond basic care. They could be expanded, open 24 hours, and simple registration. Police and fire used to be private too.
I think public housing doesn't have to be bad. 40 to 50 million adults are below 85 IQ. Things are are frustrating to me could well be impossible for them. With a little simplification of things they might produce and pay more in taxes than they cost. We pay a lot of profit to landlords via section 8, I don't need the dividends from health care ETFs.
Better check to see if PE tentacles are not in that too. Personally, I think having health care run by the same people who do retirement is a bad idea. Perverse incentives to kill people either by neglect or deliberately as in Canada.
All said in this article aside, Trump's push against crime with troops in the cities is the new wild card in the game. Who can be against crime and the violence we can see day after day in these liberal cities?
Democratic turnout was down during the 2024 election--and that was essentially the entire difference between a Trump victory and a Trump loss.
Since then it has hugely outperformed expectations. (which were already high) And consider the incentives Democratic voters have been given. Trump has stationed troops in traditionally Democratic cities, over the objections of Democratic governors, and said they should be used as 'training grounds' for further police state measures; he's implied Democrats are among 'the enemy within' not just to his voters, but to the military; and there's no guarantee he doesn't use the Insurrection Act to essentially stage a hostile takeover of predominantly Democratic States without any meaningful justification (looking at you, Portland, where there's absolutely nothing going on right now that justifies a military occupation) before 2026 gets here.
I can't think of anything better-calibrated to get every last Democrat to the polls, whether there's federal troops stationed around said polls are not. Republicans certainly have a few victories to hang onto, but Trump's underwater with swing voters and the economy is floundering. Remember that polling can sample the sentiments of a population, but if one side of a polling divide shows up to vote at 3x the amount the other does, that's enough to clinch victories in close races. Nothing is guaranteed, of course--we'll see what happens, ultimately--but, again, don't discount turnout.
The above may well be correct, but the bottom line is not how these more relatable new Dem candidates will campaign, but how they will vote if Gavin Newsom sits in the WH.
Tim Ryan and Sherrod Brown sat in DC and watched Ohio middle class living standards deteriorate under Biden, at the speed of light. At one point Brown, supposedly a labor lion, was reduced to championing an Ohio factory staffed by a group of Haitian migrants. Their "good jobs" paid roughly $18 bucks an hour. Dems seriously bragged about Ohio factory work, for foreign labor, that paid less than $40K a year. In 1988, it was hard to toss a rock in Ohio and not hit a factory paying that, or something near it.
Neither Ryan or Brown, the latter who will ask voters to return him to DC at the spry age of 75, ever once insisted Biden close the border, or trim trillions in Green spending. For new candidates to really capitalize on being Dem fresh faces, they will need to disavow most of what transpired during Biden's term. It will be interesting to see if any will take the plunge.
Inflation will be the most important Midterm issue, but we are unlikely likely to reach the 2026 election, without other political Black Swans. In Texas rumors of Cartel bounties on ICE Agents abound. Biden handed Cartels people trafficking revenue of $13 billion dollars annually. They would like some of it back. Terrorizing ICE agents to cause resignations, is said to be part of the plan. This, as Pritzker refuses to allow IL law enforcement to aid ICE agents in IL. We will all be lucky, if the next few years do not produce an immigration Kent State, with Cartel members playing the role of Ohio Guardsmen.
Much depends on whether Trump and the GOP decide to continue with policies like these foolhardy (and completely unnecessary) military occupations of the political opposition's cities. If they do, the Democrats may not need to disavow anything to win in 2026 and perhaps even in 2028, even if such disavowals would be beneficial.
Because I can think of no greater turnout engine for Democrats, whether in the midterms or 2028, than Republicans continuing to send the armed forces into their neighborhoods with no major inciting incidents to justify them, as has been the case thus far. Especially if the Republican POTUS continues to do things like call them 'the enemy from within' in front of the heads of those armed forces and such.
Recall that if Democratic turnout in 2024 had matched Democratic turnout in 2020, Trump would have lost. The Democrats will get that differential and then some if the occupations and/or similarly repressive policies and police state tactics continue to be implemented. "Vote for us and you can go to Starbucks without walking through a phalanx of armed soldiers like you're living in Baghdad circa 2007" will be message enough.
The giveaway is your use of the word "perception" which you suggest the liberals need to address. To quote a favorite: it's the reality. stupid. As long as the left arrogantly continues to believe that they are right about everything, they will refuse to consider that just might not be true, and therefore perception is not their problem at all. In fact, that attitude suggests that their detractors are too stupid to see their superior knowledge. It could also be said that the attitude is a good part of the problem, along with the dependence on lies and schemes and hoaxes....including an entire presidency! What is it about truth that is so scary to liberals?
Dan Osborn (I) lost his last Senate race, promptly set up a PAC and pays himself to be a perennial candidate. Democrats in Nebraska have endorsed him and are not running a candidate in the race. He fundraises through ActBlue with 90% of his donations coming from out of state. He agrees 100% with progressive policies. Voters aren't dumb: He is a Democrat.
Why not work for himself as a candidate. It doesn't take much income to be more than blue collar wages. Yes he gets money via act blue and I'd think mostly from out of state and Democrats would love to see him elected even if he didn't caucus with them. I'm sure once elected and voting they'd bring out the long knives (figuratively)
On the upside senators who are on the fence are often the deciders on legislation. They are that last vote needed to pass filibuster. I could easily imagine him voting for a Republican immigration bill as did congress critters Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Jared Golden of maine and 3 other dems.
Osborn won't reveal how he feels about immigration, or offer other concrete policies or specific solutions. He won't say who he would caucus with. Lots of platitudes (affordable housing, affordable medical care, etc.) but no specifics. How did I Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Jared Golden vote on whether to shut down the government? Rep Perez opposed a shutdown but didn't vote and Rep. Jared Golden opposed a shutdown and is now being primaried on the left.
The senate are the folks shutting things down. Perez and Golden are house side.
I too have reservations, but if they misjudge ever so slightly they could be on the receiving end of tons of negative publicity like Sinema and Manchin. Interns and staffers of other representatives are much more extreme often than the representative, and those staffers wield a lot of power. What matters is how they vote on legislation.
Also movement doesn't come all at once, people take baby steps, then some unknown is encouraged to leap. I disagree with centrists all the time, but less so than extremists.
The House voted and passed the bill before it went to the Senate.
Tip O'Neil is gone and most politics is national now. Democrats need to make an example of some of the worst. The homicidal maniac in VA would seem a good place to start but the Establishment is doubling down. Might actually work in VA but there will be a price nationally.
From 2000 to about 2018, I saw the Rs as the dangerous party. That’s changed, and I’m now far more concerned about what the Ds would do if they had too much power. This is due in large part to my state of residence: California.
California houses trans-identified nails in women’s prisons. There have been rapes, some by cellmates. Imagine the kind of government that would lock a woman into a cell with a male rapist. How many historical evils have been carried out by governments claiming to be virtuous?
California requires health plans to cover gender affirming care, including hormone therapy, mental health, and surgical interventions. It bans therapists from so-called “conversion therapy,” which means that therapists must affirm a child’s chosen gender, regardless of any consideration. Reality is now “conversion” in California.
California gives free medical care to many people living here illegally, and will be adding 700,000 more to those rolls in a year and a half.
And Newsom wants us to vote to gerrymander this state so that there will be an even larger Dem majority in the state legislature. They’ll never give this up if they win. This special election is a perfect example of how people hand their power to others bent on stomping all over them.
I know the Republicans can be cruel. I know that. But these days, the Dems terrify me. Times have changed.
Oh no! Nails should be MALES! iPhone autocorrect strikes again.
“Connecting with the downtrodden and ignored shouldn’t be that difficult”. It sounds like you are referring to many of the commenters here, who have left the party. Might ask what it would take for them to again vote for a Democrat candidate.
For one thing, the Democrats would have to make good on their promises. Their 2020 platform said they would repeal Trump's 2017 tax cuts; the Democrats left them in place. The platform said the Democrats would raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hr; the Democrats left it at $7.25. The Democrats' platform promised a "21st Century immigration system," which turned out to mean 12 million more illegal aliens. The Democrats passed an Inflation Reduction Act which did not reduce inflation but spent 75% of its appropriations on renewable energy. The Democrats' campaign strategy seems to be "Promise the voters what they want, give them what they don't want, and hope they have short memories."
For me to vote D again, the candidate would have to embrace equality over equity and reject the idea that men can become women and reject the use of drugs/surgeries for gender-confused children. They'd have to stop labelling people who disagree with them as stupid, hateful, racist, etc.
And they'd have to show us that they can get stuff done: bring back job security for the millions of Americans trapped in the gig economy, raise minimum wage, and etc. So no D running for president who hasn't shown that s/he can execute on policies, not just talk about them.
There are no independent Democrats in the Democrat party except John Fetterman. It was his stroke that was the stroke of luck that got him elected... today he would be never be candidate they would allow. The Democrat party is run by radical 3rd wave post modernist feminists and their low-T male lapdogs. They are 100% collectivist. They can no longer push off fake centrists. And if they manage to get one through the primaries, the general election debates will destroy them because they will be stuck with their demand to pledge fealty to woke ideology.
The Democrats plan to flip the crime issue is more gun control. Yeah, that is the ticket. Just ask Bill Clinton how well that worked. Based on polling data supplied by Giffords who absolutely wouldn't fix a poll in favor of their pet issue. It will play especially well in the swing districts being talked about here. Just another example of the pernicious influence of the groups.
Every state in the US has "gun enhancements" this add years to a sentence if a gun is used in the commission of a crime. They are laws likely 98% of both Dems and Reps support, but they are often not charged in Blue districts, seeking to mitigate prison time.
Am often not a fan of Reps withholding federal funds, because eventually a Dem will hold the WH, but wish the federal government would demand any crime with a gun, automatically be charged withg the gun enhancement to receive federal funds. It is gun control nearly all but Progressive DAs support.
Nice glittering generalities about some Democratic candidates at least sounding less crazy Left on social issues. Some of them will tone down the rhetoric of their (self-perceived) moral superiority, but the likelihood is that the substance of what they really believe - and how they will vote in Congress if elected - will not change.
The current Democratic party is hardcore Woke. As the author noted, only a serious recession guarantees them a House majority after 2026. One sliver of hope for Democrats will be there through 2028: many people are so repulsed by how Trump acts - even when they mostly agree with him on policy - that they won't for other Republicans no matter what.
The main answer is simple. Dems need to prove citizens have replaced the illegals as their primary focus and who come first. How do you do that with millions running around loose.
And least we forget, every anti trump Dem in the spotlight now days said no one wants the worse of the worse to remain in their jurisdiction. How many have Prizker, Brandon, and bass turned over. There would be no reasons for raids if the locals took care of it and turned them over to ICE.
Very nice long article, but the Republicans will maintain control of both the house and Senate after the midterms and Donald Trump will still be president for two more years. So just get used to it.
I'm not so sure the Democratic Party is likely to lose the midterms. I'm also not so sure if I want us to lose or not.
I'm reading more articles like the one from Timothy Shenk called "Democrats Are in Crisis Eat-the-Rich Populism Is the Only Answer in Sunday's NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/29/opinion/democrats-dan-osborn.html?unlocked_article_code=1.rE8.Wcw0.lzDP0UNpvETG&smid=url-share but I don't think they will make it through the bubble.
Trump closed the border already, without deportations it still an open border waiting for the magic words. When are Democrats going to come up with some ideas for things like a universal level of health care for everyone that isn't tied to the for profit medical complex model? The senate has shut us down over competing versions of screwing people over on health care. We need to tax and a lot of the people who will be taxed are Democrats who think anything below a billion dollars is poverty. What of a $20 min wage, a forty hour week, and paid holidays, a liveable pension?
Win or lose, change will come, the question is will the Democratic Party be able to avoid being part of that change for one more election cycle or not.
Healthcare is going to be a huge issue, because costs just keep climbing, and ER waits just keep getting longer. Until all healthcare prices are required to be posted like menus in Paris, and everyone has some financial skin in the game, we will never bend the cost curve down.
40% of Californians are now too poor for subsidized Obamacare, and are now enrolled on Medicaid. That stat should scare the rest of the US half to death. That is roughly more than 50% higher than US national average for Medicaid enrollment. What happens when more of the US is more like CA?
Health care is unfixable without running private equity out of town. Same with housing.
I'd be ok with that. We already have a nationwide system of clinics for low income, indigent, etc. Mostly used for Medicaid now, they also have pharma, dental, vision, birth control, immunizations, basic health care, and referrals for things beyond basic care. They could be expanded, open 24 hours, and simple registration. Police and fire used to be private too.
I think public housing doesn't have to be bad. 40 to 50 million adults are below 85 IQ. Things are are frustrating to me could well be impossible for them. With a little simplification of things they might produce and pay more in taxes than they cost. We pay a lot of profit to landlords via section 8, I don't need the dividends from health care ETFs.
Better check to see if PE tentacles are not in that too. Personally, I think having health care run by the same people who do retirement is a bad idea. Perverse incentives to kill people either by neglect or deliberately as in Canada.
All said in this article aside, Trump's push against crime with troops in the cities is the new wild card in the game. Who can be against crime and the violence we can see day after day in these liberal cities?
Don't discount turnout.
Democratic turnout was down during the 2024 election--and that was essentially the entire difference between a Trump victory and a Trump loss.
Since then it has hugely outperformed expectations. (which were already high) And consider the incentives Democratic voters have been given. Trump has stationed troops in traditionally Democratic cities, over the objections of Democratic governors, and said they should be used as 'training grounds' for further police state measures; he's implied Democrats are among 'the enemy within' not just to his voters, but to the military; and there's no guarantee he doesn't use the Insurrection Act to essentially stage a hostile takeover of predominantly Democratic States without any meaningful justification (looking at you, Portland, where there's absolutely nothing going on right now that justifies a military occupation) before 2026 gets here.
I can't think of anything better-calibrated to get every last Democrat to the polls, whether there's federal troops stationed around said polls are not. Republicans certainly have a few victories to hang onto, but Trump's underwater with swing voters and the economy is floundering. Remember that polling can sample the sentiments of a population, but if one side of a polling divide shows up to vote at 3x the amount the other does, that's enough to clinch victories in close races. Nothing is guaranteed, of course--we'll see what happens, ultimately--but, again, don't discount turnout.