Positioning Democrats to Earn the Support and Confidence of More Voters

I am not alone, of course, in finding the U.S. political news alarming, deeply distressing, and exhausting.  Each day reveals more corruption, more bullying at home and abroad, more lies coming out of the MAGA universe.  Demonization is regularly unleashed against journalists and public figures who question or oppose what is going on.  Even those who served the US honorably in the military or as public servants are not exempt from being trashed.  73% of currently detained immigrations have no criminal records and are rounded up by ICE with no concern for their rights, health, or safety.  False statements regularly tear down trust in our courts, system of elections, and separation of Church and State traditions. 

Despite MAGA efforts to obfuscate, all of this and much more is readily knowable.  Naysayers and skeptics who have any interest in the truth can just do simple searches on Google, AI, or fact-checking sources to confirm any or all of this.

The Challenge

As distressing as all of this is, the biggest concern for me continues to be the Democratic Party.  Events and forces have rendered it the only entity that can stand in the way of the MAGA express. There is no viable Republican leadership in opposition to MAGA.  Everything will depend on the ability of the Democrats to win, especially in the presidential election year of 2028.  Are they up to this task?

Right now, the Democrats have an even lower approval rating than Republicans.  In the most recent poll, approval of Republicans stands at 32%, for Democrats it is at 28%, with 25% of Americans viewing both parties negatively (https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/03/politics/cnn-poll-double-haters-democrats-midterms).  The majority of their fellow Americans do not trust the Democratic Party; they think it is out of touch and does not share their concerns.  While the growing distrust and disapproval of Trump and MAGA may hand Democrats in the midterms a majority in the House and perhaps even in the Senate, assuming the elections remain free and fair, it is not generating more approval for Democrats as poll after poll indicates. 

That is going to require soul-searching and change on their part.  Doing more of the same will not serve the party’s interests nor the interests of the country at large.  Winning the midterms would slow the MAGA express, but what will be at stake for the Democrats in 2028 is gaining the support of a sizeable number of additional voters and be trusted enough to heal the nation and govern in the aftermath of four years of so much governmental turmoil.

In what follows I offer suggestions for a two-step strategy towards gaining that support: (1) a vision statement and (2) guidelines for policies and programs that flow from the vision statement and will help win voter support.  What Democrats have been most comfortable with is focusing on policy and program proposals; but as David Brooks and other have suggested, just relying on these seems unlikely to be adequate in this environment to win the trust and confidence of a sufficient number of new voters.  And when we think about what is at stake—salvaging our political and moral foundations—that has to be the primary task of the Democratic Party.

To be frank, though, I have not seen much evidence of a united effort to shape strategic change.  The Democrats at this time have no one who is identified as the party’s leader, and there is no official spokesperson or group to coordinate messaging. No vision statement has been discussed; and as for policies and programs, there has been no agreement beyond the idea that the focus needs to be on addressing bread and butter issues and becoming more appealing to the non-college educated working class. 

In any case, the task ahead is not an easy one.  If postings on BlueSky, for example, are indicative, the Democratic Party base is angry, frustrated, and focused on the negative. That is not an environment conducive to careful analysis and reorientation of its messaging.  My suggestions focus more on the positive, but I do so solely as a concerned citizen and voter, not as experienced political strategist.

Vision Statement

In an earlier post, I suggested that Democrats first need to articulate their vision for America and the principles upon which their party stands, a vision partly shaped by an analysis of polling which indicates some openings for expanding their support. (For details, see https://michaelnill.com/a-vision-for-democrats-in-a-time-of-crisis/.)  The vision I suggested for consideration set I out three themes under which Democrats could group their proposed policies and programs and secondarily their criticisms of MAGA.

The following is a truncated version of the vision (those familiar with the longer original can skip to the next section):

This vision I believe has certain strengths, but the important point is for Democratic Party itselfself to articulate a vision and draw connections to it in enumerating its policy and program proposals.

Policies and Programs of the Major Factions

To begin with, this shortened vision statement, and more so the longer original one referenced above, already point out a number of issues that need to be addressed; for example, immigration, voting and electoral reform, corruption, big money in politics, periodic review of government regulations, and the struggles of American families to afford childcare, health emergencies, and housing. 

At present, there are three major factions vying to shape policies and programs to secure victory for the Democrats in upcoming elections: (1) the Progressives, (2) the Moderates, and (3) the proponents of economic abundance.  Despite their differences, all three groups agree on the importance of emphasizing economic issues and regaining the support of working-class voters. 

The Progressives

This group has the most visibility with Senator Sanders and Representative Ocasio-Cortez as public proponents.  Many of its positions are documented on the website of the Progressive Congressional Caucus (https://progressives.house.gov/what-we-stand-for).  Major policy proposals include Medicare for All, free or subsidized universal childcare, increasing  minimum wage over time to $15 an hour, transition to green energy (The Green New Deal), special taxes on high levels of wealth and income, higher taxes on corporations, lower taxes for others, strengthening of unions and the manufacturing sector, and reducing or eradicating big money in politics.   Insofar as the issue of how to pay for increases in government spending is addressed, the proposals so far have been to fund them from additional taxes on high incomes and high net worth and reductions in military spending. 

In addition, under the label of Justice for All, the Progressive Caucus works “to dismantle the legacy of racism, misogyny and xenophobia.”  Its website has a section on immigration called “Immigrant Rights.”  However, there has been some move by Progressives to focus on concrete affordability and cost of living concerns while minimizing cultural issues, reframing them in ways that would be acceptable to independents, and emphasizing social class rather than group identities in discussing economic issues. Rep. Greg Casar, the new chair of the Progressive Caucus, is stressing the need to win, a bigger Democratic Party tent, and a focus on economic issues (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/rep-greg-casar-outlines-progressive-caucus-efforts-to-rebrand-democratic-party#:~:text=Casar%20has%20said%20that%20the%20Democratic%20brand,Fighting%20for%20a%20raise%20for%20working%20people).

The Moderates

Moderate forces among Democrats have farther to go in coalescing on a set of policies .  There is no clear leader who speaks for this perspective.  In listing likely policies and programs, I have used AI and the website of the New Democrat Coalition, a congressional caucus (https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/policy-frameworks).

Moderates are most likely to emphasize economic growth as a vehicle for stabilizing the economy and producing benefits to working families.  They support reducing the costs of housing, childcare, and energy; creating jobs and boosting local economies through infrastructure projects; protecting and strengthening the Affordable Care Act, with the possible addition of a public option (in contrast to a Medicare for All program); providing federal paid family and medical leave programs, and improving access to quality training and support that workers need to succeed in an evolving labor market.  On immigration, they support maintaining strong border security and holding ICE accountable for its actions and instituting police reforms while securing public safety.  The New Democrat Coalition proposes creating a modern immigration system that reflects American values, with a fair process for Dreamers and other undocumented immigrants with long ties to the U.S. to earn citizenship. businesses and farmers (https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/imo/media/doc/new_dem_immigration__border_security_framework.pdf). Some moderates have argued for a tougher on crime approach, emphasizing smart policing and a more accountable justice system (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/06/us/politics/democrats-immigration-talks-crime.html#).

Moderates definitely seem less keen than Progressives on taxing net worth and increasing taxes of high incomes, but do support some rise in the rate of corporate taxes.  And, no surprise, they are eschewing divisive cultural issues and identity politics.

Proponents of Economic Abundance

Championed by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein, this perspective focuses solely on economic matters; but given how much they are dominating Democratic Party discussions, it could end up playing a significant role in determining its final proposals.  The premise of economic abundance is that regulations, zoning restrictions, and permitting processes are standing in the way of growth, creating scarcity, and hampering the ability of government to solve problems and reduce costs, particularly in the areas of housing, infrastructure, energy, and healthcare.  To take housing as an example, the zoning and regulatory policies too frequently lead to increasing the costs of housing at the same time as they discourage building, hence deflating supply and creating scarcity.

An article in The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/abundance-democrats-political-power/682929/) pinpoints why this perspective has had some resonance. In 2021 and 2022, Biden oversaw passage of three major bills that were to illustrate that government and democracy still work for people:  The trillion-dollar Infrastructure and Jobs Act, the Chips and Science Act (a $50 billion to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing, research, and development, aimed at reducing dependency on foreign supply chains), and the Inflation Reduction Act (major funding for clean energy and tax credits for green technology).  These were arguably major legislative successes toward moving the American economy and jobs forward after COVID-19.  However, as the article points out, in the two years after the passage of the bills, there were, for example, only a few infrastructure projects completed, only 58 of a national network of electric car charging stations had been installed, and the project of bringing broadband access to rural American had no customers hooked up.  Progress on implementing the bills was thwarted by regulatory, permitting, and zoning issues. 

In addition, the process for getting projects done were more challenging in states and cities controlled by Democrats. As the article’s author argues, it was primarily Democrats who had a history of supporting grassroots activism of citizens and interest groups and legal hurdles to thwart ill-advised government overreach and control.  As abundant economy proponents see it, some of these regulations are hurting citizens and having unintended consequences and making it seem as though the government can’t function.

The Current Electorate and Their Perceptions of Democrats

To be better positioned to assess which is the best path to electoral success, it’s first necessary to delve a bit more deeply into what the general electorate is prioritizing and how they are perceiving the Democrats. 

It first must be acknowledged that the make-up of the Democratic Party has significantly changed over the years.  In 2000, white Democrats who self-identified as moderate or conservative outnumbered white liberal Democrats by about two to one. Today that relationship has been reversed: White liberal Democrats now outnumber moderate/conservative ones by about two to one (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/opinion/democrats-midterm-elections.html?).  This marks in general a shift in the party base to those who are well-educated and of higher-economic status, “whose influence is enhanced beyond their considerable numbers by their dominance of the party’s infrastructure, allied NGOs and advocacy groups, and left-leaning media, foundations and academia.”

A major, recent study has analyzed how the priorities of this bloc of college-educated Democrats compares to the priorities of three other groups: all non-college educated voters, swing voters, and all voters.  [For a summary of the report and some analysis, see https://www.vox.com/politics/466253/why-democrats-unpopular-polls-welcome; for the report itself, see https://decidingtowin.org.]

The results are dramatic, if not hugely surprising.  Among the highest priorities of the college-educated Democrats were climate change, race relations, guns, the environment, and income inequality.  The numbers show there was a substantial gap between those priorities and the priorities of the other three groups. Among the highest priorities of the other three groups were border security, immigration, crime, gas prices, and budget deficit/government debt.  Similarly, the numbers show there was a substantial gap between these priorities and the priorities of the college-educated Democrats. 

This clearly illustrates why there is a strong perception that Democrats ignore regular voters and do not share their concerns.  And it explains the rise in the percent of people who think the Democrats are too liberal:  47% in 2012 and 55% in 2025. Far fewer people see the Republicans as too conservative, although that changed with Trump’s second administration.

A More in Common survey post-election 2024 generally corroborates this gap in priorities, but additionally notes the discrepancy between the real priorities of the Democrats surveyed versus the perceptions that all the individuals surveyed had of the priorities of Democrats (https://moreincommonus.com/publication/the-priorities-gap/.  The highest number of Democrats surveyed chose cost of living/inflation, abortion and healthcare (they were tied), and the economy in general as their top three priorities.  However, perceptions of all individual surveyed of the priorities of Democrats were markedly different.  In perceptions, abortion came in first, LBGT/transgender policy was second, and third was environment/climate change.  The perceptions were more in line with the priorities of the left-wing camp or “Progressive Activists” as the study named them, a testament to their strength and visibility in the media to propel their issues to the fore, causing the electorate to see Democrats primarily through the lens of the Progressives and activists.  Of course, the messaging of Republicans is also factor in distorting voter views of Democrats.

Lastly, there is an important major Third Way 2025 study on renewing the Democratic Party (https://www.thirdway.org/report/renewing-the-democratic-party).  One section of it explored the political views of the working class and how the Democrats could regain the support of those voters.  Among the findings:

The study also referenced a 2023 Progressive Policy Institute survey of this voting group:

Insofar as the Third Way report accurately captures working-class political beliefs, they are clearly not aligned with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

On the other hand, Progressives argue that their major legislative goals like Medicare for All, increased taxes on the wealthy, Green New Deal, and increased minimum wage are popular.  True, but favorability of Medicare for All falls away when its costs and the elimination of insurance companies are understood.  Further, each individual proposal has over 50% favorability, but that does not mean a campaign based on implementation of a whole package of these and other similar measures will be popular.  Similarly, Green New Deal popularity declines when details and impacts on the economy are considered.

Which is the Best Path to Electoral Victory?

This closer look at the general electorate confirms that the best approach for Democrats is to focus on economic issues and downplay divisive identity and cultural issues.  However, the evidence also strongly suggests that the electorate is not aligned to a large extent with the Progressives, even on economic matters.  That is a problem for Democrats because the Progressives are getting the most attention, can claim some recent electoral successes in select places, and will benefit from the fact that primaries favor more extreme elements of a party.  The Democrats will need discipline and courage to avoid being seen as the voice of Progressives.  I’d go so far to say that putting the Progressives or party activists out front or in control as the leading spokespersons for the Democrats in the coming elections would be suicidal if their goal is to win elections, defeat MAGA, and right our ship of state. 

However, no faction has all the answers. Nor do the voters, of course.  Reshaping the Democrats cannot just be a matter of a wholesale abandoning of their beliefs to secure more votes.  Although the evidence suggests the general electorate is more aligned with the Moderates on policies and programs, this faction does not have much media presence and it sometimes come across as Progressive/Liberal Lite, which is not a winning formula.

Ideally, in the interests of simplicity and winning, both the Progressives and Moderates should abandon these identifying labels, which are only going to create friction and a media circus, and work together on one common Democratic agenda.  Such an agenda would consist of clearly defined moderate proposals that are integrated with elements of the other factions and accompanied by a vision statement that clarifies what Democrats broadly stand for and why.

How would such an integrated agenda work?  Take the economy, for example.  Moderates are more in line with working-class voters who consider economic growth very important and who distrust the politics of class warfare.  However, a better and more inclusive vision is economic growth with fairness—a vision that combines moderate and progressive elements.  This allows arguments to be made that corporations and the wealthy need to pay higher taxes because that is fair (with the caveat that an additional special tax assessed annually on a certain high level of net worth could face constitutional hurdles and its fairness is less obvious, making it to my mind a non-starter at least for now).

Growth with fairness also aligns with higher minimum wage, which is presently at $7.25 nationally and not a living wage.  We still have 13% of workers making less than $15 an hour, and for blacks it’s 23%.  And very importantly, the growth with fairness vision allows for standing against continuation of trickle-down economy policies.  They has produced an immensely unfair economic distribution of wealth, but this reality is not sufficiently understood by the population at large.  There needs to be education on this subject, and it’s up to the Democrats to undertake that.  I do believe once the unfairness is grasped, it will make economic proposals that attempt to undo some of this unfairness appealing to a wider segment of the population.

On the other hand, Moderates have an immigration policy much more likely to attract more voters to the Democratic Party.  They acknowledge the need to secure the borders and deport criminals but insist on humane treatment and legislation that does not leave undocumented immigrants in perpetual limbo.  Again, that is fair to immigrants, many of whom have been here for 20 years or more, are paying taxes and helping to fund Social Security and Medicare, are filling the needs of employers, and offsetting our aging population.  In any case, immigration needs to be a major agenda item for Democrats, even in the upcoming midterm elections.  Moderates are also better positioned on the issue of citizen safety to give voters more confidence in Democrats. This is an issue of continued importance to much of the electorate, but regarding which the Democrats/Liberals are seen as weak.

As for the abundance economy perspectives, they are more aligned with the Moderates, especially on the issue of economic growth; and if successful in moving the economy forward in the way its proponents propose, it would show the electorate that government can work for its benefit.  Progressive criticism of abundance economy proposals on grounds that it is trickle-down economics in disguise do not seem accurate.  However, and this is no small matter, it is quite unclear how an attempt to implement their proposals could overcome in practice all the hurdles of regulations, ordinances, and permitting that are set by states and local communities, not to mention the resistance of local residents.  It needs to articulate a plausible path to success.

There is one further issue, so far unmentioned, that is going to be raised and cannot be ignored:  the question of our relationship to Israel.  It is not an issue of great importance to many voters, but it is an issue that could become quite divisive and explosive for the Democratic Party. We already saw some of this happening in the 2024 election. Polling clearly indicates that Democrats and younger Americans are moving away from unquestioned support of the government policies of Israel.  Concerns about its policies and its right-wing government are legitimate. In debating these concerns, however, the Democratic Party needs to be disciplined in making it clear that it unambiguously supports Israel’s right to exist and protect its citizens, and its territorial integrity (although that does not include de facto control of the West Bank and Gaza) and that objections to government policies under no circumstances justify verbally or physically attacking Jewish people because they are Jewish.  At the same time, it also needs to make clear that concerns raised about Israel and its treatment of Palestinians do not as such involve antisemitism. Concern for the plight of Palestinians is humane; support for Hamas is unconscionable. Besides, Hamas is not focused on improving the lives of ordinary Palestinians.

On a happy note, there was a salutary message for the US and Democrats in the stunning defeat of Viktor Orban, the longstanding leader of Hungary who served as the model for Trump and the MAGA world. His opponent Peter Magyar, who emerged from a center right perspective, focused on economic issues and government corruption, while taking a moderate position on social issues, supporting civil rights and equality, but avoiding socially divisive issues.   This is somewhat similar to the strategy recommended above for Democrats, at least in the short term.  In any case, what happened in Hungary gives hope. 

After the Elections

Of course, even if Democrats gain a majority in the House and Senate in the midterm elections, they can at best slow down the MAGA express; but their ability to launch legislative victories will be limited by Trump’s vetoes.  The electorate, including the Democratic base, needs to be realistic regarding what can be accomplished.

The focus will soon enough move to the 2028 elections.  If Democrats win those, what they will face is going to be more challenging perhaps than winning the election.  Who can really imagine the state of affairs after two and one-half more years of MAGA?  Predictably the budget will be a mess.  Trump is not paying any attention to the debt limit, which is already at $39 trillion.  Perhaps I am paranoid but I would be not at all sure that reported amounts of spent money will be accurate or include under the radar payments for his special business projects and cronies.  Right away, then, there may be a dearth of funds to address adequately pressing needs to make the economy work for everyone. 

Then, too, there will be the daunting task of reconstructing the government.  Many agencies, departments, and programs will have been gutted or repurposed with MAGA marching orders—the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Defense/War; the EPA; foreign aid; Voice of America; relations to NATO, Europe, and the UN; tariffs; education; and scientific research grants, to name a few.  It is the goal of the Heritage Society Project 2025 to redo government top to bottom.  Many will be the decisions ahead for Democrats: What should remain eliminated, What should be reinstituted, What should be reimagined?  All this on top of the ordinary tasks of government and the unexpected challenges that can arise.    

The good news, though, is that if Democrats are elected, they would be presented with an opportunity to reinvent a better government than existed before Trump.  To the extent possible, they should at least invite non-MAGA Republicans to help in this recreation.  Certainly, they should confer with voters in facing these tasks, say with a series of Town Halls in every state.   Feeling listened to would be a big step forward for the Democratic Party to gain the trust of more voters. 

The overall task will be a trickly one.  On the one hand, MAGA must be stopped; on the other hand, the process needs to involve national healing, by acknowledging hurt and concerns and offering a better way together.  MAGA has adopted the outlook championed by Carl Schmitt that politics is just power, and your opponents are enemies with whom you are in a life-and-death struggle.   This was not the vision of our founders, nor should it be for Democrats.