Democrats are acutely aware of their political problems.
On Sunday, for example, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado told Kristen Welker on Meet The Press:
The Democratic Party has lost touch with working people in our country, at a time when 50 years of trickle-down economics has meant that most Americans feel like, no matter how hard they work, their kids are not going to live a life better than the life they led.
The Democratic Party brand, Bennet continued,
is really problematic. And I think that it is a brand, with all respect to my colleague from California, that is associated with New York and with California, associated with the educated elites in this country, and — and not any more with working people in this country.
Bennet was not alone. “The Democratic brand is toxic right now,” Gov. Gavin Newsom of California told Bill Maher on HBO. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut was on “Meet the Press” earlier in March and warned his less active colleagues that “Americans want the Democratic Party to stand up and fight and to take risks.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez urged the crowd at a rally in Las Vegas, “We need a Democratic Party that fights harder for us.
Post-election polls provide Democrats with little hope.
A March 22-25 YouGov/Economist survey of 1600 respondents found that unfavorable views of the Democratic Party by far exceeded favorable views, 55-36, while voters were less critical of the Republican Party, 48 unfavorable-44 favorable.
A post-election survey for Third Way, a Democratic centrist group, found President Trump favored over Kamala Harris to handle the economy and cost of living and tied with her on what have been bedrock Democratic issues, Social Security and Medicare.
David Shor, at Blue Rose Research, a Democratic data analysis firm, released a study last month, “2024 Retrospective and Looking Forward” that has already become a key political document.
Shor found that Democrats have distanced themselves from the mainstream and that the belief among voters was that Trump would better address their basic concerns than Harris. Crucially, Shor also found a loss of Democratic support among naturalized citizens. All of this is symptomatic of the party’s liability on the issue of elitism.
Some of Shor’s key findings:
-
From 2020 to 2024, politically disengaged voters have become much more Republican,” he wrote, and because of this, “an expanded electorate” means a more Republican electorate, a sharp shift from the recent past when higher turnout benefited Democrats. In other words, Democrats will do better in nonpresidential years when turnout drops, but worse during presidential election years.
-
Democratic short and long range prospects are threatened by the fact that young voters — regardless of race and gender — have become more Republican,” Shor noted, in another crucial finding, adding “that white men, white women, and men of color under 26 all supported Trump at rates greater than 50 percent.”
-
“The gender gap between women and men is fairly stable — around 10 percent higher Democratic support among women — for voters between the ages of 40-70,” Shor wrote. At the same time, in the 2024 election the gender gap for voters under the age of 25, doubled in size to nearly 20 percentage points.
-
Immigrants who have become naturalized citizens — for decades, a Democratic constituency — “swung from a Biden +27 voting bloc in 2020 to a Trump +1 group in 2024,” Shor wrote. This constituency, he pointed out, “is not a small group either —— naturalized citizens make up around 10 percent of the electorate.”
The dominant issue in 2024 was the cost of living, exemplified by inflation. Shor demonstrated its centrality by asking poll respondents whether the cost of living was more or less important than eight other campaign issues, including student debt, L.G.B.T.Q. concerns, race relations, income inequality, voting rights, the environment and climate change, abortion and immigration and border Security. In each case, voters said the cost of living was a more important issue by double-digit margins ranging from 69 to 94 percent.
Shor found that overall “voters trust Republicans more than Democrats by huge margins on the issues they say are the most important.”
According to the Shor study, “voters saw Harris as more ideologically extreme than Trump” — 49 percent said Harris “is more liberal than me,” and 39 percent said Trump “is more conservative than me.”
Similarly, “more voters believed Trump best understood how to make people’s lives better,” with 43 percent agreeing that “only Trump showed he had the ability to make my life better,” while 32 percent said the same about Harris.
Two separate reports from Gallup reveal the ideological tensions within the Democratic Party.
On Feb. 13, the polling organization reported “More Democrats Favor Party Moderation Than in Past.” In 2021, Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters were evenly split, as 34 percent said they wanted the party to become more liberal and the same percentage said they wanted the party to become more moderate.
In 2025, after losing the presidency and the Senate, giving the Republican Party a so-called trifecta, Gallup reported that the share of Democrats calling for a more liberal party fell to 29 percent and the share supporting a shift toward moderation grew to 45 percent.
This shift took place against the background of a steady rise over decades in the share of Democrats who described themselves as liberal. In 1994, Gallup reported, 25 percent of Democrats said they were liberal, 25 percent conservative and 48 percent moderate. In 2025, the share of Democrats describing themselves as liberal rose to a solid majority, 55 percent, as conservative 9 percent and as moderate 34 percent.
The acid test, then, of the strength of conviction of the 45-percent plurality of Democrats claiming they want a more moderate party will be the 2028 fight for the party’s presidential nominee.
One issue that illustrates conflicts within the Democratic Party is the struggle over transgender participation in sports, the use of bathrooms and access to locker rooms.
A Jan. 2-10 New York Times/Ipsos survey found 49 percent of voters agreeing that “society has gone too far in accommodating transgender people” and 21 percent agreeing that society “has not gone far enough.” Asked if transgender female athletes “should be allowed to compete in women’s sports,” 18 percent said they should be; 78 percent said they should not.
A small number of Democrats, most notably Governor Newsom and Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, have dissented from party support of transgender rights, but they are the exceptions.
After Newsom said on his new podcast in March that it is “deeply unfair” to allow trans women and girls to play on female sports teams, the outcry from the left was loud and instantaneous.
“We woke up profoundly disappointed and sickened, when you have someone who has been thoughtful, and has been a very unwavering ally, release a statement like that,” Chris Ward, who represents San Diego and is the chairman of the state legislature’s L.G.B.T.Q. Caucus, said.
Tony Hoang, executive director of Equality California, issued a statement declaring: “We are profoundly disappointed and angered by Governor Newsom’s comments about transgender youth and their ability to participate in sports,” adding, “Instead of standing strong, the governor has added to the heartbreak and fear caused by the relentless barrage of hate from the Trump administration.”
On Jan. 14, the House approved a bill barring transgender students from playing on women’s sports teams by a vote of 218 to 206. Two Democrats, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, both of Texas, voted for the bill; 206 Democrats voted against it.
On March 3, Senate Democrats unanimously voted to block the Republican majority from taking up a version of the bill that had already passed the House, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025.
All of which demonstrates that if Democrats chose to march down a path toward moderation, the journey will be long and arduous.
Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and one of the most consistent proponents of Democratic moderation, has doubts about the ability of the party to back away from the more controversial aspects of cultural liberalism.
In a March 13 column “The Democrats’ Brahmin Left Problem,” published at the online newsletter The Liberal Patriot, Teixeira writes that the
ever-increasing education polarization — Brahminization — of the Democrats presents existential dangers to the party. Not only might the continued desertion of working-class (non-college) voters fatally undermine the Democrats’ electoral formula over time, the party’s fundamental purpose is being rapidly obliterated.
What does it even mean to be the ‘progressive’ party if the most educated and affluent voters are your most enthusiastic supporters? What does it mean to be ‘progressive’ if working-class voters think your party mostly represents the values and priorities of those educated and affluent voters, not their values and priorities?
Teixeira acknowledged that in the wake of defeat, “Many Democrats have started to argue, with varying degrees of intensity, that Democrats must reconnect with the working class and win back many of those voters.”
But, he countered,
How do you de-Brahminize a Brahmin Left party that’s been evolving in the Brahmin direction for decades? Some Democrats seem to think it’s just a matter of playing the economic populist card as in: ‘Hey working class, over here, we love you and will fight for your interests against the billionaire class and their despicable Republican handmaidens!’ Then the working class will realize the Democrats are their party and all will be well.
This is not remotely plausible. You cannot undo the damage of decades of Brahminization by simply asserting you are something so many working-class voters think you are not: the tribune of the working class.
How, then, can the party break through “Brahminization”?
Teixeira:
Just as Trump shook up the Republican Party and decisively changed its image and political base, Democrats need a political entrepreneur who will shake up the Democratic Party and decisively change its Brahmin Left trajectory.
That entrepreneur will have to be unafraid of the professional class blowback (accusations that you are racist, sexist, transphobic, a bigot, MAGA-lite, etc.) that will inevitably arise and aggressively push back against that class and its priorities.
In short, Democrats need a class traitor — a politician who’s not afraid to ask Democrats who the social justice they prize so highly is really for. Is it really for the poor and working class who have the short end of the stick in our society or is it to make Democrats feel righteous and onside with Team Progressive?
Doug Sosnik, White House political director and senior adviser for policy and strategy during the Clinton administration, elaborated on the themes raised by Teixeira in a 2023 analysis, “The Road to A Political Realignment in American Politics,” published by Politico.
“Demographics and economics,” Sosnik wrote,
have long driven voting patterns in American politics. What is different now is that educational attainment has increasingly played a dominant role in voting.
This has led to a political realignment, with the base shifting for both political parties. In a sharp contrast to a previous era, college educated voters are now more likely to identify as Democrats, and those without college degrees — particularly white voters, but increasingly all Americans — support Republicans.
Sosnik continued:
The confluence of rising globalization, technological advancements, and the offshoring of many working-class jobs led to a sorting of economic fortunes. There is now a widening gap in the average wealth between households led by college graduates compared to the rest of the population, whose levels are near all-time lows.
Sosnik cited a Federal Reserve study which, he wrote, shows that
since 1989, families headed by college graduates have increased their wealth by more than 83 percent. For households headed by someone without a college degree, there was relatively little or no increase in wealth.
Culturally, a person’s educational attainment increasingly correlates with their views on a wide range of issues, including abortion, attitudes about LGBTQ+ rights, and the relationship between government and organized religion.
As a result of these economic and cultural trends, politics now has a class-based architecture where cultural affinity surpasses voters’ narrow economic self-interests.
John Halpin, president and executive editor of The Liberal Patriot, pointed to a demographic problem for Democrats closely related to the issues raised by Teixeira. In his March 26 essay, “The Sociology of Party Decline,” Halpin writes:
If you think about the sociological base of the Democratic Party today —the combination of demographic, geographic, and occupational backgrounds of the institutional leaders, donors, base voters, and activists that make up the party — it’s stocked mainly with college-educated people from big cities and coastal states who work in non-profit organizations, universities, knowledge economy jobs, the media and entertainment, public sector unions, some parts of big tech, and in traditional professions such as the law.
Looking at this data, Halpin continues
You can see the problem for Democrats. Their party clearly is not run mainly by or for people without four-year degrees, who live outside major urban centers, and who are employed in more traditional working-class jobs, the military, or small business professions.
Since working-class voters (defined as non-college) still comprise the bulk of the U.S. electorate — 58 percent of 2024 voters were non-college educated compared to 42 percent with a four-year degree or higher — and even greater numbers in critical swing states and Senate races, Democrats will be at a perpetual disadvantage in future national elections if they do not drastically alter the sociological base of the party.
Drastic alteration of the sociological base of the party is, however, as difficult as Teixeira’s call for de-Brahminization.
Halpin proposes that in order for Democrats to broaden the party’s base “they first need to be present where these voters live, and then recruit more candidates and leaders from these communities and work backgrounds. It’s that simple.”
He cites as examples “successful Democrats like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Jared Golden, and Ruben Gallego who won in highly competitive environments and understand the sociological needs facing the party.”
The problem with Halpin’s proposal is that there are few incentives for party leaders to spend time, resources and money in strange, unfamiliar territory with uncertain results.
Sosnik sent me his succinct assessment:
Bottom line is that we have lost control of our destiny and can only rebound if the Republicans screw up, which is likely.
Having said that, there is no guarantee that we will benefit unless the voters regain trust that we can govern. It will be up to our 2028 nominee to do that. The congressional wing of the party cannot do that. Our 2028 nominee will need to come from America, not Washington.
This is the second of two columns on the future of the Democratic Party. The first, “Even if the Democrats Can Move to the Center, It May Not Help,” was published on March 11.
Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to the Times Opinion section since 2011. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Tuesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Post. @edsall
The post ‘Our 2028 Nominee Will Need to Come From America, Not Washington’ appeared first on New York Times.
