Democrats hardly need reminding that, however unpopular President Trump is at the moment, the Democratic Party is right there with him.
For the midterms, the party is attempting something of a makeover on the fly.
Lis Smith, a senior adviser to two political groups at the center of that effort, Majority Democrats and the Bench, looked inside that project with John Guida, an editor in Times Opinion.
John Guida: We just learned that the Pentagon has requested $200 billion to fund the war in Iran. I’d like to get your sense of how, or if, Democrats are successfully responding to the war.
Here are two brief examples of how Democratic Senate candidates in Maine have opposed the war: One (Graham Platner) has talked on behalf of “the people who are going to see their friends and families maimed and killed in combat” and “going to have to pay for all of this instead of getting health care.” Another (Janet Mills) says that President Trump “can’t simply go out on his own and engage in a dangerous, reckless, unilateral war,” and “without at least consulting and getting authorization from Congress.”
Those are just two examples (and, to be clear, don’t represent the entirety of their responses). But what good or bad or other practices are you seeing among Democrats in their responses to the war?
Lis Smith: This is exhibit A of why we don’t need more lawyers in Congress and need people who bring different life experiences to Washington. Too many Democrats, when something like this happens, default to playing legalistic hall monitor and complaining about how Donald Trump didn’t fill out the right paperwork before launching strikes. That’s technically true and important, but that is not at all a persuasive argument.
The best messaging we’ve seen on this issue, by far, has come from post-9/11 war veterans like Platner [Graham Platner, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Maine]. They don’t sound like lawyers, but like people who actually understand what’s at stake because they’ve lived it.
Guida: What about Democrats outside the campaigns?
Smith: We’re seeing a new generation of leaders emerge in this moment. One person I’ve been really impressed by is Representative Pat Ryan of New York (and a Majority Democrats member) — a former Army intelligence officer who served in Iraq and earned two Bronze Stars. He did an interview recently on “Pod Save America” that I sent to all my friends and family because his messaging on Iran was so searing in its simplicity.
He talked about it in language that was plain, visceral and at times profane. He talked about the contrast between “back and forths here in D.C. from a bunch of people who were in air-conditioned rooms” and soldiers like him “getting shot at and sweating our asses off and burying our friends.” And he wraps his opposition to the war in those experiences and in patriotism. He talks about how it is not disloyal to ask the tough questions, it’s actually his patriotic duty to ask on the troops behalf — especially when the people who sent him to war didn’t.
Guida: So, at least in this case, it sounds like it’s less a matter of ideology and more a matter of ability to grab attention.
Smith: Yes, being able to grab attention and reach people in today’s fragmented media environment is really important, especially when so many people do everything in their power to avoid political news. But a common misconception is that to command attention, you have to yell the loudest, adopt the most extreme positions and engage in political stunts.
Let me give you an example of two very popular, outside-the-Beltway politicians with very different styles. By now, everyone knows that Zohran Mamdani is pretty peerless in this regard. But there are few things about his approach that are really instructive.
He never misses an opportunity to have an opportunity. On St. Patrick’s Day, when most politicians just post a shamrock graphic and call it a day, he put out this beautiful three-minute video about Irish history, tying it to fights for freedom and dignity we’re having at home and abroad in the current day. And we know how Democrats and Republicans alike love to complain about how they never get credit for things they do — Joe Biden certainly complained a lot about not getting credit for the Inflation Reduction Act. That is not a problem for Mamdani. Within minutes of announcing a deal with the governor to bring free child care to New York City residents, he was flooding the zone with videos taking credit for it and explaining how exactly it would work.
Guida: The other example?
Smith: Another mayor, with a very different style and an even higher approval rating (71 percent), is Daniel Lurie in San Francisco. Early on in his campaign, his team realized that when voters could meet him one on one, that’s when they responded most positively to him. So what they did was try to scale those interactions and remove the filter that usually exists between what you see in real life and what you see on social media. They don’t make him super polished, they don’t edit out his awkward hand movements — it feels real.
And what they’ve done that’s really smart is to stop viewing their social media as a way to talk to other politicians or just amplify a news release — they use it as a way to give real-time updates to residents, sharing useful, hyperlocal information about their neighborhoods that might not make the news. They’ll have him in Nob Hill, giving a public safety update, and it gets 400,000 views His video announcing that small businesses can now put tables and chairs on the sidewalk — without jumping through onerous permitting hoops — got 730,000 views. Is this the sexiest content in the world? No — but people in San Francisco eat it up. I have friends there who say they’ve stopped reading the paper and just get their news from watching his Instagram stories.
Increasingly, effective communicators in Democratic politics are going to have to realize that they need to create the news themselves and become their own production companies.
Guida: Everything you’re describing here is about how much politics as practiced in 2026 is now a visual medium. Back in 2022, when Trump endorsed Mehmet Oz, he explained it in terms of Oz’s tenure on TV: “That’s like a poll,” Trump said. “That means people like you.”
Is that skill with a visual medium — whether it’s YouTube, Instagram, even on a podcast, to some extent — where party brands are made, or unmade? Is it as important as whether a Democrat has a progressive or moderate policy portfolio?
Smith: Yes, you simply cannot succeed in today’s media environment if you can’t communicate in both long-form and short-form mediums. You can’t skate by with tightly scripted, five-minute-friendly cable hits. People want to see politicians who can have two-hour plus conversations that get them off their talking points. They want to see if their politicians are actually real people, willing to engage in cultural conversations.
Ideology in this context matters less than, say, age. Older generations of politicians were taught to always stick to a script, never have a hair out of place, never show any vulnerability and avoid controversial topics at all costs. Younger politicians like Pete Buttigieg and Mamdani, who certainly come from different wings of the Democratic Party, have really thrived in the new media environment. They are incredibly disciplined communicators, but it’s not because someone handed them a script — it’s because they know who they are, they’re comfortable in their own skin, they have very defined values and worldviews.
They’re also willing to let their guards down and have conversations that would give most old-school political consultants heart attacks. Think about Pete on the Flagrant podcast — in between serious conversations about transportation policy and income inequality, he fielded questions from the hosts about whether the food in Afghanistan turned him gay.
Guida: Members of Congress, or candidates for Congress, are obviously in different positions within larger member institutions and face a little tough environment to define themselves. You mentioned the Democratic war veterans running — but not all of the candidates have that biographical experience. It makes me think of what critics of the Democratic Party brand have recently complained about — which incidentally includes many Democrats. What they see is a party that, in their words, is “weak” or “ineffective.” In one research project, working-class voters reported that they see Democrats as “woke, weak and out of touch.” How can more Democrats overcome that perception?
Smith: We definitely need to change the culture of our party. We can do that by, first, elevating people who’ve won tough races and shown broad appeal, know how to communicate and break through in today’s media ecosystem, and who are willing to challenge the Democratic establishment. The last part is really important, because voters are pretty dissatisfied with the status quo.
Second, we need to recruit better candidates. People who can compete everywhere — that will mean looking for nontraditional candidates who don’t necessarily check every national Democratic litmus test box.
Guida: That makes me think of Bobby Pulido, who is a Latin Grammy Award-winning Tejano singer. Earlier this month, he won the Democratic primary in the 15th Congressional District of Texas. This week he has also been, through some deft political footwork, a special guest at several quinceañeras — a coming-of-age celebration in Latino cultures — for young women in his district.
And like the other candidates in the Bench organization, which also includes a Lutheran minister in Iowa, a farmer in North Carolina, a firefighter in Pennsylvania and a smokejumper in Montana. Is this the start of an emerging new Democratic Party?
Smith: A dirty secret of political recruitment is that the first question a lot of political committees ask potential candidates is: “How much money can you raise?” At the Bench, our first questions are: Who are you? How do you reflect your community? What’s the unique story you have to tell? We need people who will bring really different experiences to Washington. The lived experiences these candidates bring to the table are just so different from what we have in Congress right now and gives them much more credibility as leaders and messengers.
Guida: Maybe you can give an example or two.
Smith: When Jamie Ager, the farmer in North Carolina, talks about FEMA and natural-disaster aid, it’s not from the perspective of someone who’s looked at a lot of spreadsheets; it’s because his farm and community were absolutely pummeled by Hurricane Helene. When Pulido talks about immigration, it’s not based on things he’s read in the news. He’s someone who knows people who are employed by Customs and Border Protection as well as businesses that have been decimated by ICE raids in his district.
Guida: They also seem to share some themes — economics and affordability, of course, but also support for unions, anti-corruption and in particular anti-Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that struck down campaign spending limits on corporations. Are they finding that all of these resonate with voters?
Smith: The top issue for voters right now is costs — health care, gas, utility bills. It’s Issue 1, 2, 3 for people across the country. But we’re seeing a lot of Democrats smartly embracing an anti-corruption message because Americans really do believe that corruption permeates everything in our politics today and it undermines their trust in government.
If we want to regain trust, we need to be unapologetic in taking on corruption and understand that voters see corruption in many different ways. They perceive Trump’s crypto deals and family business dealings in the Middle East as corruption, they view Congress members’ stock trading as corruption, but they also saw what the Democratic Party did with propping up Biden as corrupt.
Any robust anti-corruption platform has to understand those complexities — ban sketchy crypto deals and stock trading, but also implement some form of age and term limits — even if just for leadership and committee chairs. This comment won’t be particularly well received in the halls of Congress, but we need to be able to say that if you’ve been in power too long and if you can no longer drive a car, you should not be in elected office.
Guida: The Bench slate also includes Senate candidates like James Talarico in Texas, Mary Peltola in Alaska and Mallory McMorrow in Michigan, who are more conventional politicians (i.e., they have served in a legislature).
Can Democrats win the Senate? To do that, they would need to win in red states. For example, could Peltola win in Alaska?
Smith: Peltola is just one of my favorite candidates in the country. You really don’t see a lot of Democrats running on a platform of “Fish, Family, Freedom.” When she was in Congress, she made some headlines for leaving mid-session to return home for fish camp.
Guida: What is the most underrated or undercovered race for the Democrats’ efforts to retake the Senate?
Smith: Iowa. There has probably been no state in the country that has been hit harder by Trump’s tariffs than Iowa, and voters are not happy with Republicans. Democrats are led by Rob Sand, who’s running for governor. He is the only Democratic statewide elected official in the state and also the most popular one.
When it comes to the Senate race, there are a couple of Democratic candidates. Zach Wahls, a state legislator, was endorsed by Elizabeth Warren this week and has some very strong grass-roots support. But Josh Turek (on the Bench team) might be one of the most compelling candidates we have anywhere in the country. He represents the reddest district in Iowa that any Democrat won in 2024 — overperforming Kamala Harris by 13 percent. That’s important because whoever the nominee is will have to win over independents and Republicans.
And he has an incredible personal story. He’s a two-time Paralympian gold medalist. He was born with spina bifida and had 21 surgeries before the age of 12, which means he understands the health care system — a major pain point for most people — in a way most politicians never could. He was born with spina bifida because his father fought in the Vietnam War and was exposed to Agent Orange, which has given him a unique perspective and voice on the war in Iran. He talks about how the consequences of wars don’t end when the bombs stop, and he’s proof of that.
Whoever faces off against the likely Republican nominee, Ashley Hinson, is going to have a lot to work with. When she announced her candidacy, she said she’d be Donald Trump’s strongest ally in the Senate if elected. At the time, that line probably made sense, but in the post-tariffs world, it’s toxic.
Guida: For the 2026 midterms, in a shift, Republicans are positioned to outspend — and perhaps by lots of money — Democrats. Do you worry about that, is it a warning for Democrats, or are the new rules of politics — as you suggested, money can’t buy viral attention — more critical?
Smith: We should always be concerned about the influence of big money in these races. But we’ve seen in recent elections — like the Wisconsin State Supreme Court race, where Elon Musk dropped in $25 million to support the Republican candidate who lost, or the New York mayoral race, in where Andrew Cuomo’s allies spent $55 million and still lost to Mamdani — money can buy you a lot of negative ads, but it won’t necessarily buy you voters’ affections.
Lis Smith is a senior adviser to the political organizations Majority Democrats and the Bench and a senior adviser to Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 presidential campaign. John Guida is a Times Opinion editor.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post ‘We Don’t Need More Lawyers in Congress’: The Future of the Democratic Party Is Emerging appeared first on New York Times.
