Democratic lawmakers, activists and strategists across the ideological spectrum are engaged in a fierce debate over how badly damaged the 2024 election left the party’s brand, a consequential internal argument that is already shaping early efforts to rebuild.
While there is none of the denialism that gripped Republicans after President Trump lost in 2020, Democratic leaders are in sharp disagreement over how to interpret losses that not only returned Mr. Trump to power but also put Republicans in total control of the federal government.
The swiftness with which Mr. Trump has imposed his will on the government, and the nation, has only added urgency to the discussions, which are playing out in closed-door gatherings on Capitol Hill, at retreats for donors and strategists and in the intramural campaign culminating in this weekend’s election of the next leader of the Democratic National Committee.
Many loud voices in the party are demanding a reckoning, and a reinvention. But others envision less an overhaul than a wait-and-see approach, hoping to harness what they expect will be a backlash of public opinion against Mr. Trump’s ambitious White House agenda to capture the House of Representatives in 2026.
The divide does not fall neatly along ideological lines. Some of the most moderate and progressive Democrats alike are aligned in seeking a sharp course correction to reverse the party’s erosion of support, especially among working-class voters.
“We need deep changes and hard conversations, not nibbling around the margins,” said Representative Pat Ryan, a Democrat who represents a swing district north of New York City and who outperformed the top of the ticket by one of the wider margins in the nation. “At the core, the brand is weakened to the point that, without members running against it in tough districts, we can’t get to a majority, which is structurally untenable.”
Democrats who share this bleaker outlook see statistical signs of the party’s decline everywhere: Blue states are ceding population to red states. Voter registration figures are mostly headed in the wrong direction. More Americans are identifying with the G.O.P. than with Democrats. And Democrats lost ground last year among core constituencies including lower-income, Latino and younger voters as Mr. Trump swept every battleground state.
Yet, there are a number of glass-half-full Democrats, too.
That more upbeat group tends to focus on the narrowness of the G.O.P.’s current 218-to-215-seat advantage in the House, the extraordinary circumstances of the 2024 race — Mr. Trump survived an assassination attempt and Democrats switched nominees over the summer — and the fact that political pendulum swings are as common as they are predictable.
Almost no one is suggesting Democrats should simply stay the course. But the differing diagnoses of the party’s affliction could lead to wildly different treatment plans — on policy, on personnel and on political priorities. One early focus has been on whether the party’s message or its difficulties in delivering that message is more to blame.
Representative Suzan DelBene of Washington, who served as the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2024 and is staying on to oversee the party’s efforts to take the majority in 2026, noted that House Democrats “actually gained ground in 2024.” She blamed an unusual Republican redrawing of congressional maps in a single state last year for her party’s continued minority status.
“Except for North Carolina doing a gerrymander, we’d be in the majority,” she said of a remapping that prompted three Democratic incumbents to abandon hopes of re-election.
Others pointed to the relatively slim 1.5-percentage-point margin of Mr. Trump’s popular vote victory, and to the fact that Democrats won Senate races in four states that Mr. Trump carried — an unusually high number to split their ticket in the current hyperpartisan era.
“We know what an electoral mandate looks like for a president and his party, and it is not losing a House seat and losing four of the five swing-state Senate contests,” said Neera Tanden, who served in the White House for the last three Democratic presidents, including as director of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s domestic policy council.
“There is work the party needs to do to be more compelling with working-class people — on economic and security issues,” Ms. Tanden continued. “But Trump’s popular-vote margin was less than half Biden’s four years ago.”
Of course, parties that enter periods of soul-searching are often blind to what exactly they are looking for: Republicans famously ordered a political autopsy after their 2012 loss and recommended a rebranding that was, more or less, the opposite of the strident, strict approach to immigration that Mr. Trump used to return the party to power in 2016.
For Democrats, the recommendations could vary widely, given the range of groups making them: Dozens of congressional progressives recently met on Capitol Hill to settle on a message to counter Mr. Trump. A Democratic super PAC and nonprofit, American Bridge, is holding a retreat for its donors next month. And Third Way, a centrist Democratic group, is organizing a gathering in February to discuss how to “empower moderate and mainstream views and voices.”
Such air-clearing conversations are not happening in every corner of the party.
Top officials on the Kamala Harris campaign and the leaders of the leading super PAC that supported her, Future Forward, have not sat down since the election for a formal discussion of what went wrong in their multibillion-dollar spending blitz. Campaign finance law prohibited such conversations during the election, and tensions rose between the two sides.
Future Forward’s leadership reached out to suggest a summit of sorts on lessons learned, but such a gathering was declined by the Harris side, according to three people briefed on the outreach, though they said there had been some informal communications across the divide.
Some Democrats see the party’s losses in 2024 as more situational than systemic. They blame Mr. Biden for ignoring polling that showed the public was gravely troubled by his age, and for withdrawing so late and in such a politically weakened state that Ms. Harris effectively inherited his unpopularity without enough time to carve out a separate identity for herself.
“There were people who were just very unhappy with the incumbent administration, and all they needed to know about Harris was she worked with Biden,” said Jared Bernstein, who was the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers for Mr. Biden.
Mr. Bernstein warned against “over-interpretation” of the 2024 result, which he said aligned with a worldwide backlash against parties in power over inflation.
“It was largely a global anti-incumbency — in our case very much fueled by immigration and inflation,” he said. “We might have been able to overcome that had we been able to launch a compelling defense of pronouns versus paychecks. But we weren’t.”
The final result was Mr. Trump’s first popular-vote win in three tries, and only the second for a Republican since 1988. (The last was George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election.)
“Nobody can say that this was a landslide — hell, I was Walter Mondale’s policy director in 1984, and I got buried under one,” said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
But Mr. Galston said that focusing on the closeness of the popular vote masked unnerving movements beneath the surface, like Gallup data showing that more Americans have identified or leaned Republican than Democratic for three straight years. That had not been the case in a single year since 1991, when the G.O.P. had won the last three presidential elections.
Back then, when Democrats were in the wilderness, Mr. Galston and Elaine Kamarck, a longtime Democratic National Committee member, wrote a paper together called “The Politics of Evasion” — a critique of those who made excuses for the party’s electoral shortcomings, rather than facing up to serious problems — that became a manifesto for the party’s post-Reagan revival.
In 2022, the two, who are both fellows at Brookings, published a revised warning, prescribing a course of “reality therapy” to Democrats, including over the party’s “cultural bubble,” which they said put many in the party out of touch with less-educated or lower-income Americans.
Mr. Galston said he and Ms. Kamarck were getting “the band back together for the last time” to draft a post-2024 update.
“It makes sense to break the glass and pull the fire alarm,” he said of the party’s predicament.
Some Democrats have aimed a spotlight at the long-term erosion of voter registration in key states, which seemed to come due in 2024. In Pennsylvania, the most recent figures show the Democratic edge in the state at roughly 189,000 voters — down sharply from 916,000 when Mr. Trump carried the state in 2016, and from over 325,000 as recently as last October.
But Molly Murphy, a Democratic pollster who worked on the Biden and Harris campaigns, urged her party to focus exclusively on solutions.
“We don’t even need to debate how deep the hole is,” she said. “What Democrats need to do is act like we’re in a very deep hole — and if it turns up, upon climbing out, we weren’t in a deep hole, then that’s spoils to us.”
The post Powerless, Democrats Debate Just How Deep in the Wilderness They Are appeared first on New York Times.
