What's next for Democrats?
Left-wing Sailer Strategy.
There are three approaches Democrats can take to 2028:
Stay the course. Don’t change anything.
A radical drive toward the center.
Re-capture corporate interests.
Stay the course.
America is becoming less white. Old people are dying, and young people are turning 18. People are becoming more educated. The percentage of LGBTQ Americans is rising. None of these trends will reverse in 2028. The Democrats will have a larger base to work with. Even if nothing changes, Democrats should be able to improve over 2024.
The other factor to consider is internal migration. People are leaving New England, Chicago, and California for purple states like Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina. Many of these internal migrants bring their liberal politics with them. Even if America wasn’t becoming less straight, less white, more Millennial and Gen Z (proportionately), and more educated, internal migration alone could turn swing states blue.
Radical change.
Democrats could improve their chances in 2028 by making radical changes. Unlike many on the right, I believe they are capable of making these changes. This is because Democrats, unlike Republicans, are generally more conformist. This isn’t to say that Democrats have no principles, but they are more responsive to changes in elite opinion than Republicans.
Democrats have already made a number of changes in this cycle:
Less trans signaling;
Less BLM signaling;
Less tolerance of open borders;
Less tolerance of homelessness.
Democrats can double down on these trends in 2028, although without control of the house, senate, Supreme Court, or presidency, it will be hard for Democrats to change much in terms of policy. If Democrats want to run to the center, they must do so symbolically. That means nominating a white man in 2028. It worked in 2020, and it can work in 2028.
Corporate interests.
Seven out of the top eight donors in 2024 were for Republicans:
In the case of Miriam Adelson, Democrats aren’t going to win her over unless they stop signaling in favor of a two state solution. If Trump recognizes the West Bank as Israeli territory, this might actually be a gift to the Democrats. By destroying the hope of Palestinian statehood, Democrats can accept the new status quo and move on. Otherwise, Democrats will continue to frustrate both big donors as well as their base with the intractable problem of a two-state fiction on a road to nowhere.
Democrats didn’t lose billionaires in 2024 — Trump won them. He offered tax cuts, slashed regulations, and unleashed energy. If Democrats want to win billionaires, they will need to stop ranting against “tax cuts for the 1%,” and back away from anti-elitism. They should be pro-populist, not anti-elite. There’s a difference.
Pro-populist, not anti-elite.
Democrats can win on economic populism. Free college, free healthcare, UBI, and subsidies for housing are areas where Democrats can beat Republicans. Billionaires don’t care as much about deficit spending, because inflation doesn’t hurt the rich (assets appreciate). They love Trump despite the fact that he increased the deficit. Democrats need to stop attacking the rich with taxes and regulations, and start offering the poor and middle class whites free stuff.
Was healthcare on the ballot in 2024? Education? Housing? I didn’t hear a single policy proposal targeted toward white men. My Democrat friends will say, “you didn’t read her policy proposal closely enough! Read between the lines!” And that’s why Kamala failed.
If I have to be a wonk to see my self-interest represented, that’s not good messaging. Good messaging makes policy so obvious that even an idiot can understand. Trump is good at this: “Wall. Drill. Free speech. Inflation.” I need a one-to-three syllable word that represents the tangible benefit I receive for voting Democrat.
Women got abortion. Outside of abortion, however, all I heard was “black and brown, wonk wonk wonk.” Democrats wanted to expand Medicaid, but how much? To whom?
Democrats promised to help black and brown Americans. But working-class whites in swing states have the impression that they are being left behind in favor of Haitians. Even if that isn’t true, that is the impression, and it demands a symbolic correction in the aesthetics.
Democrats lost rural North Carolina and Georgia. They lost the rust belt. Nevada and Arizona have Hispanic voters, not black ones. They don’t like being called “Latinx.”
The popular impression that Democrat policies only benefit people of color isn’t accurate. Whites benefit from welfare too. But Democratic messaging has created a negative impression in the minds of poor, low-information voters.
Democrats could run one million ads without a single black person in 2028 and still win California. I’m not suggesting they do that, but illustrating a point: Democrats need to appeal to poor and middle class white Americans.
The (bill) Clinton playbook.
Once upon a time, Bill Clinton won Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Iowa, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia by appealing to working-class rural whites. He campaigned on two platforms:
Stopping black crime. He called his platform “Putting People First,” which demanded “100,000 new police officers on the streets.” He won the endorsement of the National Association of Police Officers.
Border security. He directed Janet Reno to implement Operation Gatekeeper, “to restore integrity and safety to the nation's busiest border.” He built border fencing in San Diego.
Kamala was unable to campaign on these issues. First, she participated in Biden’s open border policy. Anything she said was not credible based on her record. Second, she supported BLM in 2020, and that overshadowed her credentials as a prosecutor.
The Democratic his platform should include the following words and phrases:
“Finish the wall, provide a path to citizenship.” Acknowledge that Trump was right on the border, but wrong on demonization of foreigners.
“People have a right to feel safe.” Acknowledge that homelessness, crime, and rioting are unacceptable, and the safety of Americans is supreme.
“A GI bill for the 21st century.” Free college.
“Family-based healthcare.” Extend parental healthcare to “children” past the age of 29.
“Cut taxes for those struggling to pay rents and mortgages.” Offer a tax deduction of up to $20k per year for rent and mortgage payments.
Democrats can make implicit appeals to whites: insecure borders, rioting criminals, student debt, healthcare, and housing are issues that worry white voters. Putting these issues into simple, bold, and direct terms will avoid antagonizing billionaires and win rural white Americans.
When Bernie Sanders supported free education and healthcare for all, he was attacked as a socialist, but he was still popular. If Democrats offer to pay for these programs with deficit spending (inflation), rather than taxes, they will be attacked as socialists, but be seen as better from the billionaire perspective. Being tough-on-crime and the border will soften the association between socialism and “wokism.”
None of this matters, though.
In 2028, Trump will retire from politics at the age of 82. There is no Republican who can replace him. DeSantis and Haley cannot recreate the Trump cult. He is a uniquely charismatic and powerful figure. Whoever replaces him will be at a severe disadvantage.
Kamala was uniquely unpopular. As a black-Indian woman, she alienated whites, misogynists (a significant proportion of swing voters), and black people saw her as a “fake black person.”
Female candidates can be charismatic. Tulsi Gabbard, Nikki Haley, and Michelle Obama don’t turn off voters. Democrats can avoid this fiasco in 2028 by nominating a white man like Martin Heinrich.
If Democrats fail to run to the center, and move toward hysterical woke radicalism, they still may win in 2028. America is becoming less white, less straight, and more educated. In 2028, Gen Alpha will be able to vote, and Gen Z will turn 30. Millennials will turn 47! Thousands of Californians are invading Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas as we speak. Internal migration from liberal whites may end up playing a greater role than Mexican immigration in the 2028 cycle.
Republicans might also implode.
George Bush destroyed the Republican Party with Evangelical craziness, low IQ “Bushisms,” a failing economy, and endless wars. McCain and Romney suffered humiliating defeats. Trump won in 2016 because Hillary was uniquely unpopular.1
Without Trump as the glue holding the Republican party together, who will fill his shoes? Can Vance receive the crown of Qanon? Would Haley receive the same love and adoration? Will the DeSantis meme-team finally pull off the wholesome chungus Sonnenrad edit? Or will the entire thing disappear in a puff of smoke, just as suddenly as it descended from Trump tower, like a strange dream?
We might collectively discover, as a nation, that without Trump, everyone hates homophobic, sexist, racist, anti-abortion Republicans. If social views continue to shift left, pro-life Republicans will paint themselves into a corner where they are fighting popular ballot measures, now 52-47 in red states! If Joe Biden is still alive in 2028, they can throw him up on life support. Voters might prefer a comatose vegetable over a “ban abortion” candidate like DeSantis.
(I’m sorry to reinforce the trope that women are unlikable, but don’t blame me, blame the voters. I’m just the messenger!).
The internal migration thing is likely the reverse, because of who is leaving and the specific donor/recipient states and locations. On the who, internal migrants tend to be people who value a lower cost of living in red states over the cultural amenities of blue states. As for the where, prime destinations Texas and Florida can absorb more democrats without turning blue. So, NY and California keep losing electoral votes and the red states keep gaining. Also, to extent that internal migrants are democrats, they tend to move to cities. Because they’re packed together in already blue state legislative districts, they have little effect on the partisan balance for the state government.
People who move out of California are the most right-wing Californians. Texas transplants are *more* right-wing than native Texans. Overall internal migration is terrible for Democrats.