What's next for Democrats?
A 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. As a result, Democrats, if they want to run to the center, must do so symbolically. That means nominating a white man in 2028. It worked in 2020, and it can work in 2024.
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 are willing to 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 as much as Trump won them. He offered them tax cuts, slashed regulations, and unleashed energy. Hard to beat that. If Democrats want to win them back, they will need to stop ranting against “tax cuts for the 1%,” and quietly back away from anti-elitist economics. They should focus on being pro-populist, rather than anti-elite. There’s a difference.
Pro-populist, not anti-elite.
Democrats can win on economic populism. Free college, free healthcare, UBI, and a housing tax credit are all areas where Democrats can beat Republicans. Billionaires don’t care as much about government spending and the deficit, because inflation doesn’t hurt the rich (their assets appreciate). That’s why they love Trump, despite the fact that he massively increased spending and the deficit. Democrats need to stop attacking the rich with taxes and regulations, and start offering the poor and middle class whites simple, tangible, and bold economic benefits.
Was healthcare on the ballot in 2024? Education? Housing? I didn’t hear a single policy proposal targeted toward me as a white man. Now, 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 word, preferably between one and three syllables, that represents the tangible benefit I will receive for voting Democrat.
Women got that: abortion. Outside of abortion, however, all I heard was “black and brown, wonk wonk wonk.” Maybe the Democrats wanted to expand Medicaid, but how much? And to whom?
I’m sure Democrats did a great job explaining how they would 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 in terms of the quantitative effect of enacted policy, that is the impression, and it demands a symbolic correction in the aesthetics of Democratic messaging.
Democrats lost in rural North Carolina and Georgia. They lost in the rust belt, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Nevada and Arizona have Hispanic voters, but not many black ones. And they don’t like being called “Latinx.”
In reality, the impression that Democrat policies only benefit people of color isn’t accurate. Whites can and do benefit from welfare. But Democratic messaging has created a different impression, in the minds of poor, low-information voters.
The blue wall is strong. Democrats could run one million ads without a single black person in 2028 and still win California. I’m not suggesting they do that as a matter of strategy, but I am illustrating a point: Democrats need to make a direct appeal to poor and middle class white Americans.
The (bill) Clinton playbook.
Hillary Clinton is still alive. I’m not too sure about her husband. But once upon a time, Bill Clinton won Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Iowa, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia by appealing to working class and rural whites. He campaigned on two platforms that seem unthinkable for Democrats today:
Stopping black crime. Yes, really. 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, with the goal "to restore integrity and safety to the nation's busiest border." And yes, he built sections of border wall to do that.
Kamala was unable to campaign on these issues for two reasons. First, she participated in Biden’s open border policy, and anything she said on this topic was simply not credible based on her record. Second, she supported the excesses of BLM in 2020, and that overshadowed her credentials as a prosecutor.
Assuming that Democrats run Buttigieg in 2028, his platform should include the following words and phrases:
“We will finish the wall, and provide a path to citizenship.” Acknowledge that Trump was right on the border, but wrong on his demonization of foreigners.
“People have a right to feel safe.” Acknowledge that homelessness, crime, and rioting are always unacceptable, and the safety of Americans is supreme.
“We need a new GI bill for the 21st century.” Push for bold legislative solutions to student debt.
“We need a family-based approach to healthcare.” Promise to extend parental healthcare to “children” past the age of 29.
“Cut taxes for those struggling to pay rent.” Offer a blanket tax deduction for non-homeowners up to $20k per year.
These would be five policies where Democrats can make direct (if implicit) appeals to the concerns of whites: insecure borders, rioting criminals, student debt, and healthcare are all issues that worry white voters. By putting these issues into simple, bold, and direct terms, Democrats can avoid antagonizing billionaires and win back rural white Americans.
When Bernie Sanders supported free education and healthcare for all, he was attacked as a socialist, but he was still fairly popular. If Democrats offer to pay for these programs with more deficit spending (inflation), rather than increased taxes, they will still be attacked as socialists, but be seen as less antagonistic from the billionaire perspective. Additionally, a tough on crime and border stance will help soften the implicit 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 viable Republican who can replace him. DeSantis and Haley cannot live up to the hype of Trump’s cult of personality. He is a uniquely charismatic and powerful figure. With him gone, whoever replaces him will be at a severe disadvantage.
Additionally, Kamala was uniquely unpopular. As a black-Indian woman, she alienated whites, misogynists (who make up a significant proportion of the Democratic base and swing voters), and even black people who saw her as a “fake black person.”
Female candidates can be charismatic and likable. Tulsi Gabbard, Nikki Haley, and Michelle Obama prove that female candidates don’t need to turn off voters. Unfortunately, Kamala wasn’t it. Democrats can avoid a repeat of this fiasco in 2028 by nominating a white man like Buttigieg, or even a heterosexual one, like Martin Heinrich.
Even if Democrats fail to run to the center, and instead move toward hysterical woke radicalism, they still may win in 2028. This is because America is becoming less white, less straight, and more educated. In 2028, Gen Alpha will be able to vote, and Gen Z will be turning 30. Millennials will turn 47! This younger generation has sticky progressive views that are at odds with the Republican base. And remember, 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 nearly destroyed the Republican Party. Evangelical craziness, low IQ “Bushisms,” a failing economy, and endless wars destroyed the reputation of the GOP. As a result, McCain and Romney suffered humiliating defeats, and Obama was on his way to a third term, if it weren’t for that one pesky amendment. Trump only won in 2016 because Democrats became over-confident and Hillary was uniquely unpopular (I’m sorry to reinforce the trope that women are unlikable, but don’t blame me, blame the voters. I’m just the messenger!).
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 a 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 have painted themselves into a corner where they are fighting popular ballot measures, now 52-47 in red states! Maybe if Joe Biden is still alive in 2028, they can throw him up on life support. The way things are going, voters will prefer a comatose vegetable over a “ban abortion” candidate like DeSantis.
TrumP; Former Dem
Elon Musk: Former Dem
Jeff Bezos: Former Dem
Mark Zuckerberg: Former Dem
Paypal Mafia: Former Dems
Joe Rogan: Former Dems
IDW-Sphere: Former Dems
JD Vance: More or less former Dem or at least 90s Dem
I think we found the 90s Dem coalition.
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.