Democrats Need a New Playbook to Win Back Voters in 2026 - Part 2
Part two of a two-part series examining the Democratic Party’s path forward.
A YouGov poll from March highlighted the problem that has bedeviled the Democratic Party since the 1990s: Nearly every major demographic group has moved away from the Democratic Party during that period, while people who identify with the Republicans have remained relatively stable. Was the reason for the disaffection with the Democratic Party its surrender to the far-left elements of the party, a distinct minority, and its emphasis on the needs of minority special interest groups instead of talking about the needs of all Americans? In my opinion, yes.
Looking into my crystal ball, I think the Democrats’ chances of winning control of the House of Representatives this year are pretty good, but definitely not a cinch, and that winning control of the Senate is 50-50 at best. The reason I believe Democrats winning control of the Senate will be difficult is because, since 2018, their candidates have lost in states won by Mr. Trump, and even popular Democratic senators like Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana and Bill Nelson of Florida were defeated as the president won those states. (If they wrest control of the Senate from the Republicans, Democrats should thank President Trump. His rhetoric and policies are their secret weapons.)
But what makes me apprehensive about my predictions is the low esteem in which the Democratic Party is held. Democratic victories in special elections this year have been anti-Trump, not pro-Democrat. That’s a shaky foundation to build upon, and thus far the Democrats have not been able to promote candidates who can generate excitement among voters. Add in the recent Supreme Court voting rights decision, which will probably result in Republicans adding a few more House seats, and the odds of Democrats retaking the House are less than they were before the April 29 decision was announced.
Polls consistently show that President Trump’s approval ratings are akin to someone skating on thin ice. But Democrats’ approval ratings are under the ice.
Also concerning to me is how Democrats, and independents who caucus with the Democrats, display their dirty laundry in public. (Yes, that’s you, Bernie Sanders.) Unless centrist, liberal and far-left Democrats can stop their amicicide and campaign as a unified entity, their chances of winning will be greatly diminished.
But it’s not only the different segments of the Democratic Party that must change their ways. So must all individuals who want to be president. In order to increase the party’s chances of reclaiming the White House in 2028, unifying behind one candidate early and providing that person with two years to campaign would make the road to victory much easier.
“A house divided cannot stand,” said Abraham Lincoln in 1858. (Today, Lincoln would be kicked out of the Republican Party and described as a RINO, Republican In Name Only.)
From 1922 to 1935, Will Rogers, the popular humorist of that era, wrote a syndicated column for The New York Times. One of his famous quotes is, “I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” The same is true of the Democratic Party today, and they better fix it. If they don’t, they are sure to remain the minority party, as they now are, for years to come.
In addition, the Democratic donkey has an elephant-in-the-room problem, a growing cancer that can be fatal to its future success if not cured, if not by this year’s midterms, certainly by the 2028 presidential election.
Not-so-recent history shows that in order for Democrats to win the presidency, their candidate must win the votes of independents and disaffected Republicans. Disapproval of President Trump’s policies is likely to have many of them vote Democratic. But as the Democratic Party becomes more openly anti-Israel, many pro-Israel and Jewish voters are likely to vote Republican, erasing the votes of Republicans who may vote for the Democratic candidate. If my thesis holds true, in 2029 another Republican president will be sworn in.
It’s true that both the Democratic and Republican parties contain elements that are anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. But it’s Democratic elected officials like Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mayor Mamdani and other members of “the Squad” who publicly and continually make statements that are anti-Israel and that many people believe are anti-Semitic.
It’s also true that the most outspoken anti-Israel members of Congress are Democrats, and that the party attracts pro-Palestinian candidates. Two examples: In the forthcoming midterm elections, Abdul El-Sayed, a fierce critic of Israeli policies, is running for a Senate seat in Michigan. Also running for a Senate seat in Maine is progressive Graham Platner, who has said, “I believe that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza … and that the U.S. relationship with Israel is shameful and our moral failure.” With candidates like that, the chances of Democrats persuading Republicans to vote Democratic are about the same as the New York Mets’ chances of winning the World Series.
While the Jewish population of the U.S. is tiny, about 7.7 million including children, it is a hugely sought-after voting bloc because approximately 71% to 80% regularly vote, and in close elections that can make the difference between victory and defeat.
The only medicine that can cure the problem, in my opinion, is for the Democratic Party to nominate a presidential ticket consisting of two moderate-to-liberal candidates from the Midwest or South who can counter the anti-Israel policies of Sen. Sanders, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and other far-left Democratic members of Congress by not being afraid to state their support of Israel, as President Trump does, while also not being afraid to criticize his policies.
Despite the recent, though occasional, election victories of far-left candidates, America is not a far-left country. Too often, elected Democratic members of Congress, even though they are a distinct majority, have surrendered to the demands of their far-left colleagues in order to keep “peace in the family.” The only thing that has accomplished is pushing moderate and independent voters toward Republicans, which will continue in future elections unless Democrats write a new playbook.
Unlike TV political pundits who never admit they’re wrong, I’ll admit that I can be wrong. But don’t bet on it. It’s been a long time since I was wrong in 1800, when I predicted Adams would defeat Jefferson. (I should have demanded a recount.)
I’ve often said that PR practitioners can learn lessons not taught in communications schools by paying attention to the political scene. And they can. But they should never craft a program based on what they hear on television because: 1) TV news is like an AI-generated summary of a story; it’s incomplete, just like the headline of a print article; 2) pundits’ opinions are just opinions, many tailored to fit their audience’s beliefs; and 3) crafting a program based on current news events has two disadvantages: a) by the time it takes to craft a program and get client approval, the media may have moved on to another subject, and b) even if the subject is still relevant, TV producers already have a list of experts they can call at a moment’s notice.
Early in my career, when I asked a prominent medical reporter why my suggested spokespersons were consistently turned down, he said:
“Arthur, I’m primarily a hard news reporter. I’d be glad to consider your clients who have the expertise and credentials I need. But when I’m working on a breaking news story, I can’t wait until you contact your client and then get back to me with an answer. I have a list of experts who have provided me with their personal telephone numbers and are always ready to interrupt whatever they are doing to comment on breaking news.
“The only way to get around this is to ask your clients if they are willing to do the same and, if they are, to provide me with their personal contact information. But me contacting your client directly doesn’t help you.”
So I changed my tactics. Instead of attempting to jump on breaking news, I became a specialist in developing evergreen stories based on what was reported in medical and health journals. While I didn’t always score with my pitches, I scored more often than the New York Mets did during their April 12-game losing streak, and afterward.
I was later asked by Burson-Marsteller management if I could do the same thing on corporate and brand accounts, which I successfully did. And when sports marketing became the big business it is today, because my initial job as a journalist was as a sports reporter, I was assigned to do the same for those clients. Because I was able to do so successfully, instead of being just another employee number, I became a “valued” employee number for almost 25 years before setting up my own consultancy.
What does my résumé have to do with a political essay? Plenty. Donald Trump became president because he campaigned in a style unlike others. If you want to catch top management’s attention, the way to do it is to differentiate yourself from the pack. If not, you might spend your career trying to convince journalists that a No. 10 pencil is better than a No. 9 one.
Earlier in this essay, I wrote that Democrats would probably win the House and had a chance to win the Senate not because of the Democratic Party’s popularity, but because of President Trump’s gaudiness and descent into madness, which reminds me of King Lear in William Shakespeare’s play “The Tragedy of King Lear.” (For readers not familiar with the play, one reason Lear went mad is because people began to question his absolute authority, similar to what’s happening to the president.) Shakespeare also authored the comedy “As You Like It,” in which he wrote, “All the world’s a stage.” As of today, the tragic drama known as Trump 2.0 is receiving bad reviews from Americans. But as in past elections, Democrats have a knack for turning victory into defeat. So hedge your bets on a certain Democratic victory in the midterms unless you’re a pundit like me. Because like Ol’ Man River, pundits go on and on despite often being wrong
Writer’s Note: My first job in public relations was with a political shop, where I worked on local, statewide and presidential campaigns. Based on my experience there and working on quasi political accounts at Burson-Marsteller, during election cycles I become a pundit, writing a few essays about the campaigns for this website. This essay is the first of several that I intend to write between now and the 2028 presidential election. My next one, will be about what I believe is the main reason why the Democrats will remain a minority party unless they fix the situation that has bedeviled them.
Editor’s Note: The above is solely the opinion of the auithor and does not reflect the opinions of editors or management of CommPRO.)
