Opinion: What Communicators Can Learn From the Democratic Party’s Challenges
Editor’s Note: This is the second part of a two-part opinion essay examining the Democratic Party and the 2026 midterm elections. Part one was published on August 3. The views and political analysis expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CommPRO, its editors or management.
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. But people who identify with the Republicans have remained 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.
This problem was exacerbated during the Democratic Party primaries when traditional, longtime liberal Democratic voters stayed home, as usual, allowing Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) victories while only gaining a tiny percentage of the Democratic vote.
Even though the DSA victories will represent a minuscule percentage of House members when the new Congress is seated next January, they provide Republicans with talking points that will appeal to many voters in the 2026 and 2028 elections: that the traditional liberal Democratic Party is as gone as the wind (get it?) and is now controlled by socialists, communists and DSA members whom critics accuse of antisemitism, and who want to change the Constitution and basic American values.
Looking into my crystal ball, I think that the Democrats’ chance of winning control of the House of Representatives this year is good, but definitely not a cinch, and that winning control of the Senate is 50-50, if you’re an optimist. The reason I believe that 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 court decision was announced.
Polls consistently show that President Trump’s approval ratings are akin to someone skating on thawing 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; that’s you, Mayor Mamdani and other DSA politicians.) Unless the centrist, liberal and far-left Democrats can stop their brawling and campaign as a unified entity, the chances of their 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 chance of reclaiming the White House in 2028, unifying behind one candidate soon and providing that person with two years to campaign makes 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 the Democrats to win the presidency, their candidate must win the votes of independents and disaffected Republicans. Disapproval among those voters 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 the year 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 antisemitic. But it’s elected officials who align with the Democratic Party, 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, many of which people believe are also antisemitic, as I do. (I will delve more deeply into the Democratic Party’s Jewish voters’ problem in a future column. All I will say now is that the problem has increased because of Abdul El-Sayed’s victory in the Democratic Michigan U.S. Senate primary and that of Donovan McKinney, a socialist House candidate, who along with Mr. El-Sayed has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. Mr. El-Sayed said Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state, and Mr. McKinney pledged to end all aid to Israel.)
Michigan has more than 200,000 registered Muslim voters, and those who voted in the Democratic primary without a doubt provided the margin of victory for Mr. El-Sayed because of his opposition to U.S. policy in Gaza and Israel.
Socialists are certain to say that Mr. El-Sayed’s victory proves that there is a socialist wave across the country, even though he has publicly said that he is not a socialist, proving that far-left candidates can win in more than deep-blue districts and states. But his victory in Michigan says otherwise:
State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, a traditional Democrat who has been criticized by socialist Democrats, dropped out of the race, but it was too late to remove her name from the ballot. She received more than 61,000 votes. It is fair to assume that the overwhelming percentage of those votes would have gone to Rep. Haley Stevens, thus providing her with more than enough votes to defeat Mr. El-Sayed.
Also, on election night, MS NOW reported that in large Muslim areas he received as much as 80 percent of the vote. That election-night commentary proved accurate when the voting patterns were analyzed. Nevertheless, despite those huge margins, Mr. El-Sayed won by about one percentage point.
Instead of being a socialist wave, it appears that the El-Sayed victory was more like one raindrop falling in the ocean. Nevertheless, if he is elected to the Senate, he will become a leading voice for the far-left fringe of the Democratic caucus, cause trouble for traditionalists and provide Republicans with talking points for the 2028 presidential election.
While not a socialist victory, Mr. El-Sayed’s win should be a wake-up call for the traditional Democratic leadership. It shows that the current primary system greatly reduces their influence (see part one of this essay) and that the leadership must include younger “new thinkers” who appeal to younger voters.
The only medicine that can cure the Democratic Party’s problems, in my opinion, is for the party to nominate a presidential ticket consisting of two moderate/liberal candidates from the Midwest and South who can change the perception that the Democratic Party has been captured by its extreme left wing.
Despite the recent, but occasional, election victories of far-left candidates, America is not a far-left country. Too often, traditional 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 to have moderate and independent voters vote Republican, which they will continue to do in the majority of future elections unless the Democrats write a new playbook. (Unless the Republicans keep nominating Trump-like candidates.)
Unlike the TV political pundits who never admit that 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 that John Adams, my boyhood best friend, would defeat Thomas Jefferson. I’ve never let sentiment interfere with my political analysis since then. (President Trump told me that I should have demanded a recount and shouted that the election was stolen from Adams. He must have had an advance copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, in which he wrote, “People are more likely to believe a colossal falsehood than a small one because they themselves only tell small lies and would not have the nerve to invent something so massive.”)
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. Here’s one: 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 of which are tailored to fit their viewing audience’s beliefs; and 3) crafting a program based on current news happenings has two disadvantages: a) By the time it takes to craft a program and get it approved by the client, the media might have moved on to another subject, and b) even if the subject is still relevant, TV producers have a list of experts they can call who are available at a moment’s notice.
Example: Early in my career, I asked a prominent medical reporter why whenever I suggested a qualified spokesperson I was turned down. He replied, “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 the breaking news I’m reporting on.”
Earlier in this essay, I wrote that the 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 of the reasons he went mad is because people began to question his absolute authority, similar to what’s happening to the president.] Shakespeare also authored a comedy titled As You Like It, in which he wrote, “All the world’s a stage.” As of today, the tragic drama known as Trump 2 is receiving bad reviews from Americans. But as in past elections, the Democrats have the knack of 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 being wrong and wrong.
That the Democratic Party is in crisis is a fact. Because of overwhelming support by members of Congress and the general American public for many years, the Democratic Party took things for granted, thinking that a few DSA elected candidates would be a one- or two-day story and that keeping mum would make any problem go away.
Instead, the party should have made all-out efforts to get traditional Democratic voters to vote in the New York City primaries, as they did in Westchester County in the June 25, 2024, primary for New York's 16th Congressional District. In that primary, County Executive George Latimer easily defeated incumbent Rep. Jamaal Bowman with 58.4% of the vote to Bowman’s 41.6%. Issues in that primary emphasized deep party divisions, especially over the Israel-Hamas war, which got independent voters to re-register as Democrats in order to vote for Latimer.
Here’s another lesson that the crisis of the Democratic Party provides: PR practitioners who work on nonpolitical, especially corporate positioning accounts, should never take things for granted. Things change.
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.
Editor’s Note: This article is commentary and reflects solely the opinions and analysis of the author. It does not represent the views of CommPRO, its editors or management.
