Every sports head coach always implements the philosophy that he thinks is the likeliest to lead to winning. Nick Saban had his strategy, Bill Belichick had his philosophy, Phil Jackson, Tom Landry, Jimmy Johnson, Andy Reid, etc.
The Republican “formula” for winning elections pre-Trump is kind of obsolete, so it’s not really worth discussing. But post-2015, it is simple and works surprisingly well, albeit abhorrently: Build a cult around Trump. Do crazy things and say insane things; it’s okay, as long as the cult has enough voters to turn out to vote, it can win. Rely on voters to punish the Ds when the Ds can’t deliver results fast enough. No matter what, just go back to A) Trump is right, and B) always vote for Trump. On paper, this shouldn’t lead to wins, but it does. Trump won in 2016, came much closer to winning in 2020 than expected, and won again in 2024.
But if interviewed like a head coach, what would the DNC or Democrats say is their formula for winning, or blueprint? It seems to be: Go centrist on economics; minor changes like ACA are okay but don’t rock the boat with something huge like UBI, single-payer, a wealth tax, etc. Focus on the awfulness of the Rs and hope that voters will vote for the Ds by default since the Ds are the only alternative to the Rs. Do identity politics but be a big tent. Some environmentalism is good, but don’t go too far. Warn supporters that if they don’t donate to the Ds and vote for the Ds, the Rs will win.
If we could get inside the minds of the people who are leading DNC/Democratic strategy, what do they probably imagine is the X+Y=Z formula for maximum Democratic wins?
In accordance with The Art of War you should not interrupt your enemy while he is screwing up. Trump is killing his parties ability to hold on to the house this year, along with state and local offices. Please continue Mr. President.
So dems should just keep on being the party of sanity and economic stability and ride the wave of republican stupidity.
They actually need to convince people that they are that, first. (I think they are in a strictly relative way, but not enough to really brag about)
Sanity?
If you are a right-winger, you have probably absorbed some weird bullshit about how Dems want to trans your kids at school, etc. I don’t think you can convince these people without deprogramming them
If you are on ANY wing, the Democrats keep going on about what a threat Trump is, but then they approve his appointments and such. If he’s such a big threat, that doesn’t seem sane. If he’s not, then their rhetoric about what a threat he is doesn’t seem sane.
Economic Stability
Again, if you are in the RW bubble, you will have such a distorted view of reality that you will be unable to see this. Maybe having us all suffer under Trump will convert some of these folks to reality, but in the meantime, all of us are suffering and Democrats aren’t doing much about it.
It’s hard to argue that what we’ve been doing is economically stable. Better than the current chaos, of course! But in the lifetime of my niece (currently 6yo), if not me, the world is going to change incredibly due to global warming, and Democrats seem to have given up on this.
I do think this strategy will work in the narrow sense of getting more D votes this year and in '28, but I don’t think it will lead to good governing, and therefore we may just bounce back and forth like a pendulum gaining energy somehow. No one can realistically offer sanity OR stability of any kind in that scenario.
Hmm. Senate Democrats did join in confirming Marco Rubio, probably because he looked at the time to be someone who might hold Trump back.
But other big name appointments were mostly voted against by the majority of Senate Democrats.
By any historical standard, Senate Democrats are voting against Trump nominees at a high rate.
The Republicans control the Supreme Court, House of Representatives, Senate, and, of greatest importance, a rule-by-decree presidency. So there nothing effective they can do. That’s not exactly the same as doing nothing.
It’s true the Democrats have some power due to the filibuster, but that power has been greatly watered down in recent years.
Professional politician Democrats disagree on how much of their time to spend talking about this issue or that when there are currently in the opposition. I do not think this equates to giving up. They still are pledged to take meaningful climate action if and when they regain real power.
My Senators, both D, have voted yes on a lot of confirmations. They are the only ones I have any real leverage with, and they keep doing this, so it’s hard for me to be confident that they will do anything harder I want. And I want a lot of harder things.
The Democratic Party hates Trump, and will be against anything Trump even if it might be something they can support. As far as I can tell there does not seem to be a single plank in the party platform that is not hate Trump. No platform, no program, hate Trump.
The mid term elections will give a clearer picture if that is what the voters also see. When you only talk to people who agree with you everything looks like a landslide.
It would be nice to hear who the Democrats are, what they believe, and why they deserve our vote, but so far it is still stuck in we hate Trump.
They could be focusing on stuff that can get passed at state and more local levels. I imagine they probably are (at least to some extent), but they could talk about it more as a shared strategic vision.
They could be recruiting, training, and lifting up leaders from local politics, but they tend to be very bad at that (at least where I live).
That’s great and all, but their pledges don’t mean much. The Senate oath contains the following:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
And frankly, they are coming off as too afraid to defend the constitution against domestic enemies right now.
From where I sit, there are basically two camps within the party and most politicians fall on a spectrum between the two extremes:
Camp #1: With the possible exception of abortion, all social issues are losers for Dems and the focus of both messaging and policy should be lowering prices on consumer goods, housing, college, and healthcare. The fixes shouldn’t take any political risks because what really matters here is just that affordability is the focus of the messaging. Voters need to believe you care about affordability.
Camp #2: The most important electoral commodity in America right now is authenticity. Any message, regardless of how the underlying issue polls, can be graded on a single dimension: Do voters believe that you mean it and will actually fight to make it happen?
The central tension between the camps is that those in Camp #1 must eternally pivot from issues of fascism and bigotry to the cost of living. Those in Camp #2 can also focus on affordability, but cannot constantly pivot away from all the other issues, and must occasionally say unpopular things that rile up the opposition.
Of course, the Dems eternal problem is that the right strategy in Michigan is the wrong strategy in California. The thing the party must do to broadly win is find national messaging and messengers that can bridge the divide. I’m pretty hopeful about the Spanberger-Mamdani Axis of Flexible National Campaign Messaging.
I’m reminded of the line from Kamala Harris to protesters: “You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that.”
That was in response to them saying “We won’t vote for genocide.”
I honestly believe that encapsulates what strategists believe is the winning formula: she said it because — to her mind — the best sales pitch was to imply that the Democratic candidate is less bad than the Republican alternative, and to then expect folks to respond accordingly.
Maybe not so much Michigan vs. California, but rather the “I want things to go back to normal, the way they were just before Trump 45*” camp vs. the litmus test progressives. I haven’t heard anything from Democratic leadership that comes close to a plan to appeal to both camps.
*. I consider myself to be more in the first group than the second. Admittedly, I suspect that a big part of the reason the second group doesn’t mesh very well with the first is that they probably don’t look back at the just before Trump 45 time and see it as a time when “everything was great, and if it wasn’t great it would have been merely a matter of time for things to get there as long as we had kept on the current path”.
You’re assuming that all of these are strategies rather than genuine beliefs, and you’re assuming there’s one '“head coach” or at least some coherence in leadership that is responsible for deliberately pursuing these strategies.
It could be that some influential figures genuinely think a carbon tax is the best climate policy to get votes and some want no climate intervention at all (this is extremely unlikely but just an example). It’s more likely IMO that most influential democrats genuinely believe we need to take drastic actions to mitigate climate change, but that a real comprehensive anti-climate change policy is a vote loser so they just focus on some green jobs programs that will get a popularity bump because they give people jobs.
To the OP question: they don’t yet have an answer — many competing ideas apparently are deal breakers for one or another faction so they default to Try Not To Lose, which is not really that great a strategy.
A lot of Democrats have pretty clearly defined views as to what policies they would like to enact if they hold power. Most of them have a pretty incoherent or factually wrong picture of how to win elections. There seems to be some confusion of the two concepts in the above posts.
Right. Unless/Until the Dems win the House (and hopefully the Senate) in November for 2027, there is really nothing they can do. They do protest- if you read the Congressional record (which i do not anymore) you can see they do speak against trumpism.
Which Senators and which confirmations? The Dems do vote yes on lower level non=partisan judgeships- it is needed to keep justice working.
It seems you are incorrect-
Of course that is from two years ago.
Here is one statement from the parties page-
Democrats across the country are working hard to build a better America. We’re fighting to build an economy that works for everyone by lowering costs for working families and investing in the middle class. Democrats are dedicated to ensuring a stronger and more just future for every American.
They are doing that, look at California.
Again, they can NOT do anything now.
Why not see what happens when the Dems can actually do something?
The Democrats as a whole do not have a California problem. Some individual Democrats, who want to win a primary, have a California problem. But California will go blue in Nov. 2028 if the nominee is Beshear or AOC.
I think this is a relevant factoid (I am giving my own take on the next University of Virginia Center for Politics link, not quoting it):
I do not think there is a one formula that works in every purple state or district. But the statistically significant pattern of Democratic success in Trump districts suggests to me that Democratic party politicians are pretty good at winning general elections, so long as sufficiently moderate Democrats get through the primary.
Unfortunately from the standpoint of regaining the White House, none of the thirteen cross-over House members have a chance of being nominated for president.
P.S. One small caveat regarding California is that their jungle primary risks Democrats being so divided that the top two advancing to the general election are Republicans. That could create a California problem for Democrats, but rarely.