The Party that Forgot How to Win

A viable opposition party is crucial for the country's political health

Politics

THE PARTY THAT FORGOT HOW TO WIN

The country needs a viable opposition party

Michael Creswell

The Democratic Party’s devastating loss in 2024 wasn’t just about Donald Trump’s resurgence—it was also a massive failure of the Democrats’ messaging, strategy, and leadership. Yet instead of learning from this defeat, they have doubled down on the same failed approaches—confirming voter suspicions that they are out of touch. This isn’t just bad for Democrats; it’s bad for the country. A functioning democracy requires a competitive party system, but many Democrats seem determined to repeat the same mistakes that led to their recent defeat. This should concern all Americans.

Failure to Recognize the Real Causes of Defeat

What’s most concerning is that rather than learning from their mistakes, Democrats continue to blame external factors—misinformation, voter suppression, or an uneducated electorate—rather than confront the deeper strategic failures that cost them the election. While voter suppression and disinformation are legitimate concerns in some areas, they do not explain the scale of the defeat. And those who voted for Trump resent being labeled as ignorant, racist, or sexist, and they will likely remember these slurs come the next election.

Instead of conducting an honest postmortem, many Democratic leaders have largely refused to reassess their approach. They have not meaningfully engaged with the voters they lost, nor have they reconsidered policies that may have alienated key demographics. By ignoring their own failures, they risk continued electoral defeats.

Messaging Missteps: Over-reliance on Anti-Trump Rhetoric

One of the Democrats’ biggest miscalculations—one they have so far refused to reconsider—was their overreliance on demonizing Trump. For years Democrats framed him as an existential threat (“He’s going to steal your democracy”), but this strategy mostly failed to shift voter sentiment. Those who already opposed him didn’t need further convincing of his supposed nefariousness, and his supporters were going to stick with him come what may. But while a key constituency—swing voters—wanted to hear what the Democrats planned to do for the country, they were instead treated to vague messaging and personal attacks on Trump and his supporters. This was not a winning strategy, because it didn’t persuade those swing voters and only deepened political divides.

Even after the election, the party and its media allies have continued their attacks—further alienating the very voters they need to win back. Rather than crafting policies that could win back voters, some Democrats have simply added administration figures like Elon Musk, Kash Patel, RFK Jr., and Pete Hegseth to their target list. However, these individuals are largely irrelevant to some of the day-to-day struggles of working Americans, such as inflation and street crime, making this strategy a distraction rather than a path to electoral success. These attacks failed to win over voters and only detract from the party’s need to present a real alternative to the GOP.

By demonizing Trump, the party has also painted itself into an ideological corner, making it nearly impossible to adjust its policies to match voter concerns. One of the Democrats’ strategies for defeating Trump was to compare him to Hitler, as JB Pritzker, James Clyburn, Jerry Nadler, the Biden-Harris campaign, Hillary Clinton, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Tim Walz, and others did. But what then would happen if he won? How can you agree with anything proposed by someone you have likened to Hitler? Many Democrats now instinctively oppose anything Trump supports. This has placed them in the awkward position of reversing their stance on key issues they once championed—such as enhanced border security, trade protectionism, skepticism of intelligence agencies, and support for tough-on-crime policies. It has also in some instances placed them squarely at odds with public sentiment.

For years, Democrats criticized Trump’s immigration enforcement policies, even though past Democratic leaders—including Barack Obama and Bill Clinton—took a tough stand on border security. But in early 2024 Democrats attempted to shift back toward stronger enforcement, co-authoring a bipartisan immigration bill that increased resources for border security and expedited processing of asylum seekers. Yet the bill contained provisions that divided lawmakers—Republicans argued that work permits for migrants would incentivize illegal crossings, while progressives opposed automatic border shutdown triggers as overly harsh. Trump, seeing a political advantage in keeping the border crisis unresolved until the election, urged Republicans to oppose it. Meanwhile, some Democrats criticized the bill's restrictive measures, complicating its chances for passage.

While many Democrats continue to advocate for pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants, some have shifted their focus away from border enforcement—moving away from the strong security measures previously championed by leaders like Clinton and Obama. These shifting positions reflect growing internal divisions within the Democratic Party—between moderates who see stricter border security as politically necessary and progressives who prioritize pathways to citizenship over enforcement.

One case that encapsulates the political and legal risks of the Democrats’ evolving stance is that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national deported by the Trump administration. This case shows the legal and political complications Democrats face surrounding immigration enforcement. While the administration identified him as a suspected MS-13 gang member, it later conceded that his deportation stemmed from an “administrative error.” Because Abrego Garcia is no longer in US custody, a federal court ruled it could not compel his return—nor could it force El Salvador to extradite him.

Rather than focusing on cases with clear legal merit, some Democrats chose to elevate Abrego Garcia’s cause—despite serious allegations and no viable means to bring him back.

In April, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), followed by four House Democrats—Robert Garcia, Maxwell Frost, Yassamin Ansari, and Maxine Dexter—traveled to El Salvador to demand Abrego Garcia’s release and return. The optics of this trip, particularly given Abrego Garcia’s alleged gang affiliation and the lack of legal recourse, raise questions about political judgment and priorities at a time when many Americans are demanding stronger immigration enforcement and public safety.

In a visually questionable move, Van Hollen posted a photo of his meeting with “Kilmar” in which he gazed sympathetically into the imprisoned man’s eyes—a gesture sharply at odds with growing public demand for tougher border enforcement. The senator’s cordial meeting with Abrego Garcia diverges from his stance in the case of Rachel Morin, a mother of five who was raped and murdered in a Baltimore suburb in 2023 by Victor Martinez-Hernandez, an El Salvador native. He was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree rape, third-degree sex offense and kidnapping on April 14.

Rachel Morin’s mother, Patty Morin, questioned Van Hollen’s motives for traveling to meet with Abrego Garcia: “To have a senator from Maryland who didn’t even acknowledge, or barely acknowledged my daughter and the brutal death she endured, leaving her five children without a mother and now a grandbaby without a grandmother so he can use my taxpayer money to fly to El Salvador to bring back someone that’s not even an American citizen?” Van Hollen’s response to her criticisms was decidedly less impassioned than the sentiments he expressed about Abrego Garcia’s detention.

Although Van Hollen and his colleagues claimed their actions were about ensuring due process, the political optics are undeniably unfavorable. The Department of Homeland Security reports that Abrego Garcia is “a MS-13 gang member, illegal alien from El Salvador, and suspected human trafficker.” In 2021 his wife, Jennifer Sura Vasquez, filed a temporary protective order for his alleged physical assault of her. One wonders why this is the hill which some Democrats have chosen to die on.

The divide between Democratic rhetoric and governing choices extends beyond immigration, revealing a broader pattern of inconsistency that erodes public trust. Some Democratic leaders have endorsed policies that many voters perceive as threats to free expression, such as advocating for expanded hate speech legislation and supporting university speech codes, marking a significant departure from the party's traditional defense of free speech. Moreover, Democrats have historically been skeptical of institutions like the CIA and FBI, often criticizing their actions; however, in recent years, even progressive Democrats have largely refrained from such critiques, a notable shift in perspective.

Regarding government oversight, Democrats once vocally opposed government corruption. In 2006 they repeatedly attacked a “culture of corruption” on Capitol Hill, helping them win majorities in both the House and Senate after 12 years of Republican control. Now Democratic leaders resist certain corruption investigations, particularly those involving high-profile figures within their own party, while continuing to pursue cases against political opponents. For instance, many Democrats dismissed investigations into Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings as well as efforts to scrutinize Biden administration officials, while continuing to push for legal action against Donald Trump and his Republican allies. Many Democrats have opposed specific efforts to cut federal spending and reduce bureaucratic waste, arguing that such initiatives often serve as cover for weakening social programs and essential public services.

Or take the case of the Pandemic Unemployment Fraud Enforcement Act (HR 1156), which aims to extend the statute of limitations on pandemic-related unemployment fraud by five years. It seems like a measure that would garner universal support—but that wasn’t the case. When the Ways and Means Committee reviewed the bill last month, every Republican backed it, while every Democrat opposed it.

The Democrats raised several objections, including Trump’s recent dismissal of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) inspector general and concerns about the bill’s “narrow scope.” Some also took issue with one modest cost-saving measure in the bill. Representative Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) opposed offsetting the bill’s $5 million administrative cost—needed to refer fraud cases to the DOL and law enforcement agencies—by trimming an equal amount from unspent “program integrity” funds originally allocated in a 2021 stimulus law. However, objecting to the use of program integrity funds to prevent fraud is questionable at best.

The contrast becomes even more striking when viewed alongside recent Democratic spending priorities. Their 2021 stimulus law favored “equity and racial justice” in distributing unemployment benefits, directing $260 million to states in “equity grants.” Allocating $5 million to prosecuting fraud would have been a far more effective use of resources than funding equity grants. Furthermore, if extending the statute of limitations leads to the recovery of even one percent of the more than $100 billion lost to fraud, it would pay for the administrative costs many times over.

Policy Disconnect: Ignoring Economic Concerns

Beyond messaging failures, the Democratic Party’s policy missteps—especially on economic issues like inflation, jobs, and immigration—also alienated voters. Democrats struggled to move past their history of prioritizing issues that were unpopular with many voters, including some within their own party.

For example, debates over pronoun usage and transgender athletes in women’s sports became prominent in the campaign—not because Democrats prioritized them, but because Republicans framed them as key cultural flashpoints in media coverage and campaign rhetoric. While these topics matter to certain constituencies, they did not address the pressing concerns of voters dealing with inflation and job insecurity.

Democrats just couldn’t manage to shift the conversation back to economic concerns, allowing Republicans to define the debate on cultural issues and reinforcing voter concerns that the party was out of touch.

Post-Election Fallout: Missed Opportunities and Missteps

Even after their defeat, many Democrats have refused to take advantage of opportunities for bipartisan unity. For example, some Democrats behaved raucously during President Trump’s March 2025 address before a joint session of Congress. Rep. Al Green (D-TX) was removed from the chamber for disorderly conduct. And, with few exceptions, most Democrats refused to stand and clap for DJ Daniel, a 13-year-old survivor of brain cancer who the president introduced and made an honorary Secret Service agent. Rep. Laura Gillen (D-NY), who did stand and applaud, expressed disappointment in her colleagues, as did Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) because it reinforced the perception that Democrats were unwilling to engage in moments of bipartisan unity.

The party also sat stone-faced when Trump recognized the mother and sister of Laken Riley, the 22-year-old University of Georgia nursing student, and 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, both of whom were murdered by illegal immigrants. Overall, it was a sad spectacle which only reinforced the perception of a party unwilling to embrace bipartisanship and, more damningly, unable to sympathize with victims of violence by illegal immigrants.

In February, Trump signed an executive order intended to ban transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports. Then in March, Senate Democrats voted unanimously to block a Republican-led bill that would prohibit federally funded schools from allowing transgender athletes to participate in women's sports. This is in contrast to the results of a New York Times/IPSOS survey which found that 79 percent of U.S. adults opposed allowing transgender athletes in female sports, including 67 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents. This mirrors the Democrats’ stance in 2023. When the House of Representatives considered the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023” (H.R. 734), all Democrats voted against it, while all Republicans supported it. On this issue, Democrat politicians and the public are on opposite sides. Democrats are throwing away opportunities for easy “wins” that would be popular with their own base.

Some prominent Democrats have tarnished the party’s image by posting several clownish videos on social media. One video, “Choose your fighter,” is set to music from the game Super Smash Bros. Posted by social media influencer Sulhee Jessica Woo, it features House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) and Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Jasmine Crockett (TX), Judy Chu (CA), Lauren Underwood (IL), and Susie Lee (NV) jumping up and down in a fighting position like video game characters. Prior to Trump’s address to the chamber, Rep. Jasmine Crockett posted a video of herself and two other women lip-syncing and dancing to Kendrick Lamar’s NSFW diss rap, “Not Like Us.” After Trump’s address, Crockett announced “Somebody slap me and wake me the fuck up because I’m ready to get on with it.” These antics may excite the party’s progressive online base, but to many moderates, they reinforce the image of a party that isn’t serious about governing.

That disconnect was also on full display during the Democrats' self-styled economic crusade. At a time when Democrats claim to champion working people, some of their most prominent figures are undermining that message through glaring contradictions. In March, multi-millionaire Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and media sensation Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) embarked upon a “Fighting Oligarchy” tour. However, these oligarchy fighters are sending mixed messages. For example, they took a $15,000-per-hour private jet to attend one of their rallies. AOC was also spotted lounging in first-class on a trip to speak at a rally in Las Vegas. More importantly, their tour is long on entertainment and woefully short on serious economic proposals.

Democrats at a Crossroads: They Must Change or Face Decline

For its own good, and that of the country, the Democratic Party must change course or risk further electoral losses and diminished national influence. Its favorability rating has dipped to a record low. While political power tends to shift cyclically, Democrats risk squandering the opportunity to present themselves to a broad electorate as a viable governing party. American political history demonstrates that a strong opposition is needed to provide a check on the party in power.

If Democrats continue focusing on personal attacks on Trump and Musk, emphasizing divisive cultural issues over economic concerns, and failing to engage with swing voters, they will not disappear—but they will lose influence over the country’s long-term direction. They remain competitive, and recent history suggests they may regain power in 2026 or 2028 by default. But winning elections out of voter fatigue with Republicans is not the same as building a durable governing majority. If Democrats refuse to recalibrate, they may continue to cycle in and out of power without ever regaining the broad coalition they once commanded. To win back working- and middle-class voters, they must prioritize economic concerns, articulate a clear policy vision, and avoid distractions that allow Republicans to control the narrative.

---

Michael H. Creswell is Associate Professor of History at Florida State University, the author of A Question of Balance: How France and the United States Created Cold War Europe, and an executive editor at History: Reviews of New Books. A specialist on the Cold War, Creswell is currently writing a book that examines the increasing difficulties Americans have in communicating in socially and politically productive ways. He publishes regularly in the Journal of Free Black Thought, including “Closing the Racial Academic Achievement Gap,” “Why Black Americans Should Care More About Foreign Affairs,” “How Would Black America Fare if Progressives Got Their Way?,” “The Price of the Game,” “The End of Affirmative Action is an Opportunity,” “To Forgive or Not to Forgive?,” “How to Prepare Your Child for College,” “How to Flourish in College,” and “How to Apply to Graduate and Professional School,” and “What Does Trump's Second Term Mean for Black America?”