The Democratic Party has spent most of the past decade deciding to lose. Or so argues a new report from Welcome PAC, an organization that backs center-left candidates with the goal of building “a big-tent Democratic Party.”
It is no secret that the Democrats are in a sorry state. They’ve lost to an exceptionally unpopular Republican presidential nominee twice in the last nine years. They face long odds of regaining control of the Senate next year and aren’t even certain to retake the House of Representatives. Historically unpopular, the party has lost ground with much of its traditional base—including working-class voters, people of color, young Americans, or those who belong to all of these groups.
To determine how this happened, Welcome’s Simon Bazelon conducted six months of polling involving nearly half a million voters. He examined the results of hundreds of recent elections, analyzed shifts in the Democratic Party’s legislative priorities, and analyzed various other data points. Bazelon thus produced a rigorous and thorough accounting of what the centrist organization already knew: The Democratic Party has veered too far left, effectively choosing to prioritize progressive orthodoxy over electoral success.
Welcome’s report has already resonated with many within the Democratic Party’s leadership. If Bazelon’s analysis proves persuasive to insiders, it could shape the trajectory of the party’s 2028 presidential primary—and, by extension, the future of American democracy.
To see how well this analysis stands up to scrutiny, I spoke with Bazelon about various progressive objections to his arguments. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
—
### Key Takeaways:
– Since 2012, the Democratic Party has become more left wing, as measured by the types of bills it supports in Congress. Over the same period, polls show an increasing share of Americans believe the party is too liberal.
– Democrats have shifted their messaging focus away from core economic concerns, emphasizing issues related to the environment and identity more frequently.
– Among Democratic candidates, there is no correlation between social media influence and electoral success.
– Nonvoters and swing voters share similar issue priorities and policy views.
—
### How Did Democrats End Up in Their Present State?
Since Barack Obama won reelection in 2012, the Democratic Party has undergone two major shifts.
First, priorities shifted away from kitchen table economic issues toward more abstract concerns such as climate change, democracy, abortion, and other identity and cultural issues.
Second, the party became significantly more left wing across the board. For example:
– In 2013, 24% of Democrats in Congress co-sponsored Medicare for All. In 2023, that number rose to 47%.
– In 2013, 41% co-sponsored an assault weapons ban; now, it’s 88%.
– Only 1% supported a reparations study bill in 2013; now, a majority do.
These shifts are primarily responsible for the current challenges the Democrats face.
At the same time, polls show voters believe Democrats focus too much on social issues and not enough on concrete economic concerns.
Elections are complicated and multi-causal. The 2024 cycle included a global anti-incumbent surge. Factors like inflation and immigration, notably the Biden administration’s handling of immigration, played significant roles in voter disapproval and helped President Trump gain votes.
Interestingly, Democratic candidates who resisted these leftward shifts and aligned more closely with the party’s positions from 10 to 15 years ago tended to perform better electorally.
—
### Are Moderate Candidates Still Advantageous?
Some political scientists argue that the benefits of moderation have nearly disappeared in recent elections, noting that moderate candidates did not significantly outperform more extreme ones in 2022 or 2024.
Bazelon disagrees, pointing out that while the advantage of moderation has diminished compared to 20 years ago, a penalty still exists for ideologically extreme candidates.
He references Adam Bonica’s 2023 paper, which found that running a more moderate candidate could yield a 1 percentage point increase in Democratic presidential vote share. That margin could have secured victories in both the 2016 and 2024 elections, underscoring the ongoing value of moderation.
—
### Why Have Democrats Shifted Leftward Against Voter Preferences?
The shift is largely attributed to Democratic elites:
– Donors, campaign staffers, influential pundits on platforms like Twitter, and advocacy groups have collectively moved left over time.
– As the party became increasingly dominated by high-socioeconomic-status individuals, these groups gained influence.
Evidence shows Democratic elites prioritize issues differently from the general electorate. For instance, compared to swing voters, college-educated Harris supporters are significantly more likely to prioritize climate change, voting rights, and gun control, while caring less about border security, immigration, crime, gas prices, and budget deficits.
This growing elite influence has pulled the party away from the priorities of everyday voters.
—
### Do Voters Even Notice These Shifts?
Some argue that voters’ impressions of party positions are shaped by media narratives, not policy substance—especially since conservative voices dominate podcasts and social media.
For example, half of swing voters falsely believed Kamala Harris supported defunding the police.
Bazelon acknowledges that gaining social media attention is important but warns it must be for the right reasons.
His data show no positive correlation between a Democratic candidate’s social media following and electoral success. In fact, candidates with the largest followings performed slightly worse.
Successful Democrats like Jared Golden and Marie Glusenkamp-Perez have been economically focused and lean right of the median Democrat on immigration, rather than relying on social media influence.
—
### Surprising Poll Findings
A higher percentage of voters say the Democratic Party is too liberal than say the GOP is too conservative.
This challenges the assumption that only Republican extremism is driving dissatisfaction.
—
### Mobilization vs. Moderation: Is There a Trade-off?
Many liberals believe the party should lean left to maximize turnout among progressives, arguing that mobilization drives modern elections amid polarization.
Bazelon counters that data consistently show more progressive Democrats tend to underperform electorally, contradicting the mobilization argument.
Moreover, nonvoters and swing voters share similar policy views, undermining the myth of a large pool of dormant socialist-leaning voters detached from the party.
—
### On Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s Electoral Strategies
Some argue that Harris’ centrist 2024 campaign—emphasizing border security and avoiding bold progressive promises—demonstrates the failure of moderation, while Biden’s progressive 2020 platform proved successful.
Bazelon notes that voters evaluate politicians based on their records over years, not just recent rhetoric.
Harris had a left-wing voting record prior to the campaign and was associated with Biden’s administration, perceived as too liberal by many voters.
Her quiet move toward moderation lacked clear explanation, likely undermining credibility.
Her approval rating rose during the campaign, suggesting moderation efforts didn’t hurt, but voters reacted negatively to the administration’s immigration policy.
Biden, though known as a moderate, governed progressively, leading to increased perceptions of him being too liberal.
This underscores that substantive policy positions shape voter perceptions more than short-term messaging.
—
### Specific Moderation Recommendations: Immigration, Public Safety, Energy, and Cultural Issues
On immigration, the party has moved closer to public opinion compared to earlier stances that supported decriminalizing border crossings.
However, Democrats still face a credibility crisis on immigration and border security, with Republicans maintaining an advantage in public trust.
A step toward regaining trust would involve acknowledging Republican efforts to secure the border—a position Bernie Sanders recently echoed.
—
### The Challenges of Political Trade-offs
Moderating on individual policies often entails accepting real substantive costs.
For example:
– Reducing refugee admissions limits opportunities for stateless individuals seeking safety.
– Abandoning a carbon tax constrains climate change mitigation efforts.
The electoral gains from moderating on single issues may be small or negligible, but the cumulative effect of maintaining extreme positions across many issues has made the party less electable.
During the Biden years, the party was effectively governed by a “coalition of the Left,” where factions held veto power over policies, pushing the party further left and challenging electoral prospects.
—
### Should the Party Retain Unpopular but Principled Policies?
Bazelon suggests foreign aid as a policy that might remain despite low public support, given its large humanitarian benefits and minimal electoral cost.
—
### Governing vs. Winning Elections: Managing Conflicts
Good governance and winning elections don’t always align.
Economic performance remains the most crucial factor in election outcomes.
Macroeconomic management is challenging, as evidenced by the Biden administration’s inflation challenges despite efforts.
The party must aim for stable prices, low unemployment, and growth, which requires balancing public opinion with sound policy.
—
### Party Discipline and Strategic Opposition
Bazelon emphasizes that moderation isn’t about weakness.
The party can stand firm against Trump and the GOP but should be disciplined and strategic, choosing battles where public support is strongest, such as defending Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, opposing tax cuts for the wealthy, and Trump’s tariffs.
—
### Balancing Economic Messaging and Cultural Issues
Some argue Democrats should embrace more robust economic populism—wealth taxes, big minimum wage hikes, Medicare For All—to regain credibility with working-class, culturally conservative voters.
Bazelon sympathizes with economic populism but warns that aggressive economic agendas combined with socially out-of-touch positions do not win elections.
Bernie Sanders’ career illustrates this; as he embraced more left-wing social policies, his electoral performance declined compared to more moderate Democrats.
Polling shows many progressive economic policies—like expanding prescription drug price controls and Medicare benefits—are popular, but costly, universal programs such as free college are not.
Incremental safety-net expansions and means-tested programs generally enjoy more support.
Successful Democrats in swing districts adopt populist economic positions without fully embracing the party’s left wing.
—
### Looking Ahead to 2028
Bazelon urges primary voters and party insiders to carefully evaluate candidates’ past electoral performance and policy positions.
Strong contenders exist, including Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear, Ruben Gallego, and Amy Klobuchar.
However, current frontrunners in Democratic primary polls—AOC, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris—have underperformed electorally in their recent races.
The party’s path to victory in 2028 depends on nominating candidates who appeal to swing voters and can win tough elections.
—
The Welcome PAC report and Bazelon’s analysis raise important questions about the Democratic Party’s future trajectory. Striking the right balance between principle and pragmatism, ideology and electability, will be crucial as the party aims to regain and maintain power in a polarized America.
https://www.vox.com/politics/466253/why-democrats-unpopular-polls-welcome