I keep trying to imagine how history might be taught in America in 2050. Can anyone imagine the history books saying that Donald J. Trump was a great President who presided over the "Golden Age of America", when our country was the "hottest country" in the world?
It just is not possible that, with the benefit of hindsight, Americans in the future will not view these years in our country as aberrant... It's just logical.
Oh, I know, there will continue to be terrible damage done to America, perhaps some of it irreversible, but Trumpism will NOT stand the test of time.
I don't live in these states, but these party types sound exactly like the ones in my blue state: stale old formulas and reaching backwards for examples.
The fact that “We haven’t had boots on the ground among white voters in Mississippi for probably close to two generations.” is just sinful.
I suggest they TRY! Try a Platner type, a Jon Ossoff type, hell let them prove they're not racist and send out good black candidates.
Because implicit in all of these people's ideas were that the candidates would be white.
“It’s going to be much harder, I think, for the activists to accept that you might not have somebody that simply says yes to everything on the Democratic agenda. "
now imagine saying that to f.d.r.; forget social security and all that other socialism, get tight with the bankers, man.
yes, as clinton's quote does, dem values have to be expressed with more practicality and less disdain, but if the values take a back seat (we'll save the planet next time, we'll go after corruption big time ... someday) then the party might attract new 'rural' voters, but maybe not as fast as they lose college educated white folks to the independent 'party'? like me?
Lauren, I feel like you’re gonna have to find a new groove for the opposition. If you were reporting for traditional paper and just trying to keep people up to speed on what the party folks are saying this would be a well-researched newsletter.
But that’s not all people come to the Bulwark for. Most of us are incredibly well informed and well read, and there was very little in this newsletter that I hadn’t already heard about.
Your opening comments seemed more than a little unfair to Justin from Tennessee. You highlight his actions as ineffective, at least in the short term. Well, duh, Democrats have no power. There is nothing they can do politically in the immediate term. What Justin was saying specifically to his Republican colleagues is that they will be remembered poorly in history, alongside the worst racists, and he was using historically racist symbols to reinforce that. He was speaking to the long-term maybe with a slim hope of shaming some Republicans into different actions.
It feels like you have the right connections and reporting skills. But you really need to reach deeper and create insights and comment on strategic implications.
Spanberger in Virginia illustrates what's wrong with the 'Dems need to move to the middle' theory.
Sure, in certain areas a move to the middle might lead to electoral wins...but Spanberger's reaction to the VA Supreme Court decision killing the people's will re the redistricting vote shows that moving to the middle to win means that fighting back is off the table and allows Republican legislatures/the GOP machine to carry on doing what they want to do with no pushback.
What's the point of winning if, in order to keep one's seat, one is too afraid of losing the next election to effecgtively use their power to make changes? It's a stupid loop.
One true thing: in the new hyper-gerrymandered south, what it will take for Dems to win is "crossing the aisle" in ways they've rarely been asked to do, until this new now. The truth is, Dems cannot win now without a greater proportion of whites. That is the fact, and the awful truth.
But Trump didn't run on conservative ideas, so why should the Dems? He literally told people IVF would be free! Let's actually try to improve things for people and every color in the rainbow coalition might be interested in that. I feel like rural white voters also want healthcare, education, help with cost of living in the US. That's not a hard sell anywhere.
Maybe someday people will care enough to flex the real muscle they have that the SCOTUS cannot take away: their economic muscle. If they want to reinstall Jim Crow in all of its ugliness than why should anyone anywhere who cares spend a nickel in that state or with any company that does business with them or with anything anywhere that supports it. But it is my bet that all you will get is a few words about boycott and then it is back to business as usual. And now all blue states are going to have to gerrymander every single red district they can.
I'm from the Cincinnati area and, of course, always thought Cleveland sucked. I never actually visited Cleveland until I was in my 20's. And of course, I still thought it sucked. Whether that was because of 20+ years of unwarranted prejudice against Cleveland... or Cleveland just sucks, I don't know. But what I do know, is that Democrats in the South aren't going to 'expand their coalition' much for the very same reasons... prejudice and/or they just suck.
Ms Egan seems to have forgotten that maga "purity" has been a winning formula for republicans for more than a decade. Ignoring that is political suicide. Rather, democrats should find the line that non-maga republicans are not willing to cross and and expose it to a cleansing light.
A Democrat who's candidacy I've been following, and who is running in a TN district is Kristi Burke - I will just say, she gives me a lot of hope - it is encouraging listening to her speak.
I'm in favor of the Democratic party fielding local candidates in very red districts from people who have grown up in those areas and understand the voters there best. Local authentic representation could be a way for Dems to have their message heard once more, rather than cynically playing to voter's baser instincts.
On the question of how would such campaigns be funded, they would probably have to rely on small donors and grassroots support, like a David vs Goliath situation. The Dem party could provide guidance and support in some measure but it is pretty weak right now - the candidates will probably all still end up being vastly outspent in the red districts. In exchange for pressing on with this disadvantage though, the Dems would be getting their message out and providing the valuable service of once again listening closely to the voters' concerns in those districts. There are definitely legitimate concerns the Dem party needs to hear. I believe that type of listening has the power to break the thaw more than hugely funded national campaign advertising ever could - it could change some voter's minds about the Democrats.
I don't like the idea of Democrats giving up on voters in highly red districts, even if it's seen as strategically necessary. I understand the reluctance to try though - there is a feeling of rejection - probably Republican voices have openly demonized the Democrats for decades in such places, and gone largely unchallenged by people who should know better. It seems impossible to make headway politically when it's all you can do to muster the discipline to continually turn the other cheek without responding in kind.
Nevertheless it doesn't feel right if the people are left to believe lies about the Dems in a vacuum - if they take them as truth. Even if the lies are comforting ones, eventually the people would end up facing harm if they don't find a way to live in reality. So the Democrats do need to still try to reach those voters.
In a way the act of living under illusions is coming back to hurt many now, under Donald Trump, what with the negative impact of his actions on the farmers, or the closure of rural hospitals, or earlier when so many more voters in Republican voting counties ended up dying of COVID compared to Democratic voting counties. I expect the harms, for rural red areas especially, might only grow worse from here, but even still the illusions would persist, until the Dems could get their messages to be heard.
In terms of messaging believe there's a way to appeal to white working class Republican voters' better angels and not just their vices. Bernie Sanders shows it's possible. Populism is one way to reach them, showing how Trump has betrayed them is another way.
Dems shouldn't sacrifice morals or beliefs just to try and reach voters, but they can do a better job to show how their values apply. Even on the issue of abortion I think regular voters hold nuanced views and understand it is more complicated and difficult than the loudest political voices of either side make it out to be - there is middle ground where the values are not sacrificed despite the labels being one side or the other. It is not a sacrifice of values for a Dem to be pro-life if they work hard to empower the mother and support her right to life also, just as it is not a sacrifice to be pro-choice if that person works hard to support the mother so she is able to support the child's right to life also. The end goal of both sides is generally to support the life of both mother and child.
I understand the fear of being seen as an outsider if your entire social group and community has fused their identity to Trump and you start to have doubts. It is hard for such voters to face that fear. It is easier rather to heavily discount the negative things Trump does, pass them off as no big deal, vice signaling, art of the deal, etc. in order to retain group membership.
Rather than do honest self-reflection it's easier as a self-justification tactic then to make a mountain out of a molehill of any fault that comes from a Democrat, to then use false equivalence to claim all Democrats are hypocrites. (This is my working theory for how the glaring double standard that most MAGA Republicans use has come about). Maybe all they really want is to retain their comforting social group membership in the end - despite their group's political identity having been hijacked by Trump. They don't identify with his victims anyway, so aren't too vexed by his words and actions - they can just move on and focus on living comfortable lives.
But that's exactly why I believe people who have grown up in those same districts but are Democrats have a better shot at being heard by the voters. They can relate - they can discern what issues truly matter to those in their hometown, vs. what national issues can be dismissed as irrelevant. They know which of Trump's faults to press and which to leave alone. It's kind of like how a referee has more credibility when they're closer to the action - when they make a call their decision can't be so easily dismissed by the players. In a way you see this dynamic with the Catholic church too - Americans can relate to the Pope, so his message becomes easier to hear.
Lastly I'll just say, if in the end the Republicans gerrymander their way to a victory thanks to the destruction of the VRA and the Democrats don't find a way to counter it then so be it - the Democrats still should not sacrifice their principles in exchange, even as they should pursue all their legally available options to counter any Republican advantage that is gained.
I think it reflects horribly on the Republican politicians and the Supreme Court conservatives that the moment the VRA protections subsided they went right back to relying on blatant racist tactics to consolidate power - it shows they never learned the lesson the VRA was meant to teach them in all this time.
Maybe I am naive but I have faith the voters have grown better in all this time - that they would not all desire to be the obvious bad guys. I still hold by the belief that darkness can't dispel darkness, only light can do that. There is maybe a limited way to fight fire with fire via gerrymandering but there is no way Democrats can appeal to racism to counter racism. The logic makes no sense - it'd be like appealing to guns to stop gun violence. The Democrats have to maintain their moral legitimacy to hold on to hope of saving the Constitution.
The other thing the Democratic Party can do is gerrymander the heck out of every state that they control. As the recent defeat in Virginia’s Supreme Court shows, this will be complicated and different in each state, but it’s a quicker path than trying to figure out how to win over rural and suburban White voters in the Deep South, something that they haven’t attempted in decades.
Gallup reported in January 2026 that 43% of US voters identify as independent, 27% republican and 27% democrat. So your solution is to have 27% of Americans tell 70% of Americans to shut the hell up? Interesting...
This will sit well with the left, who already think that the Democratic Party rightfully belongs to them and can win in Montana or rural Kentucky by running AOC clones.
Well that was about as informing as watching fox... correct, the racists won't vote for the black candidates, and if you want to win with racists, it's best to be a racist...
I keep trying to imagine how history might be taught in America in 2050. Can anyone imagine the history books saying that Donald J. Trump was a great President who presided over the "Golden Age of America", when our country was the "hottest country" in the world?
It just is not possible that, with the benefit of hindsight, Americans in the future will not view these years in our country as aberrant... It's just logical.
Oh, I know, there will continue to be terrible damage done to America, perhaps some of it irreversible, but Trumpism will NOT stand the test of time.
I don't live in these states, but these party types sound exactly like the ones in my blue state: stale old formulas and reaching backwards for examples.
The fact that “We haven’t had boots on the ground among white voters in Mississippi for probably close to two generations.” is just sinful.
I suggest they TRY! Try a Platner type, a Jon Ossoff type, hell let them prove they're not racist and send out good black candidates.
Because implicit in all of these people's ideas were that the candidates would be white.
“It’s going to be much harder, I think, for the activists to accept that you might not have somebody that simply says yes to everything on the Democratic agenda. "
now imagine saying that to f.d.r.; forget social security and all that other socialism, get tight with the bankers, man.
yes, as clinton's quote does, dem values have to be expressed with more practicality and less disdain, but if the values take a back seat (we'll save the planet next time, we'll go after corruption big time ... someday) then the party might attract new 'rural' voters, but maybe not as fast as they lose college educated white folks to the independent 'party'? like me?
Lauren, I feel like you’re gonna have to find a new groove for the opposition. If you were reporting for traditional paper and just trying to keep people up to speed on what the party folks are saying this would be a well-researched newsletter.
But that’s not all people come to the Bulwark for. Most of us are incredibly well informed and well read, and there was very little in this newsletter that I hadn’t already heard about.
Your opening comments seemed more than a little unfair to Justin from Tennessee. You highlight his actions as ineffective, at least in the short term. Well, duh, Democrats have no power. There is nothing they can do politically in the immediate term. What Justin was saying specifically to his Republican colleagues is that they will be remembered poorly in history, alongside the worst racists, and he was using historically racist symbols to reinforce that. He was speaking to the long-term maybe with a slim hope of shaming some Republicans into different actions.
It feels like you have the right connections and reporting skills. But you really need to reach deeper and create insights and comment on strategic implications.
Spanberger in Virginia illustrates what's wrong with the 'Dems need to move to the middle' theory.
Sure, in certain areas a move to the middle might lead to electoral wins...but Spanberger's reaction to the VA Supreme Court decision killing the people's will re the redistricting vote shows that moving to the middle to win means that fighting back is off the table and allows Republican legislatures/the GOP machine to carry on doing what they want to do with no pushback.
What's the point of winning if, in order to keep one's seat, one is too afraid of losing the next election to effecgtively use their power to make changes? It's a stupid loop.
And many argue it's exactly the reason the Dems are in the shape they're in
One true thing: in the new hyper-gerrymandered south, what it will take for Dems to win is "crossing the aisle" in ways they've rarely been asked to do, until this new now. The truth is, Dems cannot win now without a greater proportion of whites. That is the fact, and the awful truth.
But Trump didn't run on conservative ideas, so why should the Dems? He literally told people IVF would be free! Let's actually try to improve things for people and every color in the rainbow coalition might be interested in that. I feel like rural white voters also want healthcare, education, help with cost of living in the US. That's not a hard sell anywhere.
Maybe someday people will care enough to flex the real muscle they have that the SCOTUS cannot take away: their economic muscle. If they want to reinstall Jim Crow in all of its ugliness than why should anyone anywhere who cares spend a nickel in that state or with any company that does business with them or with anything anywhere that supports it. But it is my bet that all you will get is a few words about boycott and then it is back to business as usual. And now all blue states are going to have to gerrymander every single red district they can.
I'm from the Cincinnati area and, of course, always thought Cleveland sucked. I never actually visited Cleveland until I was in my 20's. And of course, I still thought it sucked. Whether that was because of 20+ years of unwarranted prejudice against Cleveland... or Cleveland just sucks, I don't know. But what I do know, is that Democrats in the South aren't going to 'expand their coalition' much for the very same reasons... prejudice and/or they just suck.
Ms Egan seems to have forgotten that maga "purity" has been a winning formula for republicans for more than a decade. Ignoring that is political suicide. Rather, democrats should find the line that non-maga republicans are not willing to cross and and expose it to a cleansing light.
This is the “Touching the Stove moment” for black Americans who either sat home and didn’t vote or voted for Trump.
A Democrat who's candidacy I've been following, and who is running in a TN district is Kristi Burke - I will just say, she gives me a lot of hope - it is encouraging listening to her speak.
I'm in favor of the Democratic party fielding local candidates in very red districts from people who have grown up in those areas and understand the voters there best. Local authentic representation could be a way for Dems to have their message heard once more, rather than cynically playing to voter's baser instincts.
On the question of how would such campaigns be funded, they would probably have to rely on small donors and grassroots support, like a David vs Goliath situation. The Dem party could provide guidance and support in some measure but it is pretty weak right now - the candidates will probably all still end up being vastly outspent in the red districts. In exchange for pressing on with this disadvantage though, the Dems would be getting their message out and providing the valuable service of once again listening closely to the voters' concerns in those districts. There are definitely legitimate concerns the Dem party needs to hear. I believe that type of listening has the power to break the thaw more than hugely funded national campaign advertising ever could - it could change some voter's minds about the Democrats.
I don't like the idea of Democrats giving up on voters in highly red districts, even if it's seen as strategically necessary. I understand the reluctance to try though - there is a feeling of rejection - probably Republican voices have openly demonized the Democrats for decades in such places, and gone largely unchallenged by people who should know better. It seems impossible to make headway politically when it's all you can do to muster the discipline to continually turn the other cheek without responding in kind.
Nevertheless it doesn't feel right if the people are left to believe lies about the Dems in a vacuum - if they take them as truth. Even if the lies are comforting ones, eventually the people would end up facing harm if they don't find a way to live in reality. So the Democrats do need to still try to reach those voters.
In a way the act of living under illusions is coming back to hurt many now, under Donald Trump, what with the negative impact of his actions on the farmers, or the closure of rural hospitals, or earlier when so many more voters in Republican voting counties ended up dying of COVID compared to Democratic voting counties. I expect the harms, for rural red areas especially, might only grow worse from here, but even still the illusions would persist, until the Dems could get their messages to be heard.
In terms of messaging believe there's a way to appeal to white working class Republican voters' better angels and not just their vices. Bernie Sanders shows it's possible. Populism is one way to reach them, showing how Trump has betrayed them is another way.
Dems shouldn't sacrifice morals or beliefs just to try and reach voters, but they can do a better job to show how their values apply. Even on the issue of abortion I think regular voters hold nuanced views and understand it is more complicated and difficult than the loudest political voices of either side make it out to be - there is middle ground where the values are not sacrificed despite the labels being one side or the other. It is not a sacrifice of values for a Dem to be pro-life if they work hard to empower the mother and support her right to life also, just as it is not a sacrifice to be pro-choice if that person works hard to support the mother so she is able to support the child's right to life also. The end goal of both sides is generally to support the life of both mother and child.
I understand the fear of being seen as an outsider if your entire social group and community has fused their identity to Trump and you start to have doubts. It is hard for such voters to face that fear. It is easier rather to heavily discount the negative things Trump does, pass them off as no big deal, vice signaling, art of the deal, etc. in order to retain group membership.
Rather than do honest self-reflection it's easier as a self-justification tactic then to make a mountain out of a molehill of any fault that comes from a Democrat, to then use false equivalence to claim all Democrats are hypocrites. (This is my working theory for how the glaring double standard that most MAGA Republicans use has come about). Maybe all they really want is to retain their comforting social group membership in the end - despite their group's political identity having been hijacked by Trump. They don't identify with his victims anyway, so aren't too vexed by his words and actions - they can just move on and focus on living comfortable lives.
But that's exactly why I believe people who have grown up in those same districts but are Democrats have a better shot at being heard by the voters. They can relate - they can discern what issues truly matter to those in their hometown, vs. what national issues can be dismissed as irrelevant. They know which of Trump's faults to press and which to leave alone. It's kind of like how a referee has more credibility when they're closer to the action - when they make a call their decision can't be so easily dismissed by the players. In a way you see this dynamic with the Catholic church too - Americans can relate to the Pope, so his message becomes easier to hear.
Lastly I'll just say, if in the end the Republicans gerrymander their way to a victory thanks to the destruction of the VRA and the Democrats don't find a way to counter it then so be it - the Democrats still should not sacrifice their principles in exchange, even as they should pursue all their legally available options to counter any Republican advantage that is gained.
I think it reflects horribly on the Republican politicians and the Supreme Court conservatives that the moment the VRA protections subsided they went right back to relying on blatant racist tactics to consolidate power - it shows they never learned the lesson the VRA was meant to teach them in all this time.
Maybe I am naive but I have faith the voters have grown better in all this time - that they would not all desire to be the obvious bad guys. I still hold by the belief that darkness can't dispel darkness, only light can do that. There is maybe a limited way to fight fire with fire via gerrymandering but there is no way Democrats can appeal to racism to counter racism. The logic makes no sense - it'd be like appealing to guns to stop gun violence. The Democrats have to maintain their moral legitimacy to hold on to hope of saving the Constitution.
Boycott any state that freezes out minorities...simple as that.
The other thing the Democratic Party can do is gerrymander the heck out of every state that they control. As the recent defeat in Virginia’s Supreme Court shows, this will be complicated and different in each state, but it’s a quicker path than trying to figure out how to win over rural and suburban White voters in the Deep South, something that they haven’t attempted in decades.
Gallup reported in January 2026 that 43% of US voters identify as independent, 27% republican and 27% democrat. So your solution is to have 27% of Americans tell 70% of Americans to shut the hell up? Interesting...
This is what Democrats need to learn how to do: "Rebuilding trust to win elections—one conversation at a time" (https://ourgroundtruth.org).
This will sit well with the left, who already think that the Democratic Party rightfully belongs to them and can win in Montana or rural Kentucky by running AOC clones.
Not.
Well that was about as informing as watching fox... correct, the racists won't vote for the black candidates, and if you want to win with racists, it's best to be a racist...