Everyone Thinks Democrats Are Doomed. Here’s Why They’re Totally Wrong.

Democrats have brand issues, but anger is a powerful drive of turnout.

There’s a lot of conflicting polling and narratives out there about the Democratic Party and our strength—or weakness—heading into the midterms next year. I want to take a minute to unpack how I’m thinking about this moment, given the data we have…

A new Wall Street Journal poll shows Democrats have a major brand problem. Very few voters trust us on the biggest issues facing the country—outside of health care. The party is, frankly, historically unpopular in my lifetime. People are frustrated, and rightly so. I believe that’s due in large part to Joe Biden’s unpopularity as he left office, combined with early missteps from the establishment responding to Donald Trump’s destructive first 100 days.

But then you get this second data point from CNN this weekend, which in many ways feels at odds with the first: 70% of Democrats say they’re motivated to vote in the midterms, while only about half of Republicans say the same.

Then there’s the third point: Trump’s approval rating is faltering. CBS has him dropping from 53% when he took office to 42% now. I’ve seen it lower—into the upper 30s. I still think there’s a “honeymoon” effect happening. People want to believe he’s going to lower prices, help them buy a house, get food on the table, retire with some dignity.

I don’t believe he will, of course. He intends to gaslight the American people into believing prices and inflation are down when they objectively aren’t. And according to Fox News’s own polling last week, he’s at -30% on inflation—which is the top issue in the country. That’s as bad as Biden ever was, and we’re only six months into this.

So what’s actually happening here?

The mainstream media’s narrative says the Democratic Party is broken, fractured, and in deep trouble for the midterms. I don’t buy that. Just because people are mad at the Democratic Party leadership doesn’t mean they’re not going to vote for Democratic candidates. Anger is one of the most powerful drivers of turnout, and people are pissed about Trump.

Remember 2010? Barack Obama didn’t lose the House because the GOP was suddenly beloved just two years after George W. Bush crashed the economy. He lost because a wave of economic anxiety—yes, with racial undercurrents—crashed through the electorate, and Republicans surfed it back into power. That wave didn’t make them more popular. It made them temporary winners (only to lose to Obama again in 2012 after they were certain the rise of the Tea Party would bring them back into the White House—ask my new BFF, Joe Walsh, about it).

Fast-forward to now. People may not be happy with the Democratic establishment and have serious doubts about our ability to improve their lives. They may not trust or like some of the candidates we’re putting forward. But that doesn’t mean they want to give Republicans a blank check—or that they’re going to tolerate the destruction and corruption in Washington. Voters are pissed about what’s happening in the country—especially on affordability—and many of them will vote to restore balance, even if they’re mad at us.

Here’s what I think is coming in 2026: not a full-on “Democratic Tea Party,” but definitely an insurgent wave in the primaries. Some establishment-backed candidates are going to underperform—or lose outright. We’ll see more surprises than I think are baked in. New voices will rise, and we’ll inch closer to the new Democratic Party we’re building in real time.

And we’re going to see more candidates openly challenging the party’s perceived establishment. They’ll try to build brands that rise above it. That’s smart politics—even if the Democratic Party was popular. As much as party identity matters, candidate identity matters more. A candidate who can define themselves beyond “generic Democrat” is going to perform better—full stop.

That said, we’re going to have messy primaries. Some of the “it’s their turn” candidates will lose. Not all—money and super PACs still exist and are a barrier to entry for many outside candidates—but enough that the trend will be obvious. And primary voters will reward candidates who don’t run away from the party, but instead redefine what it means to be a Democrat on their own terms.

Come November, after some messy primaries and lots of silly intra-party fights on X, I believe we’ll see a unified Democratic Party—energized by a block of high-propensity voters and backed by independents, especially younger ones, who are furious about what they’re seeing and experiencing. Trump’s numbers with young people—even young men—are horrendous. If they vote, and I think they will, they’ll vote for Democratic candidates.

But let’s be clear: if we win the midterms, it won’t mean the Democratic Party is “back.” It won’t mean we’ve fixed the brand. It won’t mean we’re suddenly in a strong position for 2028, just like 2010 didn’t mean the Republicans were going to win in 2012.

It will mean that Democrats took power back because people were angry. Because we elevated candidates who rose above the party brand. Because we built better campaigns (and believe it or not, I do believe Democrats run better campaigns than Republicans on average).

And from that position, we’ll have to be very careful and strategic about who we nominate in 2028. Because that person will become the standard bearer who defines what it means to be a Democrat going forward. That’s when the party’s brand numbers will shift—for better or worse.

I’m not using this space to push a specific candidate. I think they’ll emerge in the primary, and I trust voters to make that choice (disclosure: I will surely be working for one of the campaigns in some capacity, but I don’t know whom). But we’ve seen this movie before. Think back to 2006 and 2007. The party was lost, disorganized, unsure of itself. We had a messy primary, and from it emerged Barack Obama—the best political talent in my lifetime.

We can do that again. We have to do that again.