A new generation of populists is showing Democrats how to defeat Trump
Democrats today might not be as sanguine about sidelining the working class as Chuck Schumer was before the 2016 election, when he claimed that for every blue-collar voter Democrats lost, they could pick up two college-educated Republicans. But it's clear that many Democrats still don't see winning back working-class voters as essential – either to defeat Maga or to build durable, majoritarian progressive coalitions for the future.
A new report from the Center for Working-Class Politics (CWCP) and Jacobin magazine, based on an analysis of hundreds of public opinion questions spanning six decades, suggests that blue-collar voters are not out of reach – if Democrats are willing to lead with economic populism. The report shows that American workers have long supported – and still overwhelmingly favor – a bold progressive economic agenda. If Democrats placed these policies consistently at the heart of their platform, they could not only improve conditions in working-class communities but also begin to rebuild trust with the very voters they need most.
Progressive economic reforms – from raising the federal minimum wage and implementing a federal jobs guarantee to expanding social security, taxing the rich, and investing in public goods such as education and infrastructure – are supported not only by Democratic-leaning voters but also by substantial segments of Donald Trump's base.
And while national Democrats remain unsure how to reconnect with these voters, a new generation of economic populists across the country is already showing the way. In New York City, Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic mayoral primary campaigning to tax the rich, fund public goods and confront corporate landlords. In Nebraska, independent union leader Dan Osborn – a mechanic and labor activist – ran on a tight platform of workers' rights and corporate accountability and over-performed Kamala Harris by 14 points in a deep-red state.
In difficult House swing districts, Democrats are leaning into economic populism with promising results. In Pennsylvania's 17th district, Chris Deluzio, a representative and navy veteran, champions 'economic patriotism', calling out economic elites and damaging trade agreements while pushing to rebuild domestic industry and strengthen labor rights. In New Mexico's second district, Gabe Vasquez has built his platform around a sharp critique of corporate greed – condemning CEOs and wealthy investors for inflating profits while shortchanging workers – and has pushed for a $15 minimum wage and cutting taxes for working families.
Meanwhile, in Wisconsin's third district, Democrat Rebecca Cooke – a waitress and small business owner who grew up on a dairy farm – is mounting a 2026 comeback bid after over-performing other Democrats and losing by less than three points in 2024, running on a platform that targets corporate price gouging, expands affordable rural housing and defends family farms.
These candidates come from different regions and backgrounds, and hold diverse ideological positions, but nonetheless share a core political strategy: they are highly disciplined economic populists who speak to working-class voters in language that's grounded, direct and relatable.
And, contrary to many centrist pundits, while they do need to avoid fringe rhetoric, Democrats don't have to embrace social conservatism to do it. The CWCP study shows that while working-class voters are generally to the right of middle-class voters on cultural issues, most hold moderate, and in some cases even progressive, views on issues such as immigration, abortion and civil rights. These voters do not want Democrats to mimic Republicans on controversial wedge issues, but they do want a commonsense message focused on the economic realities of working Americans.
Yet working-class voters don't just embrace politicians who support the right policies. Our previous research shows that they want leaders who understand people like them, share a similar class background and speak plainly about what they'll do and why it matters. The path to winning back working-class voters runs through authenticity, clarity and a credible commitment to improving people's lives.
Unfortunately, the national party has been slow to adapt. Harris's 2024 campaign offered ambitious economic proposals that could have benefited millions of working Americans. But as the race wore on, she grew increasingly reluctant to lead with economic populism, instead doubling down on a strategy rooted in fear of Trump. That may have comforted donors and consultants, but it left many working-class voters cold – and opened the door for Republicans to posture as the party of the people.
This vacuum has given Republicans room to pose as economic populists, despite an agenda that overwhelmingly serves corporations and the wealthy. Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill Act delivered massive tax cuts for the rich while masquerading as a working-class boon. House Republicans have attacked union protections and slashed social welfare programs – moves wildly out of step with working-class preferences. But without a compelling Democratic alternative, the right's billionaire populism can take hold. If Democrats want to rebuild a durable majority, they need candidates who stay focused on populist economics and steer clear of the culture wars.
Reversing the Democratic party's working-class decline will not be solved by platitudes or photo ops with hard hats. It demands a real shift in priorities. It means crafting campaigns that focus relentlessly on tangible economic outcomes and elevating candidates who reflect the experience of the working class. And it demands a clear, consistent message that puts class and dignity back at the center of Democratic politics.
Jared Abbott is the director of the Center for Working-Class Politics
Bhaskar Sunkara is the president of the Nation magazine and the founding editor of Jacobin
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
MTG cashed in on ICE contractor's big win but Trump goes after ‘disgusting degenerate' Nancy Pelosi over stocks
Donald Trump's decision to wade into the debate over a congressional stock-trading ban could end up making things awkward for some of his closest allies in the House and Senate. While stock trades by members of Congress and their families have long been controversial, the sustained push for new restrictions on lawmakers is new. Supported by members of both parties, the effort to push back against an image of corruption and decadence in the chamber is growing in popularity particularly among younger members. But the prospect of making it to the president's desk with legislation that would ban congressional stock trading has now caused Trump to weigh in. The issue was glaring as he went on a late-night rant on Truth Social Saturday night against Democratic former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — after reports about one of his own MAGA faithful, Marjorie Taylor Greene cashing in on a stock deal tied to an ICE contractor. 'Crooked Nancy Pelosi, and her very 'interesting' husband, beat every Hedge Fund in 2024. In other words, these two very average 'minds' beat ALL of the Super Geniuses on Wall Street, thousands of them. It's all INSIDE iNFORMATION! Is anybody looking into this??? She is a disgusting degenerate, who Impeached me twice, on NO GROUNDS, and LOST! How are you feeling now, Nancy???' he raged in his posting. Pelosi's office hadn't responded publicly as of Sunday morning. Taylor Greene has drawn criticism after she purchased stock in Peter Thiel-owned Palantir in April, three days before the company won an ICE contract. The company's stock has since surged. That's not even the first time this year Greene, who maintains that all of her trades are managed without her input by a financial adviser, has been called out by stock-trading watchdogs for highly-lucrative trading activity. 'After many successful years of running my own business, I ran for Congress to bring that mindset to Washington. Now that I'm proudly serving the people of Northwest Georgia, I have signed a fiduciary agreement to allow my financial advisor to control my investments,' Greene told the fact-checker site Snopes in May. 'All of my investments are reported with full transparency. I refuse to hide my stock trades in a blind trust like many others do,' she added. 'I learned about my Palantir trades when I saw it in the media.' The California Democrat Pelosi, once her party's leader in the House of Representatives, is one of a few senior members of the chamber who has come out publicly against restrictions on congressional stock trading. 'We're a free market economy,' Pelosi said in 2021. 'They should be able to participate in that.' But her stance shifted over time and earlier in 2025 she came out in favor of legislation that would restrict such activity. The HONEST Act, a bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, advanced through a Senate committee in late July. 'While I appreciate the creativity of my Republican colleagues in drafting legislative acronyms, I welcome any serious effort to raise ethical standards in public service. The HONEST Act, as amended, rightly applies its stock trading ban not only to Members of Congress, but now to the President and Vice President as well. I strongly support this legislation and look forward to voting for it on the Floor of the House.' Pelosi supports the bill, despite it previously bearing her name: Hawley originally dubbed it the the 'PELOSI Act', a reference to the trading activity primarily conducted by Pelosi's husband Paul. She is one of the wealthier members of Congress; her family controls more than $127m in publicly-traded assets watched by stock-trading analysts. Its advancement drew opposition from Trump, which Hawley characterized in a rare public shot at his own colleagues as the result of Republican senators supposedly having called up the president and lied to him about what was in the bill. 'I wonder why Hawley would pass a Bill that Nancy Pelosi is in absolute love with — He is playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats,' Trump wrote on Truth Social in late July. Hawley responded, telling reporters: 'He said, senators, I don't know who, had called and told him yesterday afternoon that the bill had been changed at the last minute and would force him to sell all of his assets, sell Mar-a-Lago, sell his properties. So, I said, 'Well, that's just false. I mean, it explicitly exempts you and all your assets.'' The senator's response referred to a provision stuck in aimed explicitly at winning Trump over. The ban affects future presidents and vice presidents, but not Trump or his no. 2, JD Vance. It's unclear whether Hawley will succeed in winning over the president, but the ban at least has the potential to make it through both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support. Members of Congress on key committees are often scrutinized for their trading activity as in some cases lawmakers are privy to information that is not yet public or widely known, but could still affect markets. Some members of Congress were caught up in a scandal over such activity in 2020, at the onset of the Covid pandemic, when they triggered selloffs of their own stock shares ahead of a market collapse. One former North Carolina senator, a Republican, sold more than $1 million in stock one week before the market crashed.
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump is deluded if he thinks his meeting with Putin is cause for celebration
Friday's Alaska summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is not shaping up well for Ukraine. Every indication is that Trump believes he and his (once again) good friend Putin will conjure some land swaps and bring peace. Of course, the land in question will be bits and pieces of Ukraine's territory, not Russia's, with Moscow probably ending this war controlling 20 per cent of Ukraine. If anyone needed proof that Trump acts in international affairs not like a strategist but like a free electron, this past week settles the matter. Before the Alaska summit even begins, Putin has scored a major propaganda victory. An international pariah, leading a rogue state guilty of unprovoked aggression against its neighbour, is landing on American soil for pictures standing next to the president of the United States. Trump has tariffed the entire world for the privilege of doing business in America, but asked and received exactly nothing from Putin. Inviting him to Alaska is not quite as offensive as inviting the Taliban to Camp David in 2019 to discuss the Afghanistan war, but it comes close. Most ironically, Alaska is former Russian America, purchased (thank God) by Washington in 1867, which some Russian ideologues wish to reclaim. Putin almost certainly concluded from Trump's recent pro-Ukrainian behaviour, such as allowing Patriot air-defence systems to be transferred indirectly to Kyiv, that he had pushed his 'friendship' with Trump too far. With the August 8 deadline to have a Ukraine-Russia ceasefire looming, Putin was doubtless considering how to repair the damage and reel Trump back into line when Trump's envoy-for-everything Steve Witkoff sought a Moscow meeting. We don't know when Putin decided to propose a US-Russia summit, but that idea was certainly conveyed to Witkoff to bring back to Trump. As before, Putin clearly hopes to work his KGB training on Trump, making the president his unwitting tool. Perhaps, Putin reasoned, he might even avoid pain for missing the August 8 deadline. He knew the lure of being the centre of massive press attention is a fatal attraction for Trump, who was almost instantaneously ready for a summit. Indeed, just before announcing that August 15 was the time and Alaska the place, Trump said he wished the summit could have been earlier. Putin not only got his meeting, but TACO ('Trump always chickens out') worked again; August 8 came and went with no new tariffs or sanctions imposed on Moscow, or China, the largest purchaser of Russian oil and gas. Only India was left in the lurch, facing a doubling of its Trump tariff rate to 50 per cent for purchasing Russian hydrocarbons. The Alaska summit recalls Helsinki in 2018, when Trump sided with Putin's denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, contrary to what America's intelligence community concluded. Putin is doubtless looking for something analogous. Moscow has already achieved another success by ensuring that no pesky Europeans, especially Ukrainians, would be invited to Alaska, reminiscent of the Trump-Zelensky meeting at Pope Benedict's funeral, where Trump all but pushed French President Macron out of the picture. While Trump simply enjoys getting more attention, the one-on-one format provides exactly the kind of playing field Putin needs. Moreover, the Alaska meeting afforded Russia a first-mover advantage, which it seized immediately. Within 48 hours of Witkoff's Moscow trip, the two sides built on earlier outlines of what Russia would deem an acceptable solution. Press reports indicated that Russia's terms, which seemed acceptable to Trump, resembled vice presidential candidate J D Vance's proposal in September, 2024: Russia would essentially keep Ukrainian lands it had conquered; an undefined peacekeeping force would police the current front lines; and Ukraine would be barred from joining Nato. As observers noted, Vance's plan looked like Russia's. Seemingly, therefore, Trump and Putin are preparing to present Zelensky with a fait accompli after meeting in Alaska. Trump said on Friday that Zelensky would have to remove Ukraine's constitutional prohibitions against ceding territory to another country, which is exactly what Trump is expecting to come. Thus, even before the summit, Putin exploited his first-mover advantage by bringing Trump back to his side. With this disturbing prospect now explicit, Zelensky, in his first public response to news of the Alaska summit, rejected any surrender of Ukrainian lands. Zelensky's response is fully justified and hardly surprising, but it plays into Putin's hands: Russia, he will say, took the lead in seeking peace, and Ukraine is the obstructionist. While we are not yet back to the disastrous February 28 Oval Office encounter between Zelensky and Trump, Putin would obviously like to reprise Trump telling Zelensky 'you don't have the cards right now'. As of today, Putin again has diplomatic momentum, and Zelensky is on the defensive. Time for the UK and Europe's other Ukraine supporters to step in before it's too late.
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The most suspect stock trades by politicians revealed including the Republican who can't STOP flipping shares
Members of Congress aren't technically allowed to use insider knowledge to trade stocks while in office, but a couple of well-timed trades have raised eyebrows among eagle-eyed critics. Momentum to ban members of Congress from trading stocks is swelling even as lawmakers make major profits from the turbulent stock market. Right now, existing law allows legislators sitting on military committees buy defense stocks while financial regulators can snap up crypto and bank shares. Though trading on inside information is forbidden, there's little enforcement - and the practice appears rampant on Capitol Hill. Senate proposals would bar even the president and vice president from trading, but wealthy lawmakers claim restrictions would strip incentives and force unfair divestment of their holdings. Others complain they can't survive on their $174,000 salaries alone, fueling a trading bonanza that's generating handsome profits just as ban proposals gain steam. Here the Daily Mail highlights the top most suspect stock trades of the year: Rep. Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa., a 34-year-old freshman legislator has been one of the most scrutinized traders. He was the former CEO of Kuharchik Construction, Bresnahan's family company, where he is credited with expanding the family business. The Pennsylvania Republican campaigned on banning members from trading, but he has reported more transactions than practically every other lawmaker. 'Bresnahan has filed more stock trades than almost any other member of Congress since entering office this year,' Quiver Quantitative's co-founder Christopher Kardatzke told the Daily Mail. Since being sworn in this January and August 8, the Republican has made at least 617 trades, according to federal disclosures data compiled by Quiver Quantitative. The Republican has repeatedly claimed his financial advisors manager his trades, but when pressed recently by a local radio station on why he doesn't instruct them to halt the transactions he deflected. 'And then do what with it?' the lawmaker told WVIA. 'Just leave it all in the accounts and just leave it there and lose money and go broke?' Bresnahan introduced a bill earlier this year to ban members and their spouses from stock trading, even as he's continued to make transactions. According to federal data retrieved by Quiver Quantitative, Bresnahan has traded a total volume of over $7 million since January. He has sold $4 million in stock and purchased $3 million in the past eight months Right before Trump's signature domestic agenda the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' passed Congress, Bresnahan reported sale in Centene, a healthcare company that later lost over half of its share price because of Medicaid cuts contained within the legislation. Democratic attack ads have shredded him for voting for the cuts. 'Honestly I found out about it in real time but the key takeaway is I follow the STOCK Act and I follow the rules,' Bresnahan said when pressed on the stock sale by WNEP. Bresnahan has been widely criticized for being hypocritical about his stock trading. He's claimed his advisors are forbidden from trading in companies held by foreign adversaries, however his disclosures show that he has bought and sold shares in Alibaba, a Chinese e-commerce company. Bresnahan has also indicated he will put his money in a blind trust, where it is managed by someone else and he has no clue about the individual transactions. But setting up such an account takes time, he has claimed. 'The whole process has been excruciating,' he told the Washington Examiner recently. Nearly 170 of the Pennsylvanian's trades occurred just after Trump's early April tariff announcement, dubbed 'Liberation Day' by the White House. In one instance in February, the lawmaker even disclosed a day trade, showing the purchase and sale of Palantir stock on the same day. 'Even if the portfolio is managed by a financial advisor, as Bresnahan has claimed, we're left to wonder why an advisor is day-trading Palantir stock in a U.S. Congressman's account,' Kardatzke said. Firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene has also gained attention for trading the same stock around the same time - a transaction that has netted her thousands. The Georgia Republican made a flurry of stock purchases around the exact time that Trump instructed the nation that it was 'a great time to get rich, richer than ever before,' on Truth Social. After the market dipped around Liberation Day, Green heeded the president's warning and loaded up on discounted stocks. She purchased tech stock Impinj on April 4, which has since rocketed up over 100 percent in the last few months. And after buying Palantir on April 8, the Georgia Republican has doubled her investment, locking in a return over 115 percent. The tech company provides AI solutions and software to the federal government, including the Pentagon and more recently the Department of Homeland Security. Greene currently sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, the congressional panel that approves funding for DHS and ICE. She also claims her portfolio is managed by a financial advisor. 'Prior to this year, we had only seen one member of Congress ever buy Palantir stock. In the first two months of 2025, we saw six different members buy in,' Kardatzke noted. 'Maybe they all share the same financial advisor. The stock is up 148 percent so far this year.' Legislation to ban trading among members has even received backing from former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has become notorious for scoring winning trades during her decades in Congress. When she led Congress in 2021 she famously brushed off questions about implementing a stock trading ban for members, citing 'a free market economy.' Though her disclosures show that these trades are done by her husband, Paul Pelosi, it does raise questions as to how he can so frequently beat the market, and by such massive margins. 'Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks and has no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions,' her spokesperson told the Daily Mail. Between 2023 and early July 2025, over 70 percent of Pelosi's trades were profitable, according to Capitol Trades. The Bay Area couple has also reported call options on AI-focused companies like Nvidia, Alphabet and others. 'I think it's a little bit sketchy just because of how high-risk high-reward option contracts are,' Christopher Josephs, co-founder of Autopilot, a congressional investing app, told the Daily Mail. 'No average everyday person trading does that.' The 85-year-old Democrat got defensive recently when asked by CNN's Jake Tapper to respond to Trump's attacks on her trading practices. 'Why do you have to read that?' Pelosi interrupted when Tapper began asking about members' trading.
