Former Clinton Adviser: Democrats Should Follow Bernie Sanders and AOC

Yahoo

20-04-2025

As Democrats grapple with how to find their way back to power, one party strategist has some surprising advice. Or at least, it may be surprising coming from him.
Doug Sosnik is a longtime Democratic strategist best known for being a top adviser to Bill Clinton. He's a self-described member of the party's centrist wing. But he says it's now time for Democrats to take a page from the progressive left's playbook.
'I think that what Bernie Sanders and AOC have been saying — which is really a populist economic agenda — I think that is an important element for the Democratic Party going forward,' he said in an interview with thePlaybook Deep Dive podcast.
Sosnik is also blunt about Democrats' predicament as President Donald Trump upends Washington, but argues the party has an opportunity to refine its message ahead of 2026, and more importantly, 2028.
'We're out of power. We can't get anything done,' he said. 'But at least we need to be able to articulate a coherent narrative about the future that can appeal to the middle class.'
Sosnik also talked about which Democrats intrigued him as potential 2028 presidential contenders — mostly governors, but one senator did come up — as well as who was not likely to end up as the nominee.
'There are indoor politicians and outdoor politicians,' Sosnik said. 'Indoor politicians have a roof over them. They're senators, they give speeches. Outdoor politicians are people that are out there in the field, they're in the crowds.' Keep an eye on the ones outside.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity by Deep Dive Producer Renee Klahr and Senior Producer Alex Keeney. You can listen to the full Playbook Deep Dive podcast interview here:
Doug, you've got this set of slides out and some information that you want to share with the party, with the voters, with the political class. What was the goal here?
I used to say in the runup to the 2024 election, you can't understand the 2024 election tree if you don't understand the forest that it's sitting in. And we're going through an historic period of transition in our country, and it's in real time. It roots back 50 years or so to the early 1970s with the beginning of the decline of the middle class in America. In combination with that, there is a feeling by a lot of people of alienation toward our leaders and institutions.
I want to talk about where the Democrats are in this moment, because we are watching a party that's trying to figure it out, and there are a number of different ways people are going about it:
You have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders out there trying to rally progressives and the youth.
You have James Carville saying, let's just hush up and be quiet and watch what Trump does and let him do the damage himself.
And then you have Gavin Newsom out there launching a podcast, talking to Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon and trying to bridge some of those partisan divides.
Do you want to settle the argument? What's the right way to do this?
I'll answer that question, but some context first: The Democratic Party is long overdue for what we're doing right now. For the last quarter of a century, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and the Obama-Biden presidency have dominated the Democratic Party. So there's been a whole generation of elected officials who have never had an opportunity to step forward to see who's got the right stuff. That's happening now.
And the other thing is, for the last nine years, the organizing principle of the Democratic Party has not been who we are and what we want. It's been organized solely around our opposition to Donald Trump. So we have not had an opportunity as a party to sort out who we are, what we believe in, and who our leaders have been.
So we're beginning this process now, and it's not a very pleasant process to watch. But we shouldn't be surprised that the Democrats are in turmoil. We shouldn't be surprised that there's no leader right now — we're in the opposition. We shouldn't be surprised that we're flailing around, trying to figure out who we are and what we're about because we have not been dealing with these challenges for a long, long time and there's no quick fix.
Are any of the directions that the Democrats are trying out right now the right way to go? Or do you think it all needs to happen at the same time?
Well, I think it has to be sequential. We didn't get in this situation overnight as a party with our popularity now under 30 percent, and we're not going to fix it overnight.
I think there are several steps that we need to take going forward. The first is we have to have a narrative of defining Trump and the Republicans based on what they're doing or not doing to help people in this country. If we talk about, as an example, Elon Musk. It doesn't do us any good to go after Musk in the abstract. It has to go back to Trump and his presidency, not about Musk himself.
I think we also have to at least pass the laugh test [of having an] agenda for the future. We're out of power. We can't get anything done. But at least we need to be able to articulate a coherent narrative about the future that can appeal to the middle class and particularly people in this country, the 70 percent who don't have a four-year college degree. Now, I worked for Bill Clinton for six years and I would say I come from that wing of the Democratic Party. But I'll have to say, on economic issues, I think that what Bernie Sanders and AOC have been saying — which is really a populist economic agenda — I think that is an important element for the Democratic Party going forward. I think they are right about their economic message, and I think the message that we need as a party to largely focus on is economics and how it ties back to the middle class.
The last couple things I'll say is we need to do well in the midterms, and I think we probably will. But that's just an incremental part of the solution. The long-term solution for our party is going to sink or swim based on who we nominate for president and whether or not they win the election.
So Democrats should have their eye on the prize for 2028, not 2026?
Well, I think we have to multitask. What we need to do to be successful in 2026 is not in conflict with what we need to do in 2028. I say there's always one and a half political parties in America. There's the party that's in control of the White House and then there's the half party, which is in the opposition. We are the half party right now. We are in control of nothing. Now, for us to get back, we have to be able to define the Republicans and Trump, and they're helping us a lot. But we have to be able to define them in a way that drives down their numbers, which is happening in real time right now. And that's part of it.
But ultimately, we could have a wildly successful midterm — in 2010, the Republicans had the most successful midterm since World War II, and two years later, they lost the White House. So it's only an element. But the job is ultimately to not make the Democratic Party brand so toxic that it brings down our 2028 nominee.
Do you think that Democrats like Sen. Chris Van Hollen fighting these deportations is playing into Trump's hands? Do you think these are the issues people want to see Democrats stand up for?
Well, I think that ultimately the most important issues for us to focus on are the issues that people care about, which is their lives and the economy. I do think that we have a moral obligation that when something is so manifestly wrong, on the deportations and what they're doing to that poor guy in El Salvador, I think we have an obligation to speak out about that, even though it's not our best argument against Trump.
Do you see Democrats missing the moment? Because you said that there have been multiple instances where the Trump administration has given you guys these gifts, these opportunities to point out wrongdoing.
Well, we're the opposition party. We're out of power. By definition, you can look at it one of two ways: Either we have a large number of leaders or we have no leader. And we fundamentally, as the opposition party, don't have a leader. And we're not going to have a leader until we have a nominee in 2028. It's not going to be the congressional wing of the party that's going to —
That's a long time, though, to wait for someone to come out of the woodwork and lead.
Most people either do campaigns or they do government. And that's one of the problems I think Trump has right now is he's running the government like it's a campaign. Ultimately, the Republicans and Trump are going to be defined by what they do or don't do in governing, and how they govern and whether people's lives have improved or not.
If the public is very dissatisfied with the Republican leadership, which I think they are going to be, that's a prerequisite for Democrats to come back to power. But that's not going to be enough. That's the first step and it's an important step, but ultimately, there's such distrust with Democrats and who we are and how we've governed that even if the Republicans implode, that doesn't guarantee the Democrats are going to assume power.
I think what your slides show is that Democrats have struggled both with message and messenger, with policy and policy makers. How do you find your way out of that?
I think we can work on an architecture of a message, which shows our values. And I think, again, as I said earlier about AOC and Bernie, I think a lot of their economic messages against the rich and the oligarchs [are a good start] and I think having a pro-middle class agenda, like say, a federal minimum wage —
Do you think that's the stronger direction versus what Gavin Newsom is doing in trying to maybe appeal more to the center and bringing on conservative folks onto his platform?
Gavin Newsom is doing something tactically to show that he can hang out with people who don't believe what he believes in. But AOC and Bernie Sanders — and I'm not from that wing of the party — what they are doing is talking about what they think should be done from a policy perspective to improve people's lives.
We need a strategy, not a tactic. And our strategy should be based at least on what our values are and what agenda we would have if we ever were able to return to power. And I think their economic populist message is an important element for that.
You wrote once in an op-ed for the New York Times about how one of the reasons Democrats rebounded with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama was because they weren't really from the establishment.
Does that mean that the future for the party in 2028 might be more like a Mark Cuban or a Stephen A. Smith rather than a Gretchen Whitmer or a Gavin Newsom?
I don't think the future of our party is looking for a Mark Cuban or Steven A. Smith, let me start with that. I think it's probably either an elected official or a citizen leader from the states and not from Washington. And not from the coast. Someone who's authentic, who, you know —
You're talking governors, mayors.
Yes. Governors and mayors are CEOs. They do stuff, right?
They're executives.
They live above the restaurant and come down every day to work.
I'll tell you, the way I look at politics is there are indoor politicians and outdoor politicians. Indoor politicians have a roof over them. They're senators, they give speeches. Outdoor politicians are people that are out there in the field, they're in the crowds. The people are sweating on them. And Trump's an outdoor politician, by the way.
Yes, he is. I've been outdoors a lot with him.
Politics has changed significantly, but one of the things that hasn't changed is people want happy warriors as candidates. They want people who are running for office who they feel are enjoying themselves and that they like people. And, you know, I think there's a toxic, angry sort of vibe to the Trump rallies, but there's also kind of the joy of the event.
Oh, yeah. I mean, it has a fair-like vibe, right? People bring their kids, they bring picnic baskets — it's kind of a party.
Yes and I think that Trump — he is what he is.
And so there's an authenticity to what I think is a profoundly horrible human being, but there's an authenticity to him that I think in an age where people are cynical and feel like nothing's on the level, at least they can take him for what he is.
I have spent the last four years traveling the country and seeing what you have put into these slides play out on the ground: People without a college degree, more voters of color and young people gravitating toward Trump. And like you said, Trump is a symptom but this has been a long time evolution and change within the parties.
I think the original bad seed for what's happened in America goes back to the Vietnam War in the 1960s. That was the first war where we were not all in this together. That was the first time that if you had money and power, you could game the system. I think that began this schism in our society between the people who have money and power and the other people who don't. And I think for the people who don't have money and power, they resent it.
That is literally what Trump has used as part of his rallying cry: The system is rigged against you, and I'm for you. Why have Democrats so struggled to capture that?
I think we're captured a little bit by who we are and who we hang out with.
Go back to Biden's victory. Biden was the first president to get elected since Bush in '88 without a political base. The Democratic Party was like a federation of special interests that all came together. They feared in the early primaries in 2020 that we were heading to nominating Bernie Sanders to be president. So, almost like a chemical reaction, the party coalesced around Biden because they thought that Sanders would bring the party down. And that's how Biden became the nominee.
Do you think they were wrong in that assessment?
No, I think history has proven they were right in the sense that Biden won, and by the way, he barely won. And I don't see anyone else who was running at the time that would have won.
But the point is, Biden came to office beholden to a federation of special interests. I don't remember a single time in his presidency where he took on any single interest group. The combination of having special interest groups driving the party and elites who are college educated and concentrated on the coasts and in college towns — as a result of that, we became out of touch with America.
The fundamental question I've been trying to get a sense of with Democrats is, is the answer in this moment to fully oppose Trump or to see if there are ways that you can work with him?
What is the way to get back some of those people who went toward Trump because of their frustrations with the party?
As I said earlier, I think we have to do two things. One is we have to define Trump in a consistent way so that everything we say about him goes back to the same narrative — which I think is largely built around his administration is screwing the middle class in this country.
But who does that? Do you put out the playbook and everyone follows it? Or is there some edict from the DNC? How do you actually get the messengers of the party that are out there right now on the same page about that?
Well, there's nobody in control by definition. I think it would be helpful for the federal wing, the congressional wing of the Democratic Party, to be able to come together with an agreement on what that is. We have a lot of people, but we need to create a center of gravity. In terms of what success looks like two years later, we want to have a good midterm. I think we'll win the governor's race in Virginia this year and the press will overstate how important that is. It's good to do well in politics, so we should do that.
And we need to be able to define Trump and I think, back to your question, I think he makes it easy. The Republicans in Congress — even if you wanted to work with them, they're making it impossible based on the policy positions they're taking, based on how they're governing.
So even if you want to work with this administration, it's almost impossible to do based on the fact that he's completely driven by his MAGA base. The way he's executing the office of the president is something we've never seen in our country before.
So you think there's no benefit to Democrats trying to work with the Republican Party in this moment? You think opposition is the answer?
I think if we can find something to agree on, we should. But I don't think, based on how they're governing, that's going to be a real problem for Democrats.
But you do see it being a problem for Democrats. The image floating around of Gretchen Whitmer in the Oval Office with the binders in front of her face — I think that is an image that captures the bind the Democrats are in. They want to be there but they don't want to be there. I don't think there's been a clear answer of, 'Do we participate and try to find common ground or are we just the opposition?'
And when you try to do both, you end up in the Oval with a binder in front of your face.
Well, let's talk about that for a moment. That's a good example of how the process of running for president weeds out people.
So, she walked into that room not expecting what happened to have happened. Probably the best thing to have done — and I'm sure if she could do it over again, she would not have used the binder strategy — is that she should have walked up to the desk where the president was and explained what was coming out of his mouth — she's completely opposed to it, and these are the reasons why. And then she should have left. So, that's a perfect example of a process that's going to help weed out —
Do you think Whitmer's been weeded out?
No, of course not. I think Obama and Clinton back in the early days of their campaigns made similar mistakes. So the question isn't, do you make a mistake like that? The question is, as you campaign and operate, do you learn from that? And she, of course, could be an extremely viable person. That's part of the benefit of going through all this.
We've talked about a number of names: Whitmer, Newsom. What about Kamala Harris? Should she try to run for the White House again?
Well, the first thing she has to decide is whether she's going to run for governor and obviously you have to think about whether she'll run for president.
Should she run for governor?
I think she shouldn't decide what she's going to do for any elected office unless she knows why she's running. If you can't answer that, you shouldn't run.
Do you think, given the toxicity of the Democratic brand that you talked about, that some of the leaders that were so visible at a time when the Democratic brand was so toxic should still be out front and center?
The short answer is no. I think the country wants new leadership.
Give me some names that make you optimistic about the party.
I think a variety of governors around the country. You mentioned Whitmer, [JB] Pritzker. [Josh] Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. [Jared] Polis out in Colorado. These are people who have been governors. They've performed extremely well. They have credibility in talking about where they want to lead the country based on what they've accomplished as governor. You know, maybe [Gov. Wes] Moore from Maryland. I think we have a half a dozen to a dozen people who potentially could be attractive candidates but, again, we are never really going to know who's got what until they're out there and are forced to perform.
Talk to your party. What should they do over the next year?
I think the most important thing is to have a narrative both about defining Trump and the Republican Party, every single day — we bring it back to that narrative. And the second thing is we ought to have a set of principles and positions that are primarily economic that demonstrate what we are for and who we are as a party. And I think that largely that's what we should be doing between now and the midterm.
Are there issues that Democrats need to let go of, put on the back burner?
Well, when I run campaigns, there are two kinds of issues. There are issues you win on and issues you lose on. So if you're running a campaign, what you want to do is try to neutralize the issues you lose on so you can talk about the issues you can win on. And so to me, the issues that we can win on are economic and I think that the populist economic message that Sanders and AOC are putting out is largely the direction as a party that we should pursue.
I think we are better off not talking about social issues and to the extent that we do, I think that we should try to figure out how to neutralize those issues so that we can move back to the issues that we could win on, because I firmly believe that this country is going to learn, in very real terms and very soon, what the implications are of the shock and awe, first 100 days of Trump and how it's going to impact their lives.
I also believe that an increasing number of people in this country are dependent on what government does for them; and while they may not appreciate it as much now, they're going to appreciate it more when they see the impact of all the DOGE cuts. And it wasn't strategic. It was a fire now and aim later. It's a countless number of things that people take for granted in our government right now. And when they're no longer being performed by our government and people see the impact in their lives, they are going to know who to blame.
Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.