Trump Won. What's Next?

Democrats need a strong dose of authenticity

As of my writing this, it’s been about two months since Donald Trump became president-elect—although it feels much longer than that. It’s hard not to feel pessimistic when thinking about what the next four years will bring; one of America’s best hopes at this point is that (1) Trump’s authoritarian bluster and rhetoric will continue to be just that, and he won’t have the backbone to make any real attempt at subverting America’s constitutional order; and (2), that Democrats will adapt to better face the challenges America faces—not just from Trump and Republicans, or even from antagonistic foreign powers, but from the institutional and systemic issues that led to Trump’s rise in the first place. Since Trump has already won the White House, the most immediate thing that Democrats can do now is turn their focus towards the 2026 midterms. Every seat in both chambers of Congress will be at stake in 2026, and being in control of both of those chambers will ensure that Democrats are at least somewhat able to check Trump’s ability to enact his agenda. This is not a unique opinion in any way; I’m sure most Democratic operatives are at least thinking about this topic even as you’re reading this post. But what should their strategy be?

The answer is—it’s complicated. It very much depends on which Congressional seat you’re talking about. As of March 2024, Americans’ top policy priorities included strengthening the economy, anti-terrorism, reducing money in politics, and lowering healthcare costs, among other things. It makes sense that, at the federal level, Democrats should tailor their policy platform accordingly. Having said that, however, I’ve stated before that there is far too much of a focus on federal-level politics, and that state and local politics are being neglected. I’m no professional political strategist, so take all this with a grain of salt, but as far as I see it, there are two things that a Congressional candidate needs to do when trying to win a seat:

• They need to tailor their policy platform to match the priorities of their district; if a district overwhelmingly wants their economy strengthened, then strengthening the economy needs to be a core plank in your platform, even if that means breaking from the national party. After all, the point of being a Congressperson is to represent the people who voted you into power.

• If there’s a controversial or divisive issue affecting the district, the candidate need not avoid that issue—in fact, clearly communicating their position on that issue, in a way that people can relate to, is probably the best way they can approach that issue by far.

That’s all well and good, and none of what I just said is particularly original or unique. But my second bullet point, about communicating in a relatable way, leads into one of the major adaptations that I think Democrats need to embrace. A lot of the reason Donald Trump won—in 2016 especially—is because he communicated with his core base in a way that resonated with them. He talks off the cuff, goes on unhinged, incoherent rants, and overall just does not act like you would expect a politician to act; he treated the entire political arena like a reality TV show, and I think that, more than anything, is what gave him the edge he needed. Bernie Sanders, while markedly different in his approach, also communicated his ideas in a way that was different from what the average American expects from a politician. Lastly, if Kamala Harris had had more time to run a full campaign, I think the electoral vote tally would have been much narrower—not because of Harris herself, but because of Tim Walz and his willingness to talk real shit, in a real way. (Trumpists are still weirdos, by the way.)

Americans used to value decorum, so Democrats built a habit of communicating with the public in a way that reflected that; now, however, a critical mass of Americans value authenticity, and Democrats need to adapt accordingly. Along with just tailoring their policy platforms to match what their constituents are concerned about and not being afraid of controversy, they need to field candidates who don’t rely so much on scripts and canned talking points, who are willing to speak off-the-cuff and break character, make edgy jokes every now and then, go on podcasts that also encourage speaking off-the-cuff, and so on and so forth. Joe Rogan might be a dumbass, but he has an enormous audience that would likely appreciate the feeling that they’re not being spoken down to.

I believe that this, more than anything, is what will help Democrats—and liberals more broadly, by extension—stave off the persistent sentiment that they’re out-of-touch, elitist, and disingenuous. They could scream and shout all they want about how fascistic Trump’s agenda is, but if Trump simply comes off as more authentic and in touch with the general public, that gives him a big leg-up regardless of what the consequences of his policies will actually be. Hopefully, the fact that Tim Walz chose a more authentic, less scripted way of speaking with the public is a sign that Democrats are starting to adapt. But if not enough of them learn from Walz’s example, it’s that much more doubtful they’ll be able to retain control of Congress in 2026. And if Republicans gain control of all three branches of government (including the Supreme Court) as a result, I don’t want to imagine what will happen afterwards.