The Road Back to Relevance

Sixty-eight percent of Americans say the Democratic Party is “out of touch” with people’s concerns, a higher share than those who say the same of Donald Trump or the GOP. As voters head to the polls today, that number should haunt every Democrat.

This is the first major election since last year’s devastating losses. At the New Liberal Action Summit (NLAS) in Washington, D.C. last month, an opening conversation confronted why the party faltered – and how it can rebuild. The consensus was clear: Democrats must rediscover a pragmatic, action-focused politics that actually improves people’s daily lives. This means balancing persuasion with representation, reaching out to new voters while still standing for the diverse communities Democrats represent, and above all, never blaming the voters for the party’s shortcomings. If Americans haven’t rewarded past policy wins, the onus is on Democrats to communicate and deliver better, not on voters to simply “understand.”

The way forward isn’t finger-pointing at the public. As strategist Lis Smith argued in a recent interview, Democrats have too often “treated voters like children” waving away concerns about prices, public safety, with technocratic rebuttals instead of addressing them head-on. Her prescription is simple and bracing: start with the economy and cost of living; meet voters where they are; and pair values with concrete plans that make life feel less precarious.

Today’s piece will conclude my mini series discussing recent races. You can find my initial piece on NYC’s Mayoral campaign here, and last week’s piece on both Virginia and New Jersey’s Gubernatorial campaigns here.

Messaging Versus Policy: A False Choice

The opening remarks of the summit, led by Center for New Liberalism’s Colin Mortimer pulled no punches. It centered on a pivotal question: was 2024 a failure of messaging or of policy? In framing the party’s future, both speakers Representative James Walkinshaw of Virginia and political advisor Greg Schultz argued it’s not an either/or dilemma so much as a call to rethink the party’s entire posture heading into 2026 and beyond.

The tone was not despairing but determined and forward-looking. As Representative Walkinshaw noted, “we just need better messaging” has become a kind of coping mechanism. “We’ve been saying that since time immemorial,” he said, warning that it can become “a very self-validating thing to say” because it implies the voters are the problem, not the party. Schultz built on that point, arguing that Democrats’ brand is often defined “by a part of the party which does not actually win majorities or govern effectively,” while the so-called “majority-makers” pragmatic Democrats in swing or suburban districts, struggle to be heard.

Voters are less interested in hearing politicians congratulate themselves for trying and more interested in seeing results. Simply put, policy achievements won’t speak for themselves if people don’t feel their lives improving. And when lives do improve, Democrats need to connect the dots in plain English. Shultz drove home that much of the party’s wounds in 2024 were self-inflicted by ineffective communication. Democrats had sound policies on paper, but often packaged them in technocratic or moralizing language that failed to persuade the persuadable. Simply put, policy achievements won’t speak for themselves if people don’t feel their lives improving, and when lives do improve, Democrats need to connect the dots in plain English. The electorate’s verdict, he said, was a reminder that how the party talks to people is as crucial as what it stands for.

Delivering, Not Performing

Too often, Walkinshaw suggested, elected Democrats default to gestures that play well on social media or excite the base, but don’t tangibly improve voters’ lives. Passing ambitious bills that never get implemented, delivering fiery floor speeches that only reach the already-converted – these might burnish progressive credentials, but they do little to convince skeptical Americans that Democrats will actually deliver. That means making concrete improvements in people’s daily lives is the central measure of success. It also means being willing to confront elements of the left’s own political culture that prize symbolic purity over results. Think former President Biden spending $7.5 billion to build EV charging infrastructure, but as of late 2024 only 7 stations were built. As Walkinshaw put it, Democrats need to focus less on rhetoric and more on results, the “nuts and bolts” work that constituents actually feel, like filling potholes, balancing budgets, and keeping communities safe. In other words, governing well and addressing real problems isn’t sufficient unless it’s paired with a relentless focus on implementation and impact that people can see and feel.

This shift from performativity to action-oriented pragmatism isn’t just theoretical, it’s already playing out in real campaigns across the country.This ethos closely mirrors the tone struck by Rep. Mikie Sherrill in her current run for New Jersey governor. Sherrill has adopted an outsider’s impatience with the status quo, explicitly rejecting the passive, bureaucratic approach people often associate with government. “I’m not doing a 10-year study. I’m not writing a strongly worded letter. I’m declaring a state of emergency.”

Image Credit: FactPost

Her message is unmistakably action-oriented: she vows to do things, fast, to tackle high costs of living, rather than just talk about them. The winning tone for Democrats isn’t “We’ve been fighting for you” it’s “I see that what we were doing before wasn’t working, so we’re changing it and figuring out how to fix it now.” Voters are hungry for that sense of urgency and humility.

Big Tent Means Big Tent

Sherrill’s approach illustrates one version of effective Democratic leadership: the practical problem-solver who rejects bureaucratic inertia. But the party’s path forward requires more than just one archetype. This is where the “big tent” stops being a platitude and becomes a strategy. If Democrats are serious about meeting voters where they are, then the tent needs to be big enough for many different kinds of leaders, each speaking authentically to their own communities while sharing that same commitment to tangible results.

Zohran Mamdani, running to make one of America’s most expensive cities more affordable, represents a different approach from Sherrill—but one equally focused on tangible outcomes that improve everyday life. Mamdani’s campaign captures exactly what a modern Democratic coalition should look like: ambitious, rooted in local reality, and yes, willing to evolve. After the primaries, he began moderating some of his more unpopular stances because he understood that governing a diverse electorate—even a left-leaning one—means your positions must serve your constituents, not just satisfy your base.

I don’t have to agree with every one of his policies to understand he has a place in this party. The same tent that fits Marie Gluesenkamp Perez—a Blue Dog who won in a Trump district by focusing squarely on her constituents’ specific needs—should also fit Mamdani. As Ezra Klein recently wrote, “The Democratic Party does not just need to win more people. It also needs to win more places.”

The Bottom Line

In the end, results are the best – and only – rebuttal to cynicism. If the Democratic Party becomes known as the party that actually makes life better in concrete ways, voters will reward it. That’s how you rebuild a majority: not by reinventing yourself to please pundits, but by reinventing the bond between public servants and the public.

---

Be sure to exercise your right to vote today! Here’s a resource where you can find the election calendar: https://ballotpedia.org/Elections_calendar.

You can also watch the panel that I participated in at the NLAS, on tariffs and trade on C-Span: https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/trump-administrations-tariffs/667503