For years, you wouldn’t use a word like that to describe the average Democrat, who campaigned on economic centrism and had a reverence for institutions and compromise.

That’s how our wing of the party ended up with a set of rules. Defend the private health care system. Preserve the court. Keep the filibuster. Never raise taxes.

The era that advice was built for no longer exists. Today, Republicans use power aggressively, institutions are crumbling, and voters are furious about the price of everything. It’s no wonder Democrats are changing too.

They’re starting to accept that you can’t just make a case for the status quo when voters are crying out for something to believe in. You can stay moderate on a wide range of economic and social issues while recognizing that the biggest challenges of our time require better solutions.

If you’re a Democrat who wants to stay relevant, it’s time for a new version of moderation. It’s time to rage.

From ACA to M4A

We remember when calling for “Medicare for All” was radical. At the time, Obamacare was still in its first decade, and Democrats were proud of what it did. The goal for most moderates was to defend and expand it. Putting health care in the hands of the government seemed like too big a move for the electorate.

That was more than a decade ago. Things change. And on health care, the data are clear.

1. Health care costs are exploding: Spending on health care has grown astronomically under a corporatized system, from $452 billion in 1970 to $4.9 trillion in 2023. As the chart below shows, even major reforms have not changed this trajectory. Out-of-pocket costs have steadily risen too.

2. Americans say the government is responsible for health care: In 2015, Americans were split on what role the government should play in health care. 51% said yes, the federal government should make sure that all Americans have health care coverage, 47% said no. Today, two-thirds say it’s the government’s responsibility.

The idea isn’t that controversial anymore. The latest version of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All bill has 16 cosponsors in the Senate and 104 in the House, where it was introduced by bipartisan pragmatist Rep. Debbie Dingell alongside Rep. Pramila Jayapal. Among the cosponsors: Dan Goldman, Sara Jacobs and Ritchie Torres.

Medicare for All is the litmus test of Democratic politics, and more members of the party than ever before have decided it’s time to make health care a human right.

Expanding the Court

The Supreme Court still isn’t as partisan as the rest of our politics, but it’s been getting pretty damn close. We’ve already talked about the court’s decision to weaken the Voting Rights Act, which will ultimately eliminate Black representation in huge parts of the South. It’s just the latest in a long line of right-wing rulings impacting everything from regulatory oversight to racial diversity.

Democrats are still reeling from two decisions, in particular, that have already done untold damage: Dobbs v. Jackson, of course, which ended a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, and Trump v. US, where the court decided to give presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

You can believe, as many elected Democrats do, that the Supreme Court is an important institution while also being clear that its decisions are out-of-touch and its members have little oversight. On average, the current justices are 65 years old and have each served for 14 years on average. It’s even worse at the extremes: Clarence Thomas is 77 and has sat on the court since 1991. The president who appointed him passed away nearly a decade ago.

Some moderates are going all the way. James Carville said earlier this year that Democrats should expand the court to 13: “Don’t run on it, don’t talk about it, just do it.” Others are getting a lot louder about strict retirement ages and term limits. Whatever it is, “win elections and restore balance” doesn’t cut it anymore.

A New Approach to the Filibuster

For institutionalist Democrats, the filibuster remains the ultimate check on power; a tool that forces compromise. Again, things have changed. Of course there is still compromise in the Senate, but it’s come at the expense of productivity: last year, both the House and Senate set a modern record for the lowest legislative output in the first year of a presidency.

It has let the minority party block voting rights bills, abortion access, climate legislation, and anything else that can’t be squeezed into a reconciliation bill. It’s getting more and more difficult for Democrats to explain that an archaic legislative procedure is more important than a woman’s right to choose.

It’s especially hard to make the case when, as Brookings’ Molly Reynolds documented years ago, Congress has created more than 160 exceptions to the filibuster’s supermajority requirement since 1969.

Kamala Harris backed a filibuster carve-out to protect abortion rights in 2024, and moderates like the retiring Sen. Tina Smith are saying they feel stymied by the Senate rules, and would like to reform the filibuster at least to the point where you have to stand and talk to prevent the passage of a bill, instead of just saying “I don’t like this, so I’m gonna object and then go out for dinner.”

(Fairly) Taxing the Rich

Finally, while Democrats still believe in the spirit of entrepreneurship that drives this country, the rhetoric is shifting on taxing high earners.

It’s no longer enough just to say you’ll raise corporate taxes and close a few loopholes. For many members of the party, it’s a lot more direct: if you’re earning a lot of money, you should pay what you owe.

Analysis from the Yale Budget Lab shows why the argument has legs: it found that among the top 1% of earners, effective tax rates can vary as widely as 45% to a paltry 3%. The analysis argued that eliminating complex tax provisions that contribute to these gaps would raise another $560 billion in 2026, or exactly 400 times what Politico said were the total savings of DOGE last August.

Many Democrats are going a step further and calling for higher taxes on the wealthy. Biden and Harris called for a minimum tax on households worth more than $100 million; billionaire Tom Steyer is igniting real excitement in his campaign for California governor by supporting a billionaire tax and ending a major corporate tax break.

This is the new Democratic moderation: calling out systems that don’t work and focusing on getting them to work for the American people. It starts with making health care a human right, but it’s also about good governance, a Supreme Court you can rely on, and a tax system that doesn’t let the ultra-rich off the hook.

This year might be different. Redistricting battles aside, the environment is really heating up for the Dems. Collins is no rubber stamp on Trump’s agenda, but she voted for most of his cabinet, including Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, and RFK (she was a no on Hegseth). More importantly, she still has an R next to her name, and this GOP is deeply unpopular with voters.

Graham Platner, set to become the Democratic nominee after Governor Janet Mills dropped out last week, is a flawed person. The Nazi tattoo is bad enough; lying about it is both morally wrong and dumb. At the same time, he has things the party desperately needs: working-class values, the right age bracket, and a platform worth watching.

He is the highest-profile test case for a new kind of Democratic politics.

Maine is competitive, and Platner enters the race with real momentum

It’s early, but we know Platner is competitive in Maine. There isn’t much reliable polling in the state so far, but a University of New Hampshire survey in February makes the case: Platner led Collins in a general election matchup 49% to 38%, or an 11-point gap. With Mills on the ballot, the same survey had her just about even with Collins at 41% to 40%. He’d also opened up a nine-point lead with independents, while Mills was six points behind with the same group. It’s the best snapshot we have so far and makes a compelling case for Platner.

This is a bigger deal than you might think. While independent Sen. Angus King, who caucuses with the Democrats, has won three elections in Maine, the state hasn’t voted for a self-described Democrat for Senate since 1988. While it supports Democratic presidential candidates, it’s not an easy state to win: 57% of voters are white and working-class; that bloc drifted toward President Trump in 2016 and hasn’t looked back.

These folks look and sound like Platner, but more importantly, they can relate to key parts of his background, which includes almost a decade as an oyster farmer and three tours in Iraq. Conservatives point to other parts of Platner’s life and cry hypocrisy, including his private school upbringing and family members who worked in architecture and law. So yes, as others have pointed out, his story cuts both ways. But based on the data, Maine voters aren’t yet dismissing him as just another “elite.”

The tattoo problem

Those polls were conducted several months after stories about Platner’s tattoo had already come out. We still think it’s a problem.

Here’s the background: Platner says he got a tattoo in 2007, in his 20s, after a night of drinking while on leave from the Marine Corps. The image, which he asked for “off the wall” because it looked like a “terrifying-looking skull and crossbones,” resembles a specific symbol of Hitler’s SS. In October, he said he wouldn’t have gotten the tattoo if he knew what it meant, and weeks later he covered it up.

It would be one thing if that were the only cover-up. The problem is that Platner seemingly tried to cover up the truth about his awareness as well. In an interview on Pod Save America, Platner said he wasn’t aware what the symbol meant until recently, but according to a CNN investigation, he’d both been aware and defended use of the symbol on Reddit years before the scandal, and that acquaintances had heard him refer to it as a Nazi symbol many years ago.

Platner says he’s “not a secret Nazi,” and that is very believable. His story about the symbol? Not so much. And that could be a liability for a candidate who has branded himself as a no-bullshit guy.

“A 79-year old freshman”

As far as we know, Janet Mills has no incriminating tattoos, and as the winner of two statewide races for governor, seemed like the safe choice for the Senate. But she also would’ve been a 79-year-old freshman in the Senate, as The Atlantic pointed out earlier this year; a chamber that already has an average age just shy of retirement at 65 years old. Mills tried to address this by promising only to serve one term, but those promises don’t always pan out. Susan Collins said she’d only serve two terms; she’s running for a sixth. On this issue, the Mills campaign was a godsend to Collins.

Asking voters to represent them until you’re 85 years old is an absurd idea on its own. It’s especially absurd for a Democrat to attempt it just two years after the party was forced to swap out its 81-year-old presidential candidate. Democrats are already the slightly older party in the Senate (with an average age of 66 vs 65). It’s time for the party to prioritize age when it recruits candidates. Platner will be 42 if inaugurated next January, and he says he will vote for a two-term limit. That is the path forward.

Platner’s platform

The midterm electorate is not the same as the presidential, but Democrats should use these elections to experiment with a new platform. Platner is a fascinating example: he’s running on economic populism in a state we think of as center-right. It starts with affordability, where Platner says he’ll fund federal housing programs, but it goes deeper: support for Medicare for All, a tax on billionaires, and a cost-of-living tax cut for everyone else.

On social issues, Platner runs to the middle, even when it’s controversial. Take immigration. He calls Trump’s mass deportation tactics “unconscionable,” but also says big corporations exploit the system so they can pay “slave wages” to illegal workers. It’s the same with guns, where Platner told a progressive news outlet that he supports background checks but not a ban on assault weapons. His case: if we cared about gun deaths, we’d get people out of poverty and improve healthcare.

There’s also a heavy focus on local politics. Platner emphasizes that he’d be a “friend to Maine’s working waterfront” by expanding storage facilities, fund workforce expansions, and prevent invasive species from threatening fisheries. Here, he’s borrowing from Mary Peltola’s playbook. She talked up local issues extensively on the trail in 2022 (including fishing, specifically) on the way to a statewide win in Alaska. Whatever debate there is about economic populism, listening to voters about local issues is always smart politics.

The future of Democratic politics, or a tattoo too far?

We have our issues with Platner. And it’s not just the tattoo: he’s made a number of abhorrent comments on social media about rape victims, women, the police, and rural Americans (he has apologized for them).

Still, he’s the candidate we’ve got, and he has key strengths: he connects with voters who have lost faith in the left and will bring generational change to the Senate.

Meanwhile, his platform, which blends economic progressivism with social centrism, is intriguing and will offer the Democrats important data about what resonates with voters.

Platner can win this race. It depends on whether his economic message and story are strong enough to overcome his baggage. Either way, it’s the most interesting of the four states that Democrats are looking to flip this November. You’d be wise to watch this race closely.

It’s been true since last year, when legislators in states ranging from North Carolina to Texas took up his call to change their maps.

But it reached a breaking point last night, when he called on key state legislatures to redraw their maps so Republicans can “receive” another 20 seats in the midterms in a Truth Social post. Trump doesn’t care about voters or democracy (he literally said “if they have to vote twice, so be it”). He just wants to hold on to power at any cost.

If the last few weeks of headlines from Virginia, Florida, and now Louisiana have felt exhausting, you’re not alone. Even after poring over maps, analysis, and lawsuits, there’s still a lot up in the air. With new challenges being filed every day, the final boundaries could come down to the wire.

Still, we’re not convinced that these fights will define the midterms. The math on redistricting matters, but the outcome really depends on how much voters have tired of Trump and trust the Democrats. And that will also be the story of 2028.

The redistricting state of play

What’s already in place

This war began in July 2025, when Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced the agenda for a special session that included redistricting. It was a highly unusual move and reportedly one that Abbott and GOP legislators were reluctant to make until Trump’s team pushed the idea.

A month later, Abbott signed a new map into law netting the GOP three to five more seats, and the tit-for-tat began. California Gov. Gavin Newsom gave voters the power to approve a new map in November that gives the Democrats the same three to five seats in return, and North Carolina Republicans redrew their map in October to help Trump take one more seat in the midterms.

Ohio and Utah also underwent redistricting this cycle, but their plans were unrelated to Trump. Ohio’s map was already temporary and expiring, and Utah’s redraw came after a court struck down a previous version for gerrymandering.

Together, the changes we know will be in place this year give Democrats another four to six seats, while Republicans would take another four to eight.

What’s pending for the midterms

You’ll notice that neither Virginia nor Florida are on the list above. That’s because their redistricting efforts are facing multiple lawsuits.

Like in California, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger put the power to redistrict in the hands of voters in a referendum that won with 52% of the vote in April. But that effort was blocked by Virginia’s top court last week in a ruling that came in one of three lawsuits GOP groups have filed challenging the ballot measure.

Florida Republicans rushed a Gov. DeSantis-led redistricting measure through their legislature last week, and he’s expected to sign it shortly. Democratic-aligned lawyers are preparing to fight that effort on the grounds that it violates Florida’s Fair Districts Amendments.

There’s also Missouri, where the legislature’s attempt to eke out an extra seat is subject to its own lawsuits and a potential referendum.

And lastly, Louisiana, which heads back to the drawing board after the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act ruling. While that ruling didn’t invalidate the Civil Rights-era law, which helped protect majority-minority seats like Louisiana’s sixth district, it did weaken it enough to deem that district unconstitutional, and possibly several others in the southeast.

That’s why Trump is pushing those state legislatures to redraw their maps now. Political analysts suggested last week that it’s already too late in most of the affected states, and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp shut the door on redistricting last week along those lines.

Other states are more willing to accede to Trump’s demands. Governors in Alabama and Tennessee have announced special sessions next week in an attempt to create new maps, despite the significant legal hurdles in their way.

For now, if the four states that are best placed to survive their legal challenges implement their maps in time, then together, Democrats would gain 8-10 seats, while the GOP gains anywhere between 8-15.

A good environment for Democrats

We’d obviously prefer that the Democrats have the higher potential upside from redistricting, and five seats is meaningful given the margin of victory in the House has been an average of eight seats this decade.

But remember: these are all hypothetical gains depending on the political environment in November, and right now, the environment looks pretty grim for the GOP.

We talked last week about two good polling signs for the Democrats: they’re averaging in the high 40s on the generic ballot with a four-point lead on their opponents, and Trump’s polling is miserable on the issues, with a net -32 approval in the latest Fox poll.

Election handicappers have noticed. That’s why, even in a hyper-partisan and hyper-gerrymandered era, the consensus forecast for the midterms puts 216 seats in the Democratic column, or two seats short of a majority. Wins in the toss-up seats would give them up to 15 seats of wiggle room.

It’s about as strong a position as the Democrats could ask to be in, notwithstanding the “known unknowns” before November on the economy, Iran, and other foreign policy misadventures.

In other words, on a good election night, Democrats will take home more seats from redistricting alone (up to 10) than Republicans will (as low as 8).

Florida: a step too far?

Florida legislators agree that redistricting isn’t a silver bullet on a rough election night. Amid all the reporting on DeSantis’ redistricting win, some local Republicans had warned that new boundaries could backfire.

“Don’t do it. I’ve said it from the beginning,” Rep. Daniel Webster, whose seat includes The Villages, told Punchbowl News in March. “I’ve been around enough reapportionments to know it’s a slippery slope.”

The problem is in the mechanics. To take more seats, you have to put more of your party’s voters in the districts currently held by your opponent. In this case, that means more Republicans in Democratic-held seats, which notionally turns them red. But by putting those voters elsewhere, you also make your own seats more competitive. On a wave night, that could jeopardize several GOP incumbents.

The same will be true for states with more Democratic districts: it benefits the party this year, but it might come back to haunt us in future cycles.

What really matters in 2028

Speaking of future elections, the Supreme Court’s decision will have a larger impact on 2028. While it’s likely too late for most states to redraw their districts before the midterms, The New York Times’ Nate Cohn identified eight southeastern states that could implement new maps because of the ruling, including Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Together, that could flip up to 13 more Republican seats.

We can spend the next two years worrying about that, or realize that the pathway to winning elections is to persuade voters you can govern for them. A strong midterms result gives us a chance to show Americans that Democrats can be trusted to execute (and will hopefully lift our spirits), but it doesn’t mean voters are going to give us the keys to the White House.

To win in 2028, we need to develop a vision and communicate to everyone. Then we can win on any boundary.

We sure do. They were hard to read but easy to believe: we focused on the wrong issues. We blew it with a radical agenda. We didn’t know how to talk to young men. And, thanks to demographic and population shifts, we were doomed never to win another election again.

As we watched Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries taking his well earned victory lap after Virginia’s vote on redistricting it dawned on us that maybe, just maybe, things had really changed.

“Our message to Florida Republicans is F around and find out,” Jeffries said. Based on recent actions, there’s good reason for Governor DeSantis to take him seriously. And for the rest of us to think that the Democratic Party may have found their mojo 15 months after Trump was inaugurated for a second time.

The Democrats are ahead in election polls, leading by wide margins on the major issues, and – can you believe it – even winning elections. Last week’s redistricting referendum victory in Virginia gives the party a head start of up to four seats this November.

It makes a lot of sense when you look at the state of the economy. Trump’s biggest decisions have directly pushed up prices and ended benefits for millions of voters. They have reasons to listen to Democrats again, and on this and other policy issues, the party has been focused.

We’re a long way from celebrating, but we like what we’re starting to see from the Democrats.

Democrats have a lot to celebrate in recent polls

Let’s start with the generic ballot; the closest proxy we have to the results of a congressional election if it were held today. In an average of high-quality polls conducted in April, Democrats are hovering right around the 50% mark, and an average of 4 points ahead of the GOP.

That’s one point more than the average margin this time four years ago, in an election that saw the GOP narrowly take the House but fail to take the Senate.

The Democratic advantage is even stronger with key voters: in the Fox News Poll, the party is up 16 points with independents, 12 points with Hispanics, and 19 points with voters under age 30. Even groups that have drifted towards the GOP in the Trump era, like white non-college voters, are tightening: the GOP advantage with that group is down to 15 points, half what it was in the 2024 presidential election.

Trump is dragging down the GOP on almost every issue, but especially on the economy. He has a net -32 approval rating with all voters in the Fox poll, and a catastrophic -60 rating with independents. It’s even worse on inflation, with a -44 net approval overall and -70 with independent voters.

Things aren’t much better with the other top issues this election. His foreign policy approval rating is down to net -20 points, or, when just asked about Iran, -26 points. Trump also suffers from a net negative rating on his signature issue, immigration, at -8 points. One note here: voters still like his approach to border security, specifically, where he has a +6 rating.

Overall: Democrats have a lot of polling bright spots, particularly with independents, while the GOP is languishing under Trump.

Voters get it: Trump owns a lousy economy

Let’s back up and remember how we got into this mess: Trump won in 2024 because voters were apoplectic about the economy. Inflation had run rampant under Biden and voters had a candidate in front of them who said he would “rapidly drive prices down” and “make America affordable again.”

Since then, Trump has made three significant economic decisions:

1. He imposed tariffs on almost everything you buy

Trump’s tariffs have defined the economic policy of his second administration. It’s been a rollercoaster: from “Liberation Day,” where tariffs of up to 49% were imposed on every country, to the Supreme Court striking down those tariffs because of Trump’s flimsy “emergency” rationale, to today’s global 10% standard.

Consumers have lost every step of the way. As we have previously written, Harvard’s Tariff Tracker shows that they increased the price of goods by 5-7% last year. The Tax Foundation says that amounts to an average tax increase of $1,000 per US household last year, and $600 this year. Even after SCOTUS ruled that Trump must return more than $166 billion in duties to businesses, “almost none” of them have committed to passing savings onto consumers.

2. He pushed a bill that slashed Medicaid, Obamacare, and food stamps

Despite holding majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans have only passed one major piece of economic legislation: the Big, Beautiful Bill.

Here are just three of the major impacts on Americans:

• Disproportionately cuts taxes for the wealthy: yes, everybody gets a tax cut, but it’s higher-income households who benefit the most, since they already pay the most tax (and get all sorts of other bonuses in the bill).

• Slashes benefits for everybody else: The bill pays for those tax cuts by reducing spending on Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, SNAP, and other public services. The cuts amount to a staggering $1.1 trillion for Medicaid and Obamacare alone, and will result in 15 million people losing their health coverage.

• Slows the transition to electric vehicles to a crawl: It costs $7,500 more to buy an electric vehicle (or $4,000 more to buy a used vehicle) thanks to the BBB, which killed a federal tax credit for making the switch. The bill also makes it more expensive to switch to renewable energy at home.

3. He started a war with Iran

Trump’s war, now at two months and counting, has sent gas prices soaring. Filling up cost just under $3 per gallon before the war; today, the price sits $1.10 higher, or a 37% increase in two months.

It’s a Trump “twofer:” not only did he break his decade-defining promise not to start new wars, he also broke his 2024 commitment to get gas “below $2 a gallon.”

Democrats are focused and winning on key items

Put it all together, and Democrats already have a great case for these midterms simply by pointing out that they’re not Trump. Voters don’t like this economy, it’s a direct result of Trump’s decisions, and the Democrats don’t support it. That may not be enough to win a presidential election in two years, but it might get the job done in 2026.

And to be clear, that’s a different message to the one the Democrats have sent before. Throughout the first Trump term, the party was almost obsessive about investigating the president – you’ll recall breathless commentary about the “walls closing in” on Donald and the first family – this time, the party is succeeding by staying focused on his policies, not his personality.

Independently of that, the Democrats are also notching up their own wins. We have talked about the party’s success in New Jersey and Virginia, and countless special elections. This week, we added Virginia’s redistricting referendum to the tally, where, despite selling a partisan map to a purple state that would normally be inclined to stick with the status quo, voters said yes.

On policy, there are early signs of success: the Dems have fought back against ICE overreach and a lack of accountability, leading to the ouster of Kristi Noem and a promise from the new secretary to work with Congress, not against it. The party still hasn’t caved on the DHS shutdown, showing voters that it won’t back down without a fight. Even messaging about Trump’s personal corruption is starting to break through.

It’s a long road to the midterms, and especially when foreign policy is in the mix, it’s too early to predict the outcome. But the polling is clear: voters aren’t happy with Trump, and they’re warming to a Democratic Party that is focused on the issues and scoring victories. It’s about as much as you can ask for in April.

But the truth is that this is chaos by design. The reality is that everything is going to plan. Methodically so.

Truth be told, we hadn’t thought much about Project 2025 until recently, when Hungarian voters fired Viktor Orbán after a 16-year run. After all, it was his own roadmap for undermining democracy that inspired Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s radical manifesto to “deconstruct” government and send America back to the dark ages.

We thought Orbán’s ouster was a good reminder to check in on just how much the Trump administration has looked to Project 2025 for its assault on the institutions and services we rely on.

Remember, President Trump ran a mile away from Project 2025 when it became a liability for him on the campaign trail, saying he hadn’t seen it, had no idea who was in charge of it, and “had nothing to do with it.” Well, according to the Center for Progressive Reform, Trump has made progress on at least 53% of Project 2025’s domestic agenda, or a total of 283 of its 532 recommended actions.

On everything from workers’ rights, to public education, independent law enforcement, and beyond, the second Trump administration has been heavily inspired by the ideas in that playbook, and that’s putting it lightly.

Justice

Trump’s attacks on justice are well-documented, but they didn’t happen in a vacuum. He got his worst ideas from Project 2025.

The ‘original sin’ lies in page 27 of the document, which rightly spells out that “traditionally, both the White House Counsel and the Attorney General have issued a memo requiring all contact between the two institutions to occur only between the Office of White House Counsel and the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney.”

The document doesn’t say why that’s a tradition, so let’s be clear: it protects the Department of Justice from the influence of the president. If White House staffers had on-demand access to prosecutors or investigators, they could easily pressure the DOJ to go easy on friends, and go after enemies.

On the next page, the Project 2025 authors go on to say that the next administration should “reexamine” that policy and consider whether it’s “appropriate” for more communication to take place. That would, as the Brennan Center has argued, politicize the DOJ and erode its independence.

We don’t know whether the White House or the Attorney General have issued an independence memo. We do know that Trump has sought to break down barriers between the White House and the DOJ.

In February last year, former Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo saying that DOJ personnel must “faithfully implement” Trump’s agenda, and established a Weaponization Working Group, providing quarterly reports back to the White House with progress of that review.

During her tenure, the administration reportedly fired more than 230 career lawyers, agents, and investigators “because of their work on cases they were assigned or past criticism of Trump, or seemingly no reason.”

In January, DNI Tulsi Gabbard was seen at an FBI raid of a Fulton County election facility, an extraordinary sign that there was potential political involvement in a federal law enforcement action.

And all of this still wasn’t enough. Trump fired Bondi and replaced her with Todd Blanche, reportedly because Trump was frustrated that she hadn’t been aggressive enough against his enemies. Her replacement, Todd Blanche, quickly told the media that Trump not only has the “right” but the “duty” to influence investigations.

Unions

When JD Vance spoke at the RNC in 2024, he had a clear message to the working class. “We need a leader,” he said, “who’s not in the pocket of big business, but answers to the working man, union and nonunion alike.”

Project 2025 had other ideas on unions, and so has the administration that Vance now serves in.

Let’s start with public sector workers. There are about 3 million of them in the US, including emergency workers, scientists, and VA doctors and nurses. Project 2025 called for Congress to consider whether any public-sector unions were “appropriate.” Before it did, Trump signed an executive order banning unions across 40 federal agencies, representing nearly two-thirds of that workforce.

Project 2025 recommended banning the union “card check,” a tool workers use to show that a majority of employees in a given workplace support unionization. Trump signed an executive order in March to stop a government agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, from facilitating card checks.

Trump is going a step further in trying to dismantle that agency altogether, attempting to shut it down by firing almost all its employees in 2025 (a move that was stopped by lawsuits and federal court injunctions).

Education

Project 2025 famously called for abolishing the Department of Education, a recommendation that Trump took just two months into this presidency. The administration wants you to think that in doing so, they just fired a bunch of bureaucrats. That’s not true.

First, the department administered $900 million in research grants every year. As EdWeek reported when DOGE first slashed that funding, that research funded items including:

• A tool that helps educators sift through dense curriculum research

• Surveys on school crime

• Long-term studies examining outcomes for high schoolers after graduation

…and countless other projects that stem from Education’s research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences.

The manifesto also told Trump to end occupation-based student loan forgiveness, a targeted program that forgave the student loan balances for people who dedicated more than a decade of their careers to public service in fields like teaching, nursing, law enforcement, or emergency response. The administration did so in November last year.

By calling for the elimination of the Department of Education, Project 2025 also wanted to end its Office of Civil Rights, a department that focused on providing equal access to education and responding to discrimination complaints. As the National Education Association pointed out just weeks ago, the department has fired 90% of that office’s staff just in its first year.

Abortion

Reproductive rights have been more of a mixed bag. Trump has, to his credit, maintained access to mifepristone, despite the fact that Project 2025 called for the FDA to “reverse its approval” of abortion drugs.

But this administration is still chipping away at women’s reproductive freedom in exactly the ways that Project 2025 laid out. The Guttmacher Institute has been tracking those policy changes, which include:

• Prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid reimbursement for any care it provides

• Retracting guidance issued by the Biden administration that allows states to use Medicaid waivers to support patients traveling out of state for reproductive health care

• Rescinding all clinical policy directives within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) that support access to abortion services

Each change means fewer women – even in states where abortions are legal – having access to potentially life-saving medical treatment.

Climate

Finally, on the environment, Trump and Project 2025 have largely been in lockstep.

Taken together, Project 2025’s goals amounted to a near total rollback not just of America’s commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement, but of hundreds of pollution and other environmental regulations.

Pre-election estimates predicted that these reversals would create billions of tonnes of extra carbon pollution, but also the loss of nearly two million jobs by 2030, thanks to reduced clean energy investment and a winding down of domestic renewable and electric car manufacturing.

We don’t know the impact of Trump’s post-election actions yet, but there have been many: withdrawal from Paris, repeals of pollution and environmental standards laws, an axe to climate research funding, and an EPA that has let go of many of its oversight functions.

Even the draft is back in the news, with looming changes to the military registration system and a decree from Karoline Leavitt that Trump doesn’t “remove options off of the table.”

Democrats’ response has been to emphasize that President Trump is undermining the “world order,” but for young Americans, who lived only through Iraq and Afghanistan and are struggling to make ends meet, that kind of rhetoric just doesn’t resonate. It’s worse than not resonating, actually. It sounds like politicians are busying themselves with everything but what matters most: cost of living.

Harkening back to a time when alliances were intact and it was clear who were the good guys and the bad guys sounds like rhetoric, not action.

The good news is that young voters care about what the world order actually means in practice: safety, a global economy, and democratic values. By understanding these elements and connecting them to Iran, tariffs, and Trump’s relentless drive to isolate the US from our allies, Democrats can make global instability mean something to Gen Z.

The polling is clear: young Americans don’t respond to “world order” messaging

When Democrats talk about foreign policy, many of them want voters to think about the United States’ leadership role on the world stage, and the damage that Trump has done to it.

That’s strong messaging for some Americans, but it’s not for the next generation of voters.

Pew asked Americans last year how active the US should be internationally, and the contrast is stark:

• While 73% of those aged 65 or older said the country should take an extremely or very active role, only 39% of those aged 18-29 agreed. That’s a 34-point gap, and greater than the gap between Democrats (59%) and Republicans (50%).

• There was a similar chasm on military superpower status: 51% of Americans 65+ said it was extremely or very important for the US to be the only superpower, while only 25% of 18-29 year olds agreed.

Young voters have good reason to feel this way. They didn’t live through global conflicts on the scale of the First or Second World War, or even the Cold War. The only wars they know first-hand are America’s disastrous forays into the Middle East, which killed millions and left taxpayers with an $8 trillion bill.

Meanwhile, the most recent crises that young Americans have experienced have been domestic: the recession, COVID, and a cost-of-living crisis. Each a global problem, but exacerbated by homegrown dysfunction: decades of financial deregulation, a crumbling health care system, and poor infrastructure.

The youngest Americans also rarely hear about what life is like without human rights and free expression. News stories about the state of democracy in foreign countries don’t exactly light social media algorithms on fire.

Zoom out, and the world order is still relevant

To young voters, the term itself – “world order” – also sounds abstract. Trump takes advantage of that by framing it as a system where a shadowy group of globalist elites “control” and “dominate” Americans.

Beneath the surface, the concept is still relevant. Consider the three promises of the world order: security, trade, and American values.

Safety at home and abroad

One hundred million people died during the 20th century’s two world wars, or as Melanie Sisson writes, one of out every 23 humans on Earth at the time. It is no wonder that countries with shared values, led by the US, would seek to prevent that with a set of global rules administered through the UN and NATO.

Whatever conflicts countries might have, those rules serve today as a baseline to ensure some stability. Last we checked, the tally for world wars still stands at two.

Article 5, in particular (an attack on one is an attack on all) has lowered the risk of another world war. And we have recent proof that the system works: the article has been invoked only once, by the US, after 9/11 – when our allies jumped into action.

Economic growth and cheaper goods

Decades of protectionism and tariffs had depressed economies and destabilized relationships between countries. The creation of the UN, the IMF, World Bank and later the WTO created economic ties between countries, and eventually open trade and predictable borrowing with the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

There is no simple math for the right balance between trade and protectionism, but the benefits have been undeniable. The shift towards trade agreements beginning in the 1950s has, according to Congressional research, lowered prices of goods and increased the real purchasing power of both consumers and producers.

We’re seeing in real time what a return to barriers does: Harvard’s Tariff Tracker shows that tariffs have increased the price of imported goods by 7% and domestic goods by 5% in one year.

Pride in our values

The post-war world order also promoted a set of values to the world. Democracies that prioritized human rights, especially free expression, gained significant power. Principles like free and fair elections are only norms because countries like the US said they were important, putting American ideals at the heart of global institutions.

America sat at the center of this world order until the end of 2024, both in the sense that its values became institutional ideals, and that it had a powerful seat within those institutions, especially the UN and NATO.

Trump wants to replace that by chairing a “Board of Peace” that’s no more than a grab bag of middling powers.

Democrats can win by talking about what really matters

All three of these issues – security, trade, and our values – are at risk while Donald Trump is in the White House. Instead of letting a phrase like “world order” do the work for them, Democrats can win by addressing the specific ways that Trump is making life worse for young voters.

The Iran War is another threat to our security

Donald Trump is still arguing that the Iran War is an effort to promote peace and stability. The reality is that this is a war nobody asked for, that the president didn’t get permission for (from voters or Congress), and for young Americans who voted for Trump because of his stance on war, a betrayal of a core promise.

In the latest Fox News Poll, 36% of voters approve of the conflict. That’s already low. Among voters under 30, it’s an anemic 25%.

Even before the war, Democrats had a case to make on instability: we have been talking more than ever about our commitment to NATO and Article 5, and throughout Trump’s first year in office, we’ve seen more attacks on US soil, including in New Orleans, Michigan, and Virginia.

Tariffs are driving up prices

Then there’s inflation, where Trump has his lowest approval ratings of any issue. Like the war, price rises are unpopular with every group, but Trump is doing particularly poorly with young voters: Trump has just a 20% approval rating on inflation with voters under 30.

Democrats can point not only to the overall increase in the price of goods, but to specific examples: basics like clothing (17%), building materials (11%), and furniture (8%) are up whether they’re imported or made in America.

Democracy and human rights matter

The primary emphasis has to be on stability and affordability. But there is evidence that young Americans strongly support democracy and human rights:

• 81% agree or strongly agree on the importance of having elected leaders chosen in free and fair elections.

• 80% agree or strongly agree that fair laws and equal treatment of all people are essential.

They also like being part of a connected world. They know problems like climate change and health are global issues. They’ve eschewed the traditional media in favor of global platforms. They even want to travel abroad more than other groups.

A targeted message on these issues can still be part of the mix.

We’re in a foreign policy doom loop. But Democrats have an opportunity. Talk to voters about what matters to them about this topic: the Iran War, prices, and to the right voters, our values.

By dropping the old-school framing and focusing on the real issues, especially affordability, Democrats will still be defending the world order. They’ll just win the argument when they do.

If you follow politics closely, and guessing you do since you’re here, then you’ve heard that the odds of a strong midterms for Democrats are good. Like, “over a 50% chance to take the Senate in the betting markets” good.

As more cautious data-driven types, and in an effort to actually be able to tell our friends where their ActBlue donations would be best spent, we thought that the first installment of The Monday Rage should be focused on the races we should be paying attention to this year.

And not just the ones you’re already thinking about. You’ve read about Maine, North Carolina, and our dreams of flipping… gasp… Texas. But what else matters? Where are Democrats playing defense, and what other opportunities does the party have to expand the map?

Among the many races that are worth your time, these five really stand out.

1. Ohio Governor

We sometimes hear Democrats talk about Ohio as a lost cause. They have a case: Harris lost the most recent presidential race here by 11 points, and it’s been eight years since Ohioans last supported any statewide Democratic candidate (Sherrod Brown, who’ll be back on the ballot this year). The state is a case study in the rightward drift of white voters without a college degree, who make up a majority of voters and last backed President Trump by 35 points.

The fundamentals work against the party, but everything else about this race makes it a real contest. Start with the national environment, which is increasingly horrific for the GOP: Trump is polling in the 30s and as low as 28% on inflation, the raison d’etre for his reelection. Then add in the GOP’s candidate: not Mike DeWine, the term-limited moderate governor, but Vivek Ramaswamy, a man whose political experience amounts to a ten-week stint at DOGE.

DeWine has endorsed Ramaswamy, but it’s an uneasy alliance. Weeks after Ramaswamy said there were “too many” public universities in Ohio, dismissing them as an area of “excess spending,” DeWine pushed back, saying he wasn’t in favor of consolidating colleges. He has good reason not to: they generate $69 billion in economic output and employ one in eight residents.

Ramaswamy has to make promises like these because his headline proposal is to eliminate the state’s income tax, which we know disproportionately benefits the wealthy while pushing the cost of decent health and education higher. That’s the affordability angle that Democratic challenger and physician Dr. Amy Acton is using, buttressed by Ramaswamy’s comment in 2024 that the creation of Medicare and Medicaid were a “mistake.”

Acton, meanwhile, has a strong bipartisan case: she was an early leader of the state’s COVID-19 response, appearing alongside DeWine at daily press briefings.

2. Arizona Governor

While Ohio has drifted right, Arizona has gradually tilted left. Democrats’ presidential vote share has crept up over the past three decades from the low to high 40s, peaking at 49.4% when President Biden won it in 2020. Still, the majority of Arizonans haven’t chosen a Democrat for president in nearly a century, and like the other competitive Sun Belt states, voters signed up for another Trump term in 2024.

It’s the kind of state where every misstep matters. The good news for Democrats is that while incumbent governor Katie Hobbs hasn’t always been the strongest competitor, Arizona is where Trump insists on running his worst candidates.

This story began with Kari Lake, who Trump endorsed not once, but twice for statewide races (Governor in ‘22, when she lost by less than a point, and Senate in ‘24, when she lost by more than double that with Trump on the ballot). He’s back at it again in ‘26 with Andy Biggs, the candidate with the most baggage in a field that had electable conservative alternatives.

Biggs currently sits in Congress, where he has been a cheerleader for the second Trump administration. He voted for the Big, Beautiful Bill, the latest step in his crusade to reduce spending on Medicaid and repeal the Affordable Care Act.

You might be more familiar with Biggs’ full-throated efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He objected to the electoral college vote count, promoted stolen election theories, and according to the January 6th Committee, was involved in planning the protest that led to the riot at the Capitol.

It’s a reminder of the stakes in every gubernatorial election: the power to certify ballots rests with the states, and people like Biggs cannot be trusted to oversee a fair election.

3. Georgia Senate

Democrats are, of course, hungry for a shot at a Senate majority. We get that, but again, don’t forget: you can only expand once you’ve taken care of business in the states you’re defending. The toughest is Georgia, where Jon Ossoff is seeking a second term after a one-point win in his last race back in January 2021.

Like Arizona, Georgia is one of five states where voters ordered a Trump sandwich: he won in 2016, lost to Biden in 2020, then took his revenge in 2024. Biden’s win – by a famous 11,779 votes – was on a much lower margin than either of the two Trump victories. And one of the reasons Trump retook the state was an eight-point gain in support from Black voters, making this race a test of the Democrats’ standing with an important voter group.

Unlike Arizona, Trump hasn’t made the same endorsement mistake he did in the last midterms. While the Republicans have a crowded primary field – one where none of the candidates are named Brian Kemp – none of the frontrunners are named Herschel Walker either.

The biggest question for Democrats is whether Ossoff could be a strong presidential candidate as well. He has a strong record of working across the aisle (a study last year named him the most bipartisan member of Congress) and is a very polished speaker. Some strategists wonder if he’s too calculated to capture the hearts and minds of the Democratic base, and too polished for the general electorate.

4. New Hampshire Senate

Democrats are also playing defense in New Hampshire. It’s easy to assume that this state is already in the bag. Despite talk last cycle that the Granite State could surprise, voters gave Kamala Harris a 2.8 point victory. The state’s healthy supply of college-educated voters should help keep it in the party’s hands.

Here, though, the party must contend with one of the most powerful political dynasties in the country: the Sununu family. Between them, they’ve won seven gubernatorial elections and a U.S. Senate seat, held a position at the White House and controlled party and school boards. For many years, the Sununu name has been “the most prominent brand” in state GOP politics; a brand defined by traditional conservative governance.

John E. Sununu, who is responsible for the Senate seat in that trophy cabinet, is running again nearly two decades later. If he can survive a primary, where MAGA voters usually rule the day, he will be a formidable, well-financed opponent to the Democratic ticket. U.S. House Rep. Chris Pappas, a Raging Moderates guest, is the overwhelming favorite to become the nominee.

5. Nevada Governor

Finally, Nevada, where the venerable Reid Machine – or rather, vulnerable – should be on everyone’s mind this midterm.

After decades of reliably producing statewide Democratic wins, the Silver State’s Hispanic voters lurched to the right in 2022, delivering Sheriff Joe Lombardo the keys to the Governor’s mansion. That came after two years of lockdowns and shutdowns that badly damaged the Nevada economy and the hospitality workers who power it.

In 2024, the machine broke down again, when Trump became the first Republican to win the state in two decades, and by a relatively healthy 3.1 points. (It never hurts to promise a tax cut targeted at one state’s voter base.)

For Democrats, getting back to the White House means winning back support from Hispanic voters, and specifically the kinds of working-class voters who live here. This race, where Lombardo will face the likely Democratic nominee and Attorney General Aaron Ford, is the most important test of that support.

We could go on. And undoubtedly will, here in The Monday Rage and on Raging Moderates. Iowa deserves its own newsletter column frankly, and so does the Alaska senate race. Good news that we’ll do this again next week!

You’re receiving The Monday Rage newsletter because you subscribe to Prof G Media on Substack. Not interested in this content? Customize your Prof G Media notification settings here to hear only from your favorite hosts and shows. Looking for even more rage? Be sure to opt in to podcast alerts for Raging Moderates to get notified each time a new episode drops.