Rep. McDonald Rivet (affectionately known by her initials KMR, like some other leading ladies in Congress) may be a freshman member of Congress, but she’s no rookie when it comes to winning and getting things done.

You may recognize McDonald Rivet’s name as the one that tops Split Ticket’s WAR (Wins Above Replacement) Model chart — McDonald Rivet was the biggest over-performer of the 2024 election cycle, with a WAR score of a whopping 8.6 points, and she over-performed Harris by 8 points.

McDonald Rivet is a member of the New Democrat Coalition, serving as the caucus’ Freshman Leadership Representative.

Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet is speaking at WelcomeFest next Wednesday, June 4 in Washington, DC. RSVP to hear her live! We’ll have a virtual option for those who can’t make it in person!

As this past cycle’s biggest over-performer, McDonald Rivet won over A LOT of voters in her district who also split their ticket to vote for Donald Trump — and people say split ticket voting is dead! I asked KMR who the Trump-McDonald Rivet voter is.

She responded with a story about an experience she had out knocking doors on the campaign trail. She met a UAW retiree who had a Trump sign in his yard. He shared with KMR that as a retiree, he’ll probably have to get a part-time job because his retirement and social security isn’t enough to cover his bills, including costs for prescription drugs. He also expressed concerns about his neighborhood and his children moving away from the area. KMR expressed similar concerns about her children moving away and the cost of groceries. They spoke on his front porch for about 10 minutes, after which KMR noted:

At the end of the conversation, I don't know he agreed with everything I said, but he knew that I saw him.

And that was really important because I think a lot of the Democratic conversation and Democratic agenda in politics has left the folks who shower at the end of their workday behind.

Most of them used to be Democrats, but they don't feel like they belong anymore in our party.

In a recent vote on the House floor, Rep. McDonald Rivet voted to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s waivers for California’s vehicle emissions standards. Those emissions standards would have mandated zero-emissions vehicles to account for 35% of auto sales in 2026, 51% by 2028, and 100% by 2035. The mandate would have also went into place in 11 other states that adopted California's rule. I asked Rep. McDonald Rivet about why she made this vote, particularly as Democrats look to regain trust among voters.

The EV mandate is tricky because I really do believe it's important that we are focusing on clean air, and environmental concerns are real. But the problem with that mandate is that one, as you said, the timeline was unrealistic. And two, Michigan does not have the EV infrastructure.

When I first started reading up on EVs, the first thing I did was Google the cost of an EV pickup truck. Because that's what my district drives. We've got a lot of farmers.

Well, how much does that cost? It's north of $70,000 a year. That's a year and a half salary for a lot of people.

So the idea that we're going to get at this by mandating was going to be bad — not just for the people in my district, but for the people around the country who are just really struggling.

It's just not the time.

I do think that we have to figure this out. But frankly, EVs are going to start to sell when the market makes sense.

A government mandate isn't going to help that… And that's how we regain trust is we address the things that are real in people’s day-to-day lives.

KMR’s ads in 2024 were lighthearted and fun— including one where her husband rolled out of a moving vehicle to escape her talking about cutting taxes, and another of her holding a beer talking about football and hating Ohio. I asked her how the lightheartedness and direct way that she speaks to voters informs the way she communicates with them, and what Democrats need to do more and better to authentically communicate with voters.

We have a really divided country right now, but the one thing that I think you would get a really significant percentage of Americans to agree on is that they hate politics, and they don't trust politicians.

So in the first ad we did, my husband and I are going through a day — pouring our coffee and getting ready for work.

He starts by saying, “my wife loves talking about taxes,” and then it cuts to me saying, “no, I love talking about cutting taxes.” Which isn't a normal thing for a Democrat to say.

But I authored the largest tax cut for working families in Michigan's history. So I wanted to talk about it.

And we also worked really hard in the campaign to just remind people that I'm a very real person. My husband and I raised six kids. I also worry about grocery bills — I’ve got a 15 year old teenage son who drinks two gallons of milk a week. You can't fill up a 15 year old boy! I've worked a lot on childcare and have personally spent a lot of money on childcare. We have to bring those bills down.

I just real talk and really reflect, I think, where a lot of people, particularly in Michigan, are worried.

Of our kids, five of them are adults. They all moved away, every one of them. I want to see my grandkids when I have some. I want to be able to be the one who goes to the soccer games and picks them up from school every once in a while. And that's not a reality for me. And we have to do something about that.

Screaming and yelling and shouting into a camera on TikTok — that's not going to solve any of those problems.

What we really need to do is move forward things that really matter to people. It doesn't matter whether you've got an R or a D behind your name — that's how people begin to trust that you've got their best interest in mind.

Because Welcome talks a lot about illiberalism and a lack of nuance on the left, I asked KMR in what ways she thinks the left can regain trust among voters to prove that we champion nuance, we want to sustain and preserve a liberal democracy, and we are serious about ensuring everyone's voices are heard — not just the voices of the extremes.

We have to really not be afraid to talk to blue-collar voters. We have to not be afraid to go out on farms. And then we also have to be willing to sit and listen to things that are complex and difficult and have the hard conversations.

I had a bill in the state legislature that required safe storage of firearms, and it got hot really fast in my district. I held a town hall, and we had about a hundred people there.

We had one side of the room filled with folks in the red Moms Demand Action T-shirts — I used to be in leadership of Moms Demand Action locally, so they are my people — and then we had people that were coming in, some of them wearing MAGA hats, some wearing NRA hats. And the room just erupted, and people were at each other.

About 10 minutes in, I said, “Hold on. Can everybody in this room agree that no one wants another child to die?”

And just like that, you could feel the whole room just stop. And then we built from there in a conversation.

Now, I'm not saying that we got everybody on the same page and we walked out with a plan because that didn't happen.

But we were all willing to have a conversation about safe storage — about 80% of people support it. My family owns guns. My husband owns guns. We're a hunting culture in Michigan. It isn't about taking away a gun, but it is about making sure that a child cannot get hold of a weapon and hurt themselves or someone else.

It's really hard to do that in a 30-second TV commercial, or a 15-second TikTok. That's a form of communication, but that's not the work. The work is building an agenda in communities and in neighborhoods and in garages and on farms.

That is our work. That is what we should be doing. And I think that that makes us stronger across the board.

I noted to Rep. McDonald Rivet that she joins a long list of women who over-perform in competitive congressional districts. I asked her why she thinks women candidates and even women incumbents are so good at earning and keeping trust among voters in some of our most competitive congressional districts, and what advice she would give to Welcome candidates that are running in districts in 2026 and years to come.

I think women are so good at it because I think that we're seen as being different from who you picture in your head when you think about who's representing us in Congress — it usually isn't people who look like me.

I think that so many of us — and I don't mean to stereotype here — are like, “Okay, did we make the meal list for the week? And have we gotten groceries? And is the laundry done? And did I manage to get the lunchbox to school? Oh, and by the way, how are we trying to figure out how to fight a cut to $800 billion in Medicaid? And are my roots showing?”

This is what it means to be a woman. And we get to this point where, generally, I think that we are just too tired to mince our words.

So we're just like, “This is how it is: We’ve got to bring the price of groceries down. And why is child care $16,000 a year?”

We can say those things and we can say them directly because they're a lived experience.

I can speak for a long time about what it means when we not only have $300 billion cuts to SNAP, but we've cut out the operational grants for our food banks, and we've stopped federal delivery of food. We cut a billion dollars out of the school food program. When you add those things up, those aren't just numbers on a balance sheet — what you have are hungry kids, and that's intolerable. And frankly, morally wrong.

And I think that it's that level of sincerity, coupled with experience of having brought up six kids of my own that I think a lot of women have.

And I think it's why we tend to be pragmatic and win in these top districts.

Lastly, I asked KMR what any candidate looking to win over voters in presidential swing states like Michigan should ensure they exhibit to earn voters’ trust in the state.

Can I swear on this podcast? Look, I'm just going to say it: No bullshit.

You’ve got to have an agenda, it's got to be forward thinking, and it has to be based on what people really need, which is more money in their pockets and for things to get cheaper.

Don't come with slogans. Don't come with wishful, dreamy ideas.

Have a plan, and come with some— as Sen. Elissa Slotkin would say — alpha energy.

And people will react to that.

I keep telling people that in my district, which I think is a good microcosm for the entire state, people will forgive you for trying something that doesn't work. What they will not forgive you for is not trying. It's a roll up your sleeves, get to work kind of job.

And you have to be able to show that you can do that, whether we're talking about President, Senate, any of these jobs. Roll up your sleeves, and get to work.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers.

Congressman Gray’s district covering the San Joaquin Valley is the largest agricultural valley in the world, meaning if you’re eating something right now, there’s a chance it was grown in Gray’s district. Gray likes to tout that one of the counties in his district produces more milk than the entire state of Wisconsin — we won’t tell our friend Rebecca Cooke he said that :)

Now serving as Whip of the Blue Dog Coalition, Gray ran as a Blue Dog in a district that is home to one of the founders of the original Blue Dog Caucus, and he is one of many Blue Dog Democrats to have served CA-13 in Congress.

Remarkably, in 2024, Gray was the only Democrat to flip a district that voted for Trump in that election cycle. Yes, I too wanted to order an Adam Gray T-shirt after learning that!

Gray is speaking at WelcomeFest June 4 in Washington, DC. RSVP to hear from him live!

Before he was elected to Congress, Gray served as a member of the California State Assembly for 10 years. He found the legislature to be too partisan and notably co-founded a Legislative Problem Solvers Caucus that would eventually include Democrats and Republicans in both the state assembly and state senate.

Having the Problem Solvers Congress of California has been been really positive. We started it — myself, a former Republican leader in the California Assembly who had become an independent an had won his seat as an independent, and then another of our colleagues who was a Republican from the coast, the San Luis Obispo area.

And funny enough, the Republican from the coast was more progressive on environmental issues than I was, this Democrat from the Central Valley, which kind of shows people that depending on where you're from, your perspective on issues can be vastly different. And that creates interesting spaces for compromise and collaboration.

The three of us started that caucus, and the Democratic leadership was against it, and the Republican leadership was against it.

We bucked both of them, and we started a caucus that grew over time. That caucus is still going today, even though the three of us have left the legislature. So I think it's a really key investment of our time to create spaces where people can collaborate outside of the pressures of the party leadership and use that bully pulpit to put good ideas out there and put political peer pressure on our colleagues to do the right thing on policy and figure out how to reach across the aisle and work together.

Gray’s story about his Republican colleague in the California legislature being more progressive than him on environmental issues felt super relatable — as a pro-life Democrat from the South, I often find myself to the right of Never Trump Republicans on that issue.

Throughout our conversation, Congressman Gray spoke about the uniqueness of his California district and the types of individuals who get elected in his region of a state known for its progressive politics.

For those of you who don't know, my part of California is rural central California. It's in a valley called the San Joaquin Valley. It's counties that are made up of largely small to medium-sized farming communities.

I grew up in a place called Merced, California. Some people know it as the gateway to Yosemite, but it's one of the largest ag producing counties in the country. And all five counties in my district are some of the largest ag producing counties in the country.

So when you think of California, whether it be sunny beaches, Hollywood, or the tech industry, well, we're none of that. But yet we're the biggest agricultural producing valley in the world. We're literally the best at agriculture, and we provide about two thirds of the nation's fresh fruits and vegetables — and like 90 percent of the world's pistachios.

So it's a pretty incredible place, but very different politics than I think most people associate with California. So when I ran for the legislature, it was because I felt like our part of California got overlooked, and I wanted to do something about that.

We didn't fit neatly into the box of the Democrat or Republican Party. In fact, there's a term where I'm from called a “Valleycrat.”

And a lot of the elected officials in this region are called Valleycrats on both sides of the aisle because we'll put the interest of our valley, of agriculture, and of our communities ahead of the political parties.

On that note, becoming Whip of the Blue Dogs Caucus was a no-brainer for Gray:

I think this year marks the 30th anniversary of the Blue Dogs, and one interesting piece of history or note about my district is that in the past 30 years, for 28 of those years, my district's been represented by a Blue Dog Democrat.

So outside of the two years served by this Republican congressman that I just beat, it's always been Blue Dog Democrats here since the inception of the group. And I think what that means is that, consistent with that term Valleycrat of putting your district and the needs of your district ahead of any political party, I think that's been the tradition here.

And for me, that's what the Blue Dogs stand for.

The Blue Dogs aren't a group of Congress members that see eye-to-eye on every issue. In fact, I’ll give you a perfect example:

I represent an ag district that exports a lot of food all over the world. Like I said, we're the largest agricultural producing area in the country and the world.

And one of my good friends and allies and colleagues Jared Golden, who represents Maine, has a community that's more concerned about some of the manufacturing base and the effect that free trade is having.

So whereas I'm very anti-tariff, I think Jared's very pro-tariff.

And that's okay, because what are we both doing? We're representing the people and the interests of our constituents.

And I think that's what Blue Dog leadership is about in the Democratic Party. It’s saying, “hey, the singular most important thing or influence on a member of Congress should be what the needs of their district are and making sure that they're good advocates for those constituents.”

And, unfortunately, the two-party system has done the opposite — it's created a situation where everybody's got some kind of ideological purity test, which means you got to fit yourself into a certain box to be part of our party.

And frankly, we've seen these close margins in Congress for some time now. We've seen dysfunction. I think the party that's going to ultimately be able to punch through that and get a large majority and margin is the party that accepts diversity in its own ranks. Diversity of thought, and diversity of every kind. Because if you got legislators who are being authentic to the people that voted them in, they're going to be successful.

And I think that's what Blue Dog Democrats means for me. And I'm really proud to be the Whip of the group and work with some really great independent thinking people who have the courage and the conviction to stand up for what's right for the people who voted them into office.

Gray’s point about ideological diversity is important for a liberal democracy, and for the Democratic Party. Nuance within our party will help us understand and better relate to voters. Gray expounded more on the importance of ideological diversity on the left:

I think diversity is strength. And I think the more we look for ideological purity tests within either party and a very narrow vision of what's right for the future, it's just unrealistic. Because at the end of the day, to pretend that somebody who represents a rural agricultural district like me and somebody that represents Manhattan have exactly the same needs is absurd.

And neither political party probably has all the answers for those two communities. And so I think parties that accept diversity of thought and see it as a strength — which is what the country should be like when we all come together, representing our different parts of this wonderful country. We all have a lot to learn from each other. And that's a good thing, instead of trying to force everybody into a mold that they don't fit in.

And I think that's what you're seeing, and that's why you're seeing a lot of flip flopping in the control of Congress and the Senate and everything else.

We're trying to make something fit that’s just a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn't make sense.

And I think if you look back to the founding of the country, you literally had these states debating whether or not they even wanted to join together as a country. And why? Well, because each state had different interests and needs and so on.

And they were debating those ideas. But somehow we've lost track of the fact that we elect someone to go represent us in a government to make sure that that government keeps in mind our needs. And instead, we seem to think that there's some set of values or priorities — one set by the Democratic Party, one set by the Republican Party — that should just neatly address everyone else's interests.

And I just think it's really at the core of what's wrong, which is why we need things like Blue Dogs and other independent-thinking groups who want to do the work to figure out. How does all this fit together and how do we make the necessary trade-offs to kind of get a rising tide that lifts all boats and helps all people but accepts our diversity and our differences?

As I mentioned earlier, Gray was the only Democrat to flip a Trump district in 2024. Gray believes voters in his district were sending a message by electing both him and Trump:

I think, first and foremost, voters are looking for some type of authentic leadership. They're not necessarily interested or totally immersed in either party's current image. I think they're asking the questions, “who's going to go to Washington and actually get things done? Who's going to make a positive change and care about my needs?”

I think we forget that whether you elect a city councilman, a state assemblyman, or a member of Congress, you elect somebody to make your life better. And whether that's a city councilman working to build a new park in a community with neighbors that want that, or a member of Congress trying to make our infrastructure and our roads better and deliver results.

And I think instead, both parties just deliver rhetoric. And when the voters go looking for results, they can't find it… And I think the political parties have really lost their way in that respect. The fact that there's a bunch of voters in my district who essentially voted for a Democrat in Adam Gray and a Republican in Donald Trump, well, you got to ask yourself, what message were they sending?

And I think the message they were sending is — the status quo? We're unhappy with it. And we want somebody who we believe will work every day to make change. And whether you agree with Donald Trump or you don't — I certainly have quite a few things I find very concerning about this Trump administration — But he certainly is working to do something every day, right? And I think Democrats can take that lesson.

Gray made an interesting comment about the language Democrats use when communicating with voters, specifically emphasizing how he intentionally frames himself as a “worker,” not as a “fighter.”

We talked on the campaign about using the word “work” every time one of the political consultants wanted to use the word “fight.” And I said I don't want to see the word fight in my literature, in my speeches, in my commercials. Because we don't elect people to fight for us.

In fact, it's kind of juvenile to say, “oh, I'm fighting for you. I'm fighting for that. I'm fighting.”

Well, how about you get to work and do something? How about that? How about when you come home from Washington or Sacramento, you show me the new road that's paved or built.

I remember I voted for an infrastructure act back in California. And every day for three years after the passage of that infrastructure act, I touched base with my county government about a road that we had funded that was really important to the community. I got to know the guys on the crew that were building the road because I drove out there in my truck and introduced myself, and I told them I wanted regular updates. And if you run into any problems, call me.

That's what people want.

Do some work. Ultimately, make my life better.

I just think voters are really looking for their elected leaders to make their lives better and engage in the important work and not the fight. I think we've had way too much fight in our politics, and it doesn't accomplish anything. Nobody's life is better at the end of the day, and I think voters are real tired of it. And I think we really do need to turn a new page in politics where we reengage with what being in elected office really means, which is A, representing your district and being authentic to that place, not a political party or anybody else, and B, doing the work each and every day in a meaningful way and caring about the results. Not just the rhetoric, but actually delivering results, you know for the people that sent you there to do a job. Because in fact, that's what it is at the end of the day. It's a job.

Since Gray was able to win over Trump voters in his district, I asked him what his response was to the fact that swing and Republican voters are still largely in support of Trump despite the challenges the Trump Administration has caused, and further, what lessons Democrats are learning or should learn as we look to 2026.

I think it really illustrates the point when Trump has cratered the stock market, your 401k, has pushed a budget proposal through Congress that looks to decimate your healthcare, and the price of eggs and food because of tariffs is getting higher by the day — the fact that voters say, “hey, we're still going to give them a chance,” says something about what voters think of the alternative.

And what's the alternative? Well, the alternative is Democrats being in charge.

And so if they're willing to lose all their money, have their food be more expensive and their healthcare be terrible before they're willing to vote for a Democrat then we might want to look in the mirror and ask ourselves why.

I think the most incredible lesson — as the guy who beat a Republican in a Trump district, the only guy who did it in the country — I think the lesson learned is we got to represent our districts. And it's why I've leaned in so heavily to the Blue Dog mission.

We're out recruiting Blue Dog candidates around the country. We're talking to supporters in every community from New York to California to Florida to Texas to Washington. And we want to build a movement of Democrats who want to embrace diversity, embrace representing your district first, and change Washington to a place that delivers results, not rhetoric.

And so I think if candidates around the country want to follow that recipe, I think they're going to find success no matter what kind of district they come from.

Lastly, as in every episode, I asked Gray what’s one depolarizing activity listeners can do to help depolarize our politics.

I'll never forget a conversation Sen. Alex Padilla and I had over dinner in my freshman year [in the legislature] where I was asking him where he got some of his ideas for creative legislation and different things. He was educated at MIT and had kind of an interesting background for an elected official.

And he talked about how he would read magazines that were outside the political discourse: Things like Wired magazine or various science and technology stuff and things that weren't bringing a political perspective but just were talking about cutting edge innovation and across a lot of different sectors. And that when you pick up and read those pieces and learn about what's going on in the world — a lot of innovative ideas and how that translates into public policy that can make the world a better place.

So I guess I would say a great depolarizing activity is read some abnormal publications, get outside of your box, don't just watch the same news stations — watch some interesting documentaries or things about subjects that maybe you didn't even know you were interested in. And I think as we expand our minds and have a more diverse set of interests and we learn a diverse set of information, I think a lot of good can happen.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers. You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute.

Be sure to sign up to join Rep. Gray at WelcomeFest on June 4 in DC!

First elected in a competitive race in 2012, Rep. Schneider lost his re-election bid in a competitive rematch against his Republican challenger 2014. He was then re-elected in 2016 and has since won re-election in his district with significant margins of victory.

Rep. Schneider was recently elected by many of his Democratic peers in Congress to serve as Chair of the New Democrat Coalition, commonly known as the New Dems caucus.

Founded in 1997, the center-left New Democrat Coalition is made up of 115 pragmatic House Democrats who work across the aisle and across the Capitol to advance innovative, inclusive, and forward-looking policies. Representing over half the Democratic Caucus, New Dems are united behind a mission to build an economy that works for every American.

New Dems work to bridge the partisan divide with a solutions-oriented approach to politics.

New Dems were a co-sponsor of last year’s inaugural WelcomeFest. You can join us at WelcomeFest 2025 on June 4 in Washington, DC!

In our conversation, I asked Rep. Schneider how he and his fellow New Dems wield their power as the largest coalition of Democrats in the U.S. House.

115 is a big number. You can start with that number, but if I break it down into the individuals who make up that total, we have 115 members who bring a wealth of knowledge and know-how. They've got incredible experience. Some are long-term members of Congress, and 25 new members are serving in their first term.

What we're trying to do is make sure we empower and unleash the talent we have within the New Dems. We've established nine different working groups that reflect pillars like growing the economy, healthy and safe neighborhoods, and strong national defense and national security. We've got an economic working group that's looking at bringing manufacturing back, and responding to and addressing Trump's whiplash approach to tariffs. We have a housing and infrastructure working group. We have a rural revitalization working group.

It's those working groups that really empower the Members to make a difference. We're also supporting our members in their various work within the committee structure. Several committee ranking leaders are New Dems.

We make sure we're giving everyone the platform to communicate. We're providing resources to help them be better at what they do. We share information together, and then we stay engaged with leadership.

Because our podcast is called The Depolarizers, I asked Rep. Schneider how he and the New Dems lead political depolarization efforts among fellow Members and with voters.

I think one of the reasons Members are attracted to the New Dems is because the way we approach our job in the coalition is the way they approach their job [as Members of Congress]. They're not the flamethrowers. People often talk about workhorses and showhorses — New Dem members are the workhorses. We roll up our sleeves, we get it done.

We all got here to this position as members of Congress because we have succeeded in our prior careers — whether that was in business or law or medicine or agriculture — working with others, understanding that many the old African proverb, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” We know we go further when we work together. So just naturally, we have people who come in and bring that approach with them. These are people who work together within the coalition.

But if you look at our members, you're going to see they're the ones who are wandering on the floor talking to Republican colleagues, looking for those opportunities where we may disagree on a lot of issues, but if we can find common ground to move forward for the benefit of our constituents and for our country, we can do that as well.

I'm on the Ways and Means Committee. One of the bills that was passed on suspension, meaning it had an overwhelming majority in the House, was a bill I worked on with Rep. Randy Feenstra that makes it easier for people — when there's a simple math error on their tax return — to get the information, correct it, and set things right — common sense stuff. It’s not going to change the world, it's not going to save the planet, but it's going to make live people's lives a little bit easier. Those are the things we work at doing together.

If you look at our members and how they talk at home, they're having town halls. They're talking to our neighbors and our folks at home. We're hearing the anger. Hopefully it's not personally directed at us individually, but it's directed at Washington. We hear that anger. We talk about it.

I say when I'm home that I run as a Democrat, but I represent everybody — Democrats, Republicans, whether you voted for me, you didn't vote for me, or you didn't vote at all. We represent everybody.

I think that's the style of the New Dems, and that's why, 85 of 87 New Dem incumbents who ran last year in a difficult year for Democrats came back to Congress.

Rep. Schneider and I also discussed how to address weaknesses the Democratic Party and brand are experiencing among voters, even from voters within our own party:

I think there's a great frustration with government in general. There was a lot of frustration in the last election… A lot of reasons for people to be frustrated. And we hear that. At the same time, I'll point to the election last night in Florida — even though Democrats lost, they closed the gap. There were two special elections in Florida. In one, Democrats did 22% better than in November, and in the other, 16% better. That's a moral victory or a pyrrhic victory. It's not something you hang your hat on but look at more as a vector, as an arrow pointing in the direction that, yes, we're hearing people are mad at the Democrats. But they're not happy with the Republicans either.

And then you point to Wisconsin, where you had a big victory that was a nonpartisan race, but it clearly was Democrats versus Republicans.

You look in Pennsylvania and the special Senate state house election, where a Democrat won in a region for the first time since the 19th century, more than a hundred years. That's a big deal.

And so we need to look at that.

We can't say everything's hunky-dory — Democrats lost last November. We lost the House, we lost in the Senate, and we lost the White House. There was a rebuke. Don't take it as a rejection.

The Republicans, I think, are taking their hand too far. [2024] wasn't an embrace of everything Republicans were talking about — I think it was people wanting something different. They want to know that the future is going to get better, that life's going to get easier, that we can expect our standard of living to rise, that we can expect our kids to get educated safely and have a future that allows them to pursue and achieve their aspirations and not take on a mountain of debt just to get there.

They want to know that the government's putting their interests, their concerns, their priorities front and center — putting their interests first.

But we can't ignore America's responsibility in the world either. And the more we talk about that and demonstrate that we know how to govern — I think New Dems have always done that. We're doing it. We're growing. I think the New Dems are in a great position to lead the charge for the Democrats to take the House back in 2026.

The New York Times editorial board recently published an op-ed titled, “The Democrats are in Denial About 2024,” where they noted: “In the aftermath of this comprehensive defeat, many party leaders have decided that they do not need to make significant changes to their policies or their message. They have instead settled on a convenient explanation for their plight,” including excuses for post-pandemic inflation, international trends of incumbent losses, and voters not turning out (when in reality, nonvoters favor Trump).

I asked Rep. Schneider about his response to this charge for Democrats to change, and how the New Dems intend to implement changes.

I saw the editorial, and I share the concern. I look at folks in my party who say, ‘No, we just didn't do enough. We should not do anything different; we should just do it more.’

If you do more of the same, you're going to get more of the same results. We have to do things different. We have to have a cold eye review of where we succeeded last time, but also where we failed. And we failed to take a majority in the House. We failed to hold a majority in the Senate. We failed to keep Donald Trump and Project 2025 out of the White House. And we're suffering the consequences of that now.

We can point that we only lost by the presidential elections by a percent or two. We lost.

We started this conversation talking about how I won by one, and then I lost by two.

People say, ‘well, why did you lose?’ And I could point to a whole bunch of things. My answer is always the same: I lost because I got fewer votes.

So what did I learn? Go out and get more votes. Get more votes by connecting with the people who were going to go to the polls and casting their ballots and make sure they cast their ballots for me. That means listening to them. That means understanding what matters to them. That means trying to help them appreciate what we're working on is going to make their lives better, their children's future better, their communities stronger, the country as a whole stronger. We need to focus on that.

And there are principles that we can lay out that are core to who we are and according to who we are as a country… We have to meet people where they are. We have to hear what they're saying to us. And we have to speak to them in the language that they're speaking to us in. And if we can restore that type of leadership, which is what New Dems have been doing, you're going to see a coalition that grows from 42 a decade ago to 100 a year ago to 115 today, with more people wanting to join us. We flipped 9 seats last cycle from Republican to New Dem Democrat. We showed how to do it.

Learn from those lessons, but we have to take it all together and come up with a new strategy, not more of the same. Build on what worked, look at what didn't work, fix what has to be fixed. And if it's not fixable, we're going to try new things.

Lastly, I asked Rep. Schneider what pitfalls the left should avoid in potential wins in 2026 that could hurt the Party in a presidential election in 2028.

I would say the first thing is we've got to make sure that the pendulum, which has gone way too far — I think that's the backlash against Elon Musk, who thinks he's a self-appointed king, oligarch, whatever term you want to use — that we don't swing it back too far the other way.

We recognize that, again, what I said before, I run as a Democrat, but I'm elected to represent everyone in the 10th District of Illinois. We may win the majority, but we have a responsibility to hear and represent the entire country and that it’s not run forward to the exclusion…

We need to focus on the business of the American people, and recognize that we can't do everything all at once.

We should lay out that this is our plan, these are our priorities, one, two, three, four, five.

We'll start with the first one. We'll methodically move forward and emphasize that there is a place for everyone in our caucus and that we are not excluding the Republicans — We're welcoming them to join us as we move the country forward.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers. You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute.

Be sure to join us at WelcomeFest on June 4 in DC!

Reed writes about centrism and rejecting extremism on his Substack, Maverick.

You can catch Reed at WelcomeFest on June 4 in Washington, DC! RSVP here.

To start, I asked Reed about the depolarizing organizations he’s helped lead in the past two election cycles, Biden Republicans and Republicans for Harris.

We started Biden Republicans as a grassroots organization because people kept asking for ways to be involved that honored the fact that they were Republicans. We saw a real need to create a permission structure so folks could hold onto this identity that mattered deeply to them while making a clear statement that Donald Trump was unacceptable to their conservative values and Republican identity.

That's how it began. We put together a social media account, did a call for like-minded people, and organized virtual town halls. The pandemic had just started, and at our first meeting, we had a guest speaker and about 13 attendees, which felt good. We thought, "Okay, there are 13 Republicans here." At the next meeting, we had around 30 attendees. Then we decided to organize another rally to help people talk with their Republican family members and neighbors about why they should put country over party. About 300 people attended the next event, and by the fifth one, attendance grew to around 3,000.

We decided to start broadcasting these rallies to a bigger audience on social media. Toward the end of the campaign, about 400,000 people participated in these virtual rallies. Just think about it—Republicans were coming together to learn how to talk to other Republicans about supporting the Democratic nominee. It was a historic sign that the leader of the Republican Party at the time was unfit to serve.

The energy around people recognizing something was wrong while still needing a tribe to belong to is one of the most important lessons that remains relevant today. We are a tribal people; politics needs to be community-based and community-driven. Finding ways for people to take a fundamental step like breaking with their own party requires coalition-building and fostering a sense of community.

Reed and I discussed the intra-party tension on the right, focused on the divide between the populist right and old-school conservatives:

I'm deeply troubled by what we're seeing on the right, especially by the rise of nativism in the party, the rise of demonizing folks who we might not agree with or folks who are from different backgrounds than us. It's a real problem, and the fact that it has been a winning strategy now for the last 12 years within the Republican Party means that it's going to stick around for a little bit. It's going to take a really concerted effort to push that ideology out of the GOP, and it might be something that we are contending with for the next 20 to 30 years of our political life.

The values of liberal democracy, of an open society, of a place that embraces pluralism, need a champion. It requires people to be courageous, and particularly requires leaders to step up and speak out. A lot of folks have written off Washington and said there's no way we're going to have an elected [Republican] senator or representative speak out against Donald Trump and some of the loudest siren voices. I would push back on that and say, maybe nobody currently exists that's willing to do that. But at the end of the day, the biggest way to shift the narrative and the ideology of the party is by electing a leader who can win on those ideas. The lifeblood of politics is winning elections. So we have to be engaging in the battle of politics in order to win the ideological debate.

In conservative history, William F. Buckley pioneered this fusionist model of conservative politics, and Ronald Reagan gave those ideas force because he won. I don't think we're going to have a meaningful shift back towards a more pro-democracy, pro-pluralism Republican Party without an elected leader who can take us there. We need to generate ideas, we need think tanks to form, we need a media ecosystem to share ideas, we need grassroots folks to organize and mobilize and not give up hope. But ultimately, it's going to take a leader to run on these ideas and bring them to life.

We discussed the ways that Harris struggled to distance herself from her in 2019 positions, and how that affected support among the Republican voters Reed was working to engage:

Absolutely, Harris wasn’t a credible centrist to so many voters who were center-right or conservative and voted for Joe Biden in 2020—that's just the pure fact. A lot of it has to do with the statements she made during her 2019 primary campaign and her inability to effectively communicate that she had changed her position. She was unwilling to clarify beyond saying, "My values have remained the same, but my policies have changed." Her reluctance to dive into specifics left voters with many unanswered questions, which ultimately hurt her.

Being authentic and demonstrating a lifetime commitment to a consistent set of values is something voters genuinely care about today, and I imagine this will continue to be important moving forward. Consider someone like Bernie Sanders, who has consistently identified as a Democratic Socialist throughout his career: when he gained national prominence in 2016, people really responded to his authenticity. This is why someone like Andy Beshear, who has governed pragmatically throughout his career, or Josh Shapiro, who has been an incredible leader in Pennsylvania, will likely attract centrist and center-right voters in future elections.

And, as with all of our guests, I asked Reed how listeners can depolarize their lives:

I think the number one thing is to go do something in your community. The other day, I went with my church, and we made meals for kids who were hungry. It wasn't related to politics at all, but it was so fun just to get together with people from my neighborhood and do something for folks in need. Building up that connective tissue is the number one thing we can do to depolarize our communities.

Life is so much bigger than politics. If you're spending too much time on Twitter, reading the news, and worrying about the world, of course, you're going to feel distraught and hopeless. But if you get outside, start talking to your neighbors, and serve your community, that's how we build the thriving democracy we want. Mother Teresa said, "If you want to change the world, go home and love your family." I think we need more of that—more time with our loved ones, friends, trivia nights, book clubs, and helping feed people in need—rather than spending all our energy on political battles.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers. You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute. Be sure to join us at WelcomeFest on June 4 in DC!

Bera, a medical doctor, is one of about 20 medical professionals in the U.S. House and is the son of Indian immigrants.

In April 2022, Bera was one of nine people attacked by a rabid fox outside the US Capitol. He quipped afterward, "I expect to get attacked if I go on FOX News; I don't expect to get attacked by a fox." This incident led him to introduce legislation to help uninsured people afford rabies treatment.

Bera is a true depolarizer. Despite being political opponents in 2010, Bera formed an unlikely friendship with Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, who designed attack ads against him for Bera’s Republican opponent. The two bonded over golf and their shared criticism of Donald Trump, demonstrating Bera's ability to form connections across party lines. More on that depolarizing friendship later.

I started out asking Bera how he’s approaching Trump’s second term, and if his approach differs from Trump’s first administration:

My approach to the current Trump administration is different from his first term in 2017. Back then, many felt the public disliked Hillary Clinton or that she ran a poor campaign, neglecting Pennsylvania or Michigan—places where she lost the election. 2025 is different. The American public knows who Donald Trump is; he campaigned openly about his intentions, and they elected him. It's important for us Democrats to understand what the public is saying. Essentially, they're expressing concerns like, "My life's not getting better. I'm worried about my kids, housing, or retirement." When Trump talks about "America first," he's tapping into this sentiment—people wondering, "What about my life?" Supporting NATO and engaging in wars abroad may be commendable, but it hasn't improved their daily lives. Democrats need to acknowledge that.

Under the Biden administration, we achieved a lot—passing landmark legislation, including the bipartisan infrastructure bill and significant climate legislation, which younger generations particularly value. But these weren't enough, as many people still feel their lives haven't improved. Our goal should be improving Americans' lives. That's why I'm willing to meet Republicans at the 40-yard line or even their 35-yard line—but we can't let them push us into the end zone, because then we'd have to oppose those initiatives. You, as depolarizers, know that addressing polarization means coming together in the center.

We also discussed bipartisanship and understanding where his Republican colleagues are coming from:

There are 435 members of Congress, and each represents about 750,000 Americans. I'm a reflection of the people in Sacramento County who vote for me, electing and re-electing me. By that logic, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's my polar opposite, reflects her constituents in Georgia. They've elected and re-elected her. Instead of judging her, I should try to understand—what we're experiencing in California differs from what's happening in Georgia, Alabama, or elsewhere.

I genuinely try to get to know my Republican colleagues. Civility matters—understanding them personally and learning about their districts. Recently, I traveled to Arkansas to visit French Hill, a Republican member of Congress and good friend. We serve together on the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees. His district in Little Rock is a river city, just like Sacramento. They face flooding issues, as we do. They grow rice; we grow rice. Suddenly, you realize we're not so different.

That's what's missing. If Democrats and Republicans spent more time getting to know each other personally, civility would follow. Now, I haven't visited Marjorie Taylor Greene's district yet—I'm a little afraid she might yell at me—but I'm definitely working up the courage to get to know her.

A big topic of discussion post-election has been how Democrats can improve their standing with men. We discussed this as well.

The first step is showing up, talking to people, and most importantly, listening. At times, the Democratic Party has taken certain base voters—like Hispanic or African American voters—for granted. But these communities aren't monolithic. We need to engage directly, listen, and meet them where they are.

The gender issue is particularly interesting. Before Congress, I was Dean of Admissions at UC Davis Medical School. For at least the past two decades, about 65% of our future doctors have been women, aligning with undergraduate trends. We see a rising feminine generation—I think this will be a feminine century. However, many young men, especially in African American and Hispanic communities, feel left behind.

I believe Trump addresses a sense of lost masculinity, resonating with certain segments of men. Democrats must recognize this and provide opportunities for these men as well. That may explain why we lost support among younger African American and Hispanic males, especially those 35 and under. We need to actively engage these communities.

Trump taps into aspects of toxic masculinity. Similarly, figures like Elon Musk and certain "tech bros" seem to reflect that same toxic masculinity. How this will ultimately unfold remains unclear.

Circling back to the depolarizing friendship, I asked Rep. Bera about his friendship with Republican strategist Rob Stutzman:

You're referring to Rob Stutzman, who ran the first two campaigns against me. We've gotten to know each other. And when you set aside politics—campaigns can be a contact sport—we both genuinely care about the Sacramento region. We have far more in common than differences. I think that applies to most Americans. Ultimately, we all want to care for our families, get our kids to school, retire comfortably, and look after our communities. There's far more that unites us as Americans than divides us.

As with all of our guests, I asked Rep. Bera how we can depolarize our lives.

People should turn off cable news—it's too much of an echo chamber. Pick up newspapers instead. Try getting to know someone from the opposite political party as an individual. That's something that's changed significantly since I was a kid, or even a young adult. Democrats now mainly consume Democratic cable news or visit Democratic websites, and Republicans do the same with their own sources. That isn't healthy.

Make an effort to meet someone who sees things differently. Don’t judge them; just genuinely listen.

Conversation lightly edited for clarity.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers. You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute. Be sure to join us at WelcomeFest on June 4 in DC!

Rep. Suozzi served in Congress from 2017-2022 after a career of public service and was re-elected in 2024 in a special election in a district Biden won in 2020 by 11 points and Trump won in 2024 by 4 points.

Suozzi was recently appointed co-chair of the bipartisan Problems Solvers Caucus alongside Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01).

His win in NY-03 in 2024 in a Biden-to-Trump district highlights evidence of where Democrats have ample opportunity: winning over voters by talking about and having solutions for the issues that matter most to them.

“Let’s try something different in how we deal with Trump.”

In our discussion, I quote a New York Times op-ed Rep. Suozzi authored at the top of this year titled, “Let’s try something different in how we deal with Trump.”

“As a Democratic member of Congress, I know my party will be tempted to hold fast against Mr. Trump at every turn…That would be a mistake. Only by working together to find compromise on parts of the [President’s] agenda can we make progress for Americans who are clearly demanding change in the economy, immigration, crime and other top issues…Democrats should meet him halfway rather than be the party of no.”

Winning a Biden to Trump District

As I noted earlier, Suozzi’s district flipped from being a Biden district to a Trump district over the span of four years, even with changes in the district’s lines taken into consideration. Suozzi remarked about the changes:

I won by 11 points. Trump won by five and a half points… The Democratic brand is not good. It's bad in New York generally. You saw a lot of big moves, even though they stayed Democratic, a lot of big moves from Democratic to Republican. And that's related to public safety back in 2022 elections, bail reform, stuff like that. Then Republicans effectively weaponized crime. Now they're effectively weaponizing immigration. And Democrats have not responded to that. And I think that, generally, people are like, “how could you vote for Donald Trump?”

Don't ask, “how is that possible?” Ask, “why did you vote for Donald Trump?”

I think people were more afraid of the Democrats and the far left than they were of what Donald Trump's going to do. So we got a problem and we have to be willing to speak up about things that we disagree with in our base. Because most Democrats and I think most Republicans are normal people. The problem is everybody's afraid on both sides to stand up to their base. So they happen to win this time, but they've got the same problem. We have to be willing to stand up to some of the more extreme things we're hearing from our base.

Immigration, Immigration, Immigration

You can tell Rep. Suozzi is passionate about creating solutions on immigration. To note, he was one of only 46 Democrats who supported the Laken Riley Act. Here’s one snippet from his remarks on immigration.

We need to give a modernization to our legal immigration system so that we protect the DREAMers and the temporary protective status folks that we invited to America after their earthquake, or their flood, or their civil war. We said, “come to America.” We need to give them some status. And our farm workers — 50 percent of our farm workers in America are probably undocumented. We need to take this energy behind immigration to finally, after 30 years of everybody pointing fingers at each other, to finally secure the border for real, fix the broken asylum system, treat people like human beings, and fix some of these broken systems.

Working with the Elephants in the Room

As co-chair of the Problems Solvers Caucus, Rep. Suozzi is committed to bipartisan collaboration and solution creation in Congress. I asked him about what issues his Republican colleagues in the caucus seem most committed to tackling with their Democratic peers.

We just did a questionnaire to ask everybody what they want to work on. A lot of people came back with permitting reform. I can't believe how many people want to work on permitting reform!

And, a lot of people want to work on the on the budget — on deficits and things like that. And there's all kinds of laws about individual one off things. There's so much bipartisan stuff that actually happens in Congress every week. We start the week by voting on what are called suspension bills, where you suspend the rules. But to pass the bill, it has to pass by like three quarters. We do that every week, and you never hear about that stuff. Sometimes it's important stuff.

I want to start promoting more of the bipartisan stuff that happens just so the American people can realize that there is stuff that people are working on. You said something earlier about, “stop thinking of everybody on the other side as being somebody evil.” I mean, there are bad guys or bad women on the Republican side. And there's people that they would say are bad on our side. But most people are in elected office because they want to make the world a better place to live in. And they want to do the right thing. And we've got to stop this whole holding people in contempt. You can disagree with people without thinking they're evil or they're your enemy.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to WelcomeStack hear new episodes of The Depolarizers. You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute.

But that system, sparked by Southern whites leaving the Democratic Party, appears to be coming to an end. What happens next will tell the story of a generation and a new chapter for America.

That’s why I was excited to talk to Marshall Kosloff, who hosts The Realignment, a podcast covering the transformation of American politics in the wake of Donald Trump's 2016 victory.

In addition to hosting The Realignment, Marshall is a media fellow at Hudson Institute, where he hosts the Arsenal of Democracy podcast. He is also Executive Producer of Endless Frontiers, an upcoming national competitiveness summit in Austin, Texas, where he works as an Entrepreneur-in-Residence at America's Frontier Fund.

One thing I really admire about Marshall’s political analysis is his ability to look at the big picture, always seeking to identify the issues that define and drive our politics. Marshall and I discussed a number of interesting topics in this episode that I think you’ll enjoy, but here are a few key threads I wanted to elevate.

Realignment and Big Ideas

In context for the 2024 election cycle, Marshall references the work of Depolarizers guest Patrick Ruffini in understanding America’s primary realignment as a shift from racial identity becoming less salient and class and education identity becoming more salient. He points to the example of a young man in Texas: to determine how he will vote, you likely want to know whether he has a college degree rather than whether or not he’s Latino or Black. While this seems obvious now, it was not the way Republicans saw politics in 2013.

The Disadvantages of Left Populist Efforts, and the Limits of Polling

As two Southerners discussing politics, Marshall and I share a lot in common when it comes to recognizing Democrats’ weaknesses in strategies and assumptions for winning over less ideological voters. Marshall notes that to overcome some of its Party’s weaknesses, many Democrats are pointing to the need for “left populism.” Under Biden, Democrats tried this left populist approach, blaming higher prices on “greedflation,” for instance. Greedflation comes from the Democratic focus on polling and public opinion. Left populists will point to endless polls showing support for policies like single-payer healthcare, tuition-free college, and other left-wing goodies, but when these policies are actually on the ballot, they fail. Vermont’s attempt to pass single-payer healthcare led to a Republican becoming governor, and he has remained undefeated since. Marshall argues that these left populist tactics didn’t work as well as right populism because the right has merged a socio-political critique with their economic critique, whereas progressive policies are seen as primarily benefiting the college educated at the expense of the working class.

As Democrats shift their strategies to regain ground Republican populists like Trump and Vance have made, I asked Marshall about the blind spots that may exist for the Democrats who are trying to emulate the populist tactics they’re seeing from the right.

Marshall’s response noted a recent conversation he’d had with Senator Chris Murphy.

“The left populist approach we tried during the Biden administration, said, hey, college is crazy expensive, you have debt, so we're going to offer to have your student loans forgiven or we're going to make college free for you. If people don't want to go to college in the first place, that isn't as appealing of a pitch to you. And it's going to basically sound like, oh, this is about forgiving the student loans of people who aren't you and basically making you pay for it. Or they're saying you should do this thing you don't want to do in the first place. So that is just a real blind spot. And the other real blind spot, too, is around… the arguments around going against big industry… The left populist take is, look, we need to talk more about billionaires, and we need to talk more about corporations and how they’re screwing everyone over. I pointed this out to Senator Murphy on our podcast. We tried greedflation in 2022. There was aggressive messaging around the idea that this was greedy corporations getting together in ways that raised prices… But did the greedflation message break through? Was that what people were really interested in? No, it wasn't interesting. Chris Murphy pointed out that these things take time. So his pitch is for a Democratic Party that makes this pitch for the next few years. But my response is that left populism isn't existing in a vacuum. So it's not this question of, okay, insert greedy corporations and billionaires making everything bad. It's the reality of the right pitch is going to be, sure, billionaires suck. That's a thing. That happens. We don't like Wall Street either. But actually, it's Joe Biden and his massive spending bills that caused this problem… Which is more compelling? Greed-flation or, hey, out of touch, old Joe Biden and his friends are spending all this money that made the debt go really high and made inflation go really high. That is just much, much, much more compelling… You have to deal with ideas that aren't your own. They treat left populism like a talisman. Like, OK, so deploy universal health care, deploy free college, deploy universal labor participation — not understanding that there's just very little proof that this stuff is appealing enough in the first place.”

The Melting Pot of Democratic ideals

Since Marshall has discussed the Abundance agenda a good deal on his podcast, I asked him about what he would prescribe as the perfect “concoction” of Democratic ideals that could include progressive, populist, Abundance, and centrist ideologies. He cited a line from his winter reading, The Emerging Democratic Majority by John Judis and Depolarizers guest Ruy Teixeira.

“It actually included a line towards the end that no one ever cites: There are all these debates about the future of the Democratic Party. Are we going to be more centrist? Are we more left? At the end of the day, we should recognize that politics is actually about synthesis. There's never any one faction that actually wins. We read back on Bill Clinton winning in 1992, and we said to ourselves look, he was the DLC, new Democrat, centrist guy. No, he actually campaigned. He had that, but he also campaigned very, very, very aggressively populist… So we should just note that it's not a choice over whether we're more left or more centrist. Like actually some coalition that's going to merge these things together are going to be really, really critical.

What the Center Needs to Compete

We at Welcome continue to work to grow a centrist faction for Democrats, so I asked Marshall what he thinks the ecosystem for partisan centrism needs to thrive in the years to come.

“What the center really needs to do is start with its critique that the status quo DC system is broken, and to what degree can the center bring in outside people?… To what degree can the centrists find JD Vance people? Because — something I learned from spending all this time on the right — is that the right was very good about elevating JD: JD gets a think tank fellowship at AEI. JD gets support to launch a nonprofit. He gets all these different, and that's very, very frustrating… So if you look at the right, there are so many academic programs where you can get paid to read Tocqueville. You can get paid to debate the thought of Christopher Lasch. You can get paid to debate these realignment projects as a high school student. And the funding exists because there are all these big Republican donors who are like, oh yeah, our existing institutions are centered around elites. Republicans recognize that colleges basically only serve left people on your average university campus, so they went on to build their own infrastructure to elevate ideas. And that just doesn't exist on the left. As I did more of these programs, I started getting all these LinkedIn messages from all these left of center kids who are like, hey, I saw you did this program, but I listened to The Realignment and you seem pretty centrist. Why don't these programs exist for me? Why aren't there more spaces like this that take ideas seriously?

As Marshall lays out, Democrats have ample opportunity to learn from their past, their mistakes, and their opposition on the right.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers. You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute.

Josh is an independent journalist who writes the publication Very Serious here on Substack. He previously wrote for The New York Times, New York Magazine, and Business Insider.

A few things stood out to me in our conversation.

Trump’s Strategic Moderation

Barro notes that Trump was successful in moving the Republican Party to the center on issues that hurt Romney in 2012 (Social Security and Medicare) and Republican U.S. Senate candidates in 2022 (abortion):

Donald Trump has really, in certain ways, moved the Republican Party toward the center on issues like Social Security, Medicare, gay marriage, compared to where the party was under Mitt Romney, and there have been electoral dividends for that. You saw him in this election trying really hard to run away from unpopular positions on abortion that are an electoral liability, liability for Republicans, but not as large a liability as they would be if Trump had not been explicitly trying to cultivate a moderate image on that issue. And I think Democrats in this campaign did not effectively succeed at adapting their positions to the median voter.

Liam wrote about this on WelcomeStack, noting the ways that voters approve of Trump’s unorthodox transition team. Trump was willing to buck his party on harsh cuts to popular programs and sought to distance himself from Project 2025. The result: voters saw Trump as more moderate than Harris. Harris did nothing to explicitly distance herself from ideological extremists in her party, and she couldn’t say “no” to any of the 300 Musketeers. Worse, she couldn’t even explain her own shifts on issues like immigration, domestic energy, and other key issues.

Strategic Opposition, Not Blanket Resistance

Looking forward, Barro talks about what he’ll be paying attention to in American politics: how Democrats approach a version of Trump with a popular vote mandate:

I'll be following especially the economic policy fights that happen in Washington. You know, there will be a major tax law passed, and even though Republicans are in the majority, they have such a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, I think there is likely to be an important role for Democrats to play in opposing bad ideas, but also in finding certain places to work together when Republicans will decide they actually need Democrats to get things done that they want to do. But I'll also be focusing on how the party can better position itself next time, and not get caught out on cost of living and crime and immigration in particular, as issues where, you know, voters just perceive the Democrats as being out of touch and not focused on their everyday concerns, causing them to choose Republicans.

Unlike in 2016 (and in 2020), Trump did not lose the popular vote in 2024. He won, and he swept the core swing states.

In our conversation, Barro points to immigration and energy as two plausible areas for Democrats to collaborate with Trump. According to polling from Blueprint, those are two areas where Democrats are most out of touch with voters’ views. Democrats have embraced popular policies to increase American energy independence, yet refused to discuss them on the campaign trail.

Breaking With Your Party

When I asked Barro about leaders for the Party’s future, he pointed to Gov. Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania. Barro points out that Shapiro doesn’t always break with his party to the center but instead finds non-ideological ways to signify ideological independence:

One of his initiatives, for example, is making many more government jobs in Pennsylvania available to people regardless of whether or not they have a college degree. I think he's pointed out correctly that we have a certain amount of credentialism in this society, and, you know, we haven't thought deeply about whether this degree requirement is actually necessary for this specific role? I think it's a smart way to do government hiring, but it's also, it's not a left-right issue. It's something you can put out there. And it's not, “oh, I'm in favor of that because I'm conservative or I'm liberal.” It's a way to sort of get around the usual divides and appeal to people on both sides.

Barro also notes that Shapiro is willing to stand up to his own party, even on hot-button issues like covid restrictions:

But also, maybe more importantly, he's shown a willingness to stand up to people in the party coalition when they want to do things that are unpopular. Circa 2022 when he was still Attorney General, and in 2023, you had these efforts to reimpose pandemic era covid restrictions in certain circumstances, for example, in the city of Philadelphia. A lot of Democrats knew that was unpopular at that point and knew the country was ready to move on, but they didn't want to get yelled at on social media. There were some people in our coalition who were very passionate about the idea that we should basically wear masks and hide in our homes forever. And he was able to come out and say that what the city of Philadelphia is doing is wrong, and I oppose it.

Let’s face it: over-performers break with their party. The top Republican over-performers have bucked their party on healthcare (Brian Fitzpatrick voted against ACA repeal), Trumpism (David Valdao voted to impeach), and LGBTQ rights (a number of swing state Republicans voted to protect same-sex marriage). On the Democratic side, the biggest over-performers buck with their party on energy (Mary Peltola supported the Willow pipeline), student debt cancellation (Marie Gluesenkamp Perez opposed student debt cancellation), and government spending (Jared Golden voted against the stimulus package, and campaigned on fighting inflation).

Candidates who toe the party line will struggle to win tough races if they don’t have any issues where they can differentiate themselves from other Democrats and appeal to independent-minded voters.

Society and Trump

Barro and I discussed the way that non-political institutions like media and the science community were politicized during Trump’s first term, to negative effect:

It's the way that so much of the press conceived itself as in opposition to Donald Trump. And they were tempted to do that in part because Donald Trump conceives himself in opposition to the press. The fight was brought to them, and they chose to take it, and for a time, it sold subscriptions at places like The Washington Post. There was also a business reason to do it. But a lot of journalists became very openly advocates over the past 10 years or so, and even though those people very often really do have deep subject matter expertise and know a lot about the subjects they're reporting on, it makes it very difficult for people to trust them when they realize that the values they hold are different from the values that dominate within those newsrooms, which are almost entirely staffed by not just Democrats, but you get into younger generations who are very left wing, and I think that's been a huge problem for press credibility. And it's very difficult to fix because this is your personnel, and it comes from the bottom.

As one example, a study of Nature’s endorsement of Biden found that it did very little to convince voters to support Biden, but did a lot to erode readers’ trust in Nature. Bringing politics into science and media only erodes already declining institutional trust.

Reality vs. Apology

Lastly, Barro pointed out some of the real-life implications of immigration policy that voters, particularly voters of color with various ethnic backgrounds, want Democrats in power to address:

It's appropriate for people to be concerned when they walk out of their house and see prostitution or shoplifting. I live in New York City. There was a huge swing toward Republicans in the outer boroughs, especially Hispanic and Asian neighborhoods in the outer boroughs. There was a very good piece for New York Magazine by Simon van Zuylen-Wood, who went out to Corona, which is a very Hispanic neighborhood in Queens. There's a specific problem with prostitution on Roosevelt Avenue, the main drag through there, and a lot of trafficking that is being done by Venezuelan migrants. And you have a lot of people who themselves are immigrants to the United States, often from Latin America, who are complaining about what's going on with all these new Venezuelan migrants around them. It's not racist to be concerned about that, and it is not unusual to be concerned about that. I think the Democratic Party tried to make a turn toward that at the end of the Biden Administration. I think pushing toward the Lankford bill on border security was a good choice. They should have done it three years earlier. But, for too long, they listened to the so-called groups that just saw lax immigration enforcement as good in itself. Democrats eventually learned that “the groups” have no political juice. There's no real political constituency in the United States for uncontrolled migration into the country. So I think on that issue, Democrats sort of figured out most of where they needed to get on it. They just did it too late.

As Barro hits on throughout our conversation, Democrats have ample opportunity to change course and recalibrate to where voters are on a range of policy and cultural issues.

We’re hopeful the Party can make the appropriate adjustments, and we look forward to joining forces as a coalition to execute on solutions and empower the leaders involved.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers. You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute.

A member of Gen Z herself, Rachel is a Gen Z expert and researcher focused on youth culture and the evolving civic engagement of this generation. The founder of The Up and Up, a newsletter about young voters focused on the cohort’s civic attitude and aptitude, Rachel has convened listening sessions with hundreds of young people across the country.

In the 2024 election cycle, Rachel’s coverage of young voters included pieces on “a need for values > virality,” “Generation Dissatisfied,” and “the youth gender divide.”

You may remember Rachel as a speaker at this year’s WelcomeFest, where she joined a panel discussion following a Blueprint polling presentation by Milan Singh on young voters and the ways that political campaigns and the media portray and communicate with these voters.

Team Normal in Gen Z

In this episode of The Depolarizers, Rachel touches on some interesting topics including how to reach “Team Normal” among America’s youngest voters, and what trends she expects to see from young voters in the years to come.

On the topic of reaching the average young voter, Rachel notes:

One thing that I've tried really hard to do — and it's really tricky for this reason — is find young, moderate young people who actually represent the vast majority of the youth electorate. Because the easiest way to find the sort of political spokespeople is to go to these specific groups and reach them through these associations. But the reality is that the people who are actually opting into these associations are a very specific type of person who in college or after their work day ends, they're going to the young-whatever-it-is meeting that takes its particular type of person. Whereas there are young people who are just going about their daily lives, whether it's they're in college and they're in fraternities and sororities, or they're out of college and they're in an intramural soccer league after work ends, or they're a young mom and they're just trying to make it home to feed their kids, whatever it is, these are the young people who we need to be talking to about politics because their beliefs represent where the vast majority of young people are. And I think it's really important that these civic engagement groups and these political groups exist because it's great that young people are politically engaged — that's literally what I've written in my newsletter about — but at the same time, if we just focus on those people, that would be like talking about politics, but only focusing on the politicians, and not the voters.”

You may remember a piece on young voters I co-authored in The Liberal Patriot (back when I still qualified as a young voter), where we noted:

While you’re unlikely to hear it on the news, not only does the median young voter identify as a moderate, but the Harvard Youth Poll found that 18-29 year old Americans are a more moderate cohort than the public at large.

And, more recently, here on WelcomeStack I also wrote about “The Chart That Made Us Double-Take” this election cycle.

Where Gen Z Goes From Here

Rachel noted that, like many generations, Gen Z can be segmented into two sub-generations aptly defined by what type of phone may have been their first cell phone, and at what stage of their educational careers they experienced the covid pandemic:

For the youngest part of Gen Z, the people who are in high school now, they only know iPhones and smartphones; they only know a world where TikTok is a dominant social media platform that has literally changed culture and changed the way other platforms’ algorithms work. There are ways that they're attuned to consuming information that looks a bit different, and it's crazy because we're literally all in the same generation. I say this all the time — my sister, we're not even six years apart, we could be of two different generations because of the different events and social media trends that have shaped our perspectives and our different experiences growing up. I think that's playing into politics as well. In this post-COVID era where young people are tired of political correctness and just want an authentic messenger who is telling it like it is, when they see someone like Trump, who is able to say what he wants, some young people love that about him. And by the way, let's just be clear, young voters still voted for Harris. They're just to the right. So it's not like an overwhelming majority, but there definitely is an appetite for that. And so in thinking about moving forward, I think young people are going to be craving that from politicians and be drawn toward politicians who are able to talk to them, and meet them where they are on the platforms they're on. But also it's not just about being on the platforms; it's about using the same language and the same rhetoric, which is one of the things I think is most important.

Another postmortem on Gen Z this cycle written by Young People Alliance’s Sam Hiner suggested:

At YPA, we’ve been discussing youth disempowerment for a while, and coined “post-partisan youth power” (say that five times fast) to describe the type of movement that could achieve youth-centered policy. Our goal with this phrase was to highlight how solving youth issues isn’t necessarily partisan, and these issues have been sidelined by both parties due to a lack of young people’s political power.

As we look to the future with America’s youngest voters, we can continue to work to Win the Middle, depolarize our politics, and find ways to strike the balance on critical policy issues.

We recommend checking out Rachel’s newest project, a qualitative research and consulting firm called Up and Up Strategies.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers. You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute.

Zivan’s book is a collection of essays from hitters ranging from our friends at Third Way, NY-01 candidate John Avlon, and U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens.

In his essay, Daniel Lubetzky writes about how “radicals wake up in the morning thinking about changing the world and moderates wake up in the morning thinking about lunch.” As centrists committed to a better, less polarized America, we must join our more radical neighbors in executing tactics that bring about this depolarization. 

More than just a Middle Ground

Zivan points out that centrists need a vision beyond just engaging in local elections; they must articulate to voters how centrists winning elections will cultivate a healthy society, and they must rally behind distinct principles, values, and the embrace of nuance in the process. It’s a provocative sentiment: rather than simply housing refugees from the far left and the far right, Zivan calls on centrists to articulate and adhere to their own values. Centrists in America commit to liberal democracy, tolerance, progress and incrementalism, and they defend their values fiercely against radicals who seek to destroy our system.

In that vein, I asked Zivan how we can depolarize America as part of our daily lives. His take was that the way to depolarize a country’s politics is to dream big and articulate a vision for what centrists want to see. Centrism is not merely standing between two extremes and splitting the difference. Centrism is standing for what’s right, regardless of which party is saying it. And most importantly, centrism can win. And if we don’t win, we can’t help anyone.

In the episode, Zivan spoke to this, noting: 

Centrism avoids the trap that the left and the right fall into. There are essentially two ways to fight extremism. One is to say, “I’ll try and appease them as much as I can. I’ll go toward them to keep them happy… and eventually I’ll moderate them because they’ll see there’s a reasonable option either on the fringes of the far right or the fringes of the far left, and that never works.” That option always fails. And it fails because extremists are so committed to their cause that they will never moderate, they drag you to where they want the debate to be, they pull us further apart, and they inevitably lead to more extremism. That idea is always going to fail. The alternative is to say, “here is the set of values.”

As Zivan notes, being a a centrist does not mean simply taking the middle between two extreme points. If Republicans say the 2020 election was stolen, and Democrats say it was legitimate, centrists do not simply say "the election was half stolen.” Instead, centrists proudly defend liberal democracy, emphasizing that American elections are legitimate processes.

When the left says “expand the court and add three justices,” and right says “keep the court as it is,” we don't say "add 1.5 justices.” Instead, we defend the institution of the Supreme Court.

Centrism is about defending the institutions of liberal democracy from the radicals on the left and right who believe that in order to achieve a utopian set of dreams, we must subvert our system, create an alternative set of facts, and move away from democracy.

The Principled Center

As we discussed in my conversation with Robb Willer, many people look at centrists and see a lack of moral vision. But the reality is that centrism is a profoundly moral vision. 

For Zivan, that looks like a deep commitment to liberal democracy and the institutions and principles that are its fundamental building blocks: a free press, an independent Supreme Court, and a strong civil society. He notes in the episode:

How do you defend those things, defend those institutions, even when you disagree with them? That is something that the center is uniquely positioned to do, and that’s why it’s the real antidote to the extremism that we’re seeing in so much of society.

So, what do you think? What are the values that define centrist “depolarizers?” Sound off in the comments. When I asked last time, one response was: 

Moderate is believing, as the liberals that we are, that the government can and should do things to help the people, environment, but usually with a more modest incremental approach. 

I love this! Far too many progressives sacrifice material progress for vulnerable populations at the altar of perfection. To me, that is deeply amoral. 

Other people claim that centrism can’t make for an exciting or compelling campaign topic – that we need things like Medicare for All or the Green New Deal to inspire voters. But when we look at ads from moderate Democrats, we’re pretty darn inspired. Take this ad from Will Rollins, or these ads from Mary Peltola and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. They all have concrete policy positions that uphold the sentiment of the “politics of hope” that Zivan talks about: 

Hope is an active virtue… There are plenty of examples where hope is successful as a political strategy, but beyond being helpful as a political strategy, it does something positive for society: you create a better society when you infuse people with the sense that things can get better, and you have a positive vision… To do that you have to offer a different kind of politics. When done well, hope wins, and it’s really successful.

Zivan also argues something we say often here at Welcome: the future is faction. He notes:

There is room for centrism in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party… We should be building big, strong centrist factions on both sides that can then turn to their leaders and say, “if you want to get anything done, you’re going to need our faction in the party a lot more than you’ll need the fringes of the party. And without us, you won’t be able to govern.”

Further, we found this recent deep dive into the ads of frontline Democrats by of Slow Boring to be informative and encouraging.

If moderates don’t excite the base, how do you explain the fact that the top fundraising Democrats Adam Frisch, Will Rollins, and Mary Peltola are all moderates? 

Zivan reminds us that centrism is inspiring, and I’d agree.

We recommend ordering a copy of Yair’s book, The Center Must Hold: Why Centrism is the Answer to Extremism.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers every Monday. You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute.

Robb Willer is Director of the Polarization and Social Change Lab at Stanford University. Since its inception, the lab has conducted cutting-edge research across the fields of social psychology, political science, sociology, organizational behavior, and cognitive science research to develop practical scientific knowledge and actionable solutions for pathways to a healthy democracy and strategies for social change.

In this episode of The Depolarizers, Robb and I discuss ways we can collectively exit America’s toxic political polarization as well as how both parties can improve the manner in which they speak to voters. 

Robb is also Co-Director of Stanford’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society.

What Type of Polarization Is Increasing

When Professor Willer thinks about polarization, he approaches it from two lenses:

• Willer distinguishes between elite polarization (among politicians and influential figures) and mass polarization (among everyday citizens). 

• He also differentiates between affective polarization (emotional dislike of opposing groups) and attitudinal polarization (disagreement on issues and policies). 

Willer notes that while all forms of polarization are increasing, attitudinal polarization among the general public is increasing less than other types of polarization. That means among voters, there has been less of a growing divide about what issues matter and what voters believe on those issues. Instead, what is commonly described as growing political polarization is more about elites becoming more affectively disdainful of the other side. That’s why we at Welcome still believe it’s possible to win the middle. 

How To Get What You Want

Another key theme in Willer’s work is the effectiveness of moral reframing in political persuasion. Willer's research proves that candidates and policies can gain broader support by connecting their messages to the moral values of their target audience, even if those values differ from the candidate's own base. This approach can help expand support among moderate voters and even cross-partisan voters without significantly losing support from one's existing base.

Perhaps Willer’s most famous study in the political world explores how moral reframing can be used by advocates to win policies they want. The study involves “Scott Miller,” a fictitious politician running for Congress. 

The study presented two versions of “Scott” from a policy perspective:

• Under the moderately-progressive policy conditions, participants learned that Scott Miller supported four relatively moderate progressive policies: setting up an infrastructure program with 200,000 new jobs, maintaining the Affordable Care Act in its current form, increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.50, and creating a parental leave program that would provide one month of paid leave for all working mothers. 

• Under the highly progressive policy conditions, Scott Miller supported setting up an infrastructure program with 5,000,000 new jobs, expanding Medicare to cover all uninsured Americans, increasing the minimum wage to $12.00, and creating a parental leave program that would provide three months of paid leave for all working mothers and fathers.

But in addition to policy, Scott was also given frames through which he presented his policies. For instance, one framed the policy around inequality and economic justice:

“I support these policies because they will help reduce economic inequality and promote economic justice. My federal infrastructure plan will create 200,000 jobs, good jobs with fair pay and benefits.” (Individualizing)

Another centered support for hard-working Americans: 

“I support these policies because showing respect for hard-working Americans is a sacred national tradition that I believe we must honor. My federal infrastructure plan will create 200,000 jobs, good jobs with dignity and respectable wages.” (Binding) 

The final focused more on a technical case rooted in the need for economic growth:

"My vision for America is to restore the unique levels of productivity that we have lost. The American economy was once a success story. But as of last year, our gross domestic product per capita was 11th place in the world. Now we need economic growth and good-paying jobs.” (Technical)

The chart below summarizes the results, which show that moderate and conservative voters are much more likely to prefer our friend Scott when he embraces the “binding” frame that is more focused on hard work and honor. Willer notes in his conversation with me that this shows the value in Democrats embracing more moderate rhetoric, even when embracing progressive policies. 

As we’ve noted on WelcomeStack, Democrats often pursue an approach that has proven to be contrary to the successful approach of our friend Scott Miller: they are using radical left-wing rhetoric to describe what is in fact a moderate, pro-American energy domestic agenda. 

Pragmatic and Idealistic Approaches to Politics

In our conversation, Willer also explores the tension between pragmatists and idealists, or as Willer calls them, “utopians,” in politics, particularly on the left. Pragmatists focus on achievable goals and institutional constraints, while idealists prioritize moral principles and transformative change. Willer argues that both approaches have merits, and finding ways for these groups to work together more effectively is crucial for achieving political goals.

Willer argues that it is good for social movements to organize around a shared moral vision, but many people don’t understand how important persuasion is in American politics. He notes that America’s diversity and the numerous veto points in our political system (Senate filibuster, federalism, Supreme Court) mean that change will always be slow and incremental, and he laments that more people don’t fully understand these limits on change. 

Willer cites the (currently unpublished) work of Rachel Ruttan and Katie DeCelles at the University of Toronto: people associated with moderate positions on political issues are seen as less moral and less morally motivated. He notes that in their research, voters see moderate stances and ask, “how can you be moderate on an issue like abortion? You must go one way or another. There's not really a reason to be in the middle.”

Willer finds that people who criticize moderates often miss a critical truth: a pragmatist may have a moderate policy position or support a candidate who is moderate — not just for the sake of being moderate, but due to a calculus that will allow them to behold values and achieve political goals through the reality of a pluralistic society and the polity of getting individuals elected.

In other words, pragmatists understand that in order to achieve their goals, they must think about the bigger picture.

This is particularly important when it comes to our heavily-polarized state legislatures. Talk to a state legislator in any super-minority, and they’ll likely note that pragmatism must be prioritized for their party to get most anything done. As we saw in the Scott Miller exhibit, advocates should use moderate rhetoric to achieve their political goals. 

Willer worries about a common reality in our flattened social media discourse: people end up getting pilloried for advocating for pragmatist positions, even when they have strong moral motivations and are taking those pragmatic positions for strategic reasons. He argues that these pragmatists are making a different calculus based on the specifics of implementation. Advocates should not attack pragmatists, claiming they don’t have gumption, conviction or investment, but rather understand that these pragmatists may have a better understanding of the real stakes of the issue. 

Willer recalls a tangible example of this in a trip to Washington, DC in 2019. During that visit, Willer met with staff of both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Blue Dog Caucus around the time when Medicare for All was in the news. Staff of the Progressive Caucus were making a moral argument that Democrats should stand for the ideal that all Americans should have healthcare, and that since a Democrat wasn’t in the White House at the time, they should use it as an opportunity to establish their moral goals. 

But then, Willer met with the Blue Dogs. These staffers told him that if their Members, who represented swing districts, voted for Medicare for All, they would lose their elections, which would make it much harder to get things done in 2021 because the Democratic majority would be smaller. They argued that even if Medicare for All somehow passed the House, it wouldn’t pass the Senate, and it would be vetoed by the President.

The Blue Dogs argued that keeping their Members in Congress was critical to making some progress — any forward progress — on the issue of healthcare. 

And, of course, the Blue Dogs were right: candidates who ran on Medicare for All that cycle were more likely to lose. Democrats nominated moderate Joe Biden as their nominee and beat Donald Trump. They were able to expand access to the healthcare subsidies of the Affordable Care Act, allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, and cap out-of-pocket drug spending. It was all made possible by the vote of Joe Manchin in the Senate and Democrats like Jared Golden, Mary Peltola and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in the House. 

The Activist’s Dilemma

Willer’s Social Change Research Lab has also done extensive research on what is called the “activist’s dilemma,” the idea that protest actions that are most likely to draw media attention because of their radicalism also reduce support for the movement and their goals. Willer argues that while salient actions may be useful early on in a movement to put issues on the agenda, over time, these actions will become less useful because the movement may be better served by “secret Congress.”

Take an issue like climate change. Initially, activists utilized extreme, attention-grabbing headlines to get their issue on the agenda with the “Green New Deal.” Once climate change was on the agenda, “Secret Congress” was the better avenue for progress, and many mainstream climate NGOs criticized the far-left rhetoric as unhelpful in a time when the pivotal vote on climate was Joe Manchin.  

In the primary Willer study, they analyzed two different anti-Trump protests:

• In the moderate protest condition, participants watched a video of a news report covering protesters outside of a Trump campaign event holding up signs and chanting at Trump supporters entering the event.

• In the extreme protest condition, participants watched news coverage of anti-Trump protesters gathering in the middle of a busy street, physically blocking carloads of Trump supporters from reaching a Trump campaign event and causing a traffic jam. The reporter covering the event describes the protesters as creating “a potentially dangerous situation” because their “actions are causing motorists to drive into oncoming traffic.”

Additionally, a control group was shown a 90-second video of men building a deck, which is fun to imagine.

As the chart below shows, those who saw the moderate anti-Trump protest became less supportive of Trump. However, those who saw the extreme anti-Trump protest became more supportive of Trump. 

The way to win is moderate protests against Trump – those that welcome a broad range of voters into the coalition against Trump.

Disagree Better

Finally, Willer shares encouraging research on the positive reception of bipartisan "disagree better" public service announcements, indicating that there may be more appetite for civil, cross-partisan dialogue than commonly assumed.

The research of the Stanford Polarization and Social Change Lab showed half of respondents three “Disagree Better” ads, and the other half three non-political public service announcements. These “Disagree Better” ads included a Republican and Democratic Governor expressing a desire to see more healthy disagreement (we enjoyed this ad where Cox is joined by Democratic Governor Jared Polis). 

The participants who viewed the “Disagree Better” ads rather than the control had lower partisan animosity and an increase in support for bipartisanship. 

How to Depolarize

Willer makes the case that the best way to depolarize is to try to actively pass legislation. By doing so, we familiarize ourselves with the realities of passing laws in a country as diverse as America. Seeing firsthand the struggles that lawmakers like the Blue Dogs face, Willer argues, helps voters better understand the real barriers to change, which may transform utopian idealists into pragmatists.

Like what you’re hearing? Share this podcast with your friends, and support our work to depolarize American politics though our 501(c3), The Welcome Democracy Institute.

Kuo is a Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. She oversees the program on American democracy and comparative perspective, which seeks to bridge academic and policy research on American democracy. She's the author of The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave and Why They Don’t and Clientelism, Capitalism, and Democracy: The Rise of Programmatic Politics in the United States and Britain.

The Historical Role of Parties 

There is widespread cynicism toward parties today, but Kuo contends this is misguided. When she first entered academia, Kuo found that there was immense anti-party sentiment, even among those who consistently supported one party or another. She found this popular consensus to be directly at odds with the academic consensus, which argues that parties are essential building blocks for democracy. 

She argues that parties are necessary for democracy to function and that reformers should focus on strengthening parties rather than trying to cultivate non-partisan politics. 

American political parties were formed in the 18th century as part of the development of democratization. Parties provided a way to subordinate individual interests to a broader set of collective interests. Parties were also key aspects of the machinery of politics: they administered elections and printed ballots and pamphlets. Many of these responsibilities have been assumed by state and local governments, but we can see in the broad latitude that parties play a critical role in structuring primary elections, which means parties will continue to be core parts of the inner-workings of democracy. 

Kuo states that one of the most important responsibilities of parties that has been lost over time is integrating and socializing voters into politics itself. This was done through civic spaces where people could come and discuss not just politics but other aspects of society. 

The Weakening of Parties and Candidate-Centered Politics

While parties remain strong in terms of winning elections, Kuo argues they have become weaker in their representative and integrative functions. Parties have become more nationalized and professionalized, losing touch with local constituents. There's a tension between party-building and the increasing focus on individual candidates. Kuo notes this is especially pronounced in the Republican Party under Trump. She makes the case that as parties have become a means to simply winning power for an individual, they lose their role in organizing politics. Over the years, parties have developed ways to win elections without maintaining relationships with their constituencies, particularly between elections, and have failed to cultivate a strong presence within communities to really understand what communities need.

Partisanship vs. Polarization

Kuo distinguishes between partisanship (affiliation with a party) and polarization (increased ideological distance and animosity between parties). She makes the case that partisanship itself is not inherently problematic, but extreme polarization can be detrimental. Starting in the ’90s, a trend developed that is separate from intense partisanship: the rise of polarization. Strangely, as I discussed with Kuo, partisan identification has also decreased among voters.

The two parties used to be more closely aligned, willing and able to find common ground on an array of policy issues. But since the ’90s, they've diverged. Kuo points to measures like roll call votes in Congress and polls on how voters perceive members of the other party. 

She says we even see it in their governing approaches. For example, Mitch McConnell once said that the goal of Republicans in Congress was to make President Obama a one-term president. That amount of partisan polarization – polarization that reflects hostility, antagonism and allergy to compromise – really turns off the majority of Americans.

And that brand of polarization, where the parties see each other as entities that must be existentially destroyed, is fundamentally bad for American politics. 

The Importance of Local Engagement

Kuo says there is a need to revitalize local and state party organizations. The neglect of local and state offices by both parties created a vacuum in local power. She points to Steve Bannon, who has encouraged MAGA supporters to find their local Republican offices, then file some paperwork. The Trump followers assume a local political post, and in turn leverage that position to recruit volunteers for election administration and poll workers.

And, as we've seen in states like Arizona and Wyoming, the state Republican Party is out of step with the national party. That dynamic, however, is owed in part to down-ballot Republicans who have been able to step into largely vacant offices, then wield their newfound powers to do things like strip sitting senators of the party label. Parties need to have more energy at the local level rather than doubling down on purely national strategies if they're going to expand the map and intentionally and effectively appeal to voters. 

How to Fix Democracy

To fix democracy, Kuo recommends starting with small steps that make one feel a little less powerless – even if that small step is as simple as writing a letter or making a call to your local representative about an issue you care about. That level of engagement can make one feel like politics can have a positive change in our lives. Kuo also suggests going local – attending a party meeting, or finding a local group you can support or engage with. 

Kuo’s second recommendation is to talk to someone who you believe thinks very differently than you. She’s not necessarily indicating that you will depolarize America by finding all of our common ground and bridging all of our differences because these differences exist for a reason. However, it's often very easy to lean into the caricatures of people who are different from you. When you talk to them, you at least gain a better understanding of why they think the way they do, and you’re offered a reminder that we’re allowed to disagree on things. Understanding and learning where people are coming from is a valuable depolarizing tool as we work to lay the groundwork for a better America.

The Case Against Nonpartisanship

We’ll end on something that may be controversial to some less-engaged voters: Kuo argues that you should pick a party and not shy away from partisanship. She remarks:

“We tend to be a little naive in thinking that if we just got rid of the partisan label, we could get rid of these annoying power holders… But people with common interests in politics will always come together – you can’t wish away parties. No successful democracy has been able to. If you’re going to get parties or factional interests anyway, you might as well create long-term, lasting successful parties by not being afraid to work within that rubric and by not trying to dilute their [parties’] power through solutions that have sometimes been tested but have never been successful… We should think of partisanship as something that just describes how you participate in politics. You’re not doing something more noble if you are nonpartisan, and if we have goals that are partisan, that’s also fine. That’s just what politics is.”

Ruffini is a Republican pollster, author of Party of the People, and one of the country’s leading experts on political targeting, technology, and demography. Ruffini worked on Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign and has been a leader in the Republican Party’s shift to digital.

Teixeira is a name you’ve probably heard mentioned here on WelcomeStack, as he leads popular centrist publication . Teixeira is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a political scientist who focuses on demographic political trends. He’s co-author of Where Have All the Democrats Gone?, which explores how Democrats are risking losses among key historical constituencies by catering too much to college-educated white voters. 

Demographics Aren’t Destiny

Our conversation begins with a discussion about the concept that “demography is destiny” and why the “rising American electorate” thesis never came to be. The thesis, based on President Obama’s successful election in 2008 and re-election in 2012, was that as Black, Latino and Asian American voters made up an increasingly large share of the electorate, Democrats would grow in strength and numbers. The “emerging Democratic majority” was a play on Kevin Phillips’s claim of an “emerging Republican majority” - neither vision ended up being correct. 

Teixeira and Ruffini reflect on why demography did not become destiny. Teixeira explains that the "demography is destiny" theory failed to materialize as predicted due to a critical oversight in its logic. While it correctly assumed that the increasing share of Hispanic, Black, and Asian voters would benefit Democrats, it didn't account for the possibility of declining Democratic support within these groups. This is exactly what happened, particularly among Hispanic voters. Many conservative and moderate non-white voters, especially in the working class, began voting more in line with their ideological preferences rather than their ethnic identity. This shift was driven by factors such as dissatisfaction with Democrats' perceived lack of fiscal prudence, the party's leftward turn on cultural issues, and the decreasing effectiveness of identity politics. Ironically, as the Democratic Party embraced identity politics more strongly, its intended beneficiaries became less responsive to this approach.

Ruffini argues that the "demographics is destiny" thesis is being challenged by several interconnected factors. He points out that while racial depolarization has occurred, ideological and educational polarization has increased, leading voters of all races to align more with their positions on issues rather than their racial identity. Ruffini highlights the historical context of Black voters' loyalty to the Democratic Party since 1964, but notes this trend is now unwinding. He characterizes Black voters as pragmatic, focusing on economic issues rather than identity politics. Ruffini sees Donald Trump as a unique catalyst in this shift, appealing to working-class voters across racial lines with his populist, anti-establishment message. He argues that Democratic messaging emphasizing Trump's perceived racism has been ineffective in maintaining minority support. Ruffini also points to a general distrust in traditional politics among working-class voters, including Black and Latino voters, which aligns with Trump's outsider image. Overall, Ruffini suggests that the demographic destiny thesis is oversimplified, failing to account for the complex interplay of ideological, economic, and political factors influencing voting patterns across racial and ethnic lines.

Donald Trump and Racial Realignment

The 2016 election of Donald Trump marked a significant shift in American political alignments, particularly in terms of racial and class polarization. As discussed by Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini and political scientist Ruy Teixeira, the Trump era has seen a notable decline in racial polarization, coupled with an increase in education and class-based polarization. As previous guest Matt Yglesias notes, using high quality Catalist data,

Trump did meaningfully better with Black and Hispanic voters in 2020 than he did in 2016 or than Romney did in 2012, and Biden compensated for that by doing better with white voters — especially with white college graduates. 

The result is lower racial polarization. The gap between white Democratic vote share and Black Democratic vote share declined from 55 points in 2012 to 46 points in 2020. The gap between white and Latino Democratic vote share dropped from 28 points in 2012 to 19 points in 2020. 

One of the most striking developments has been the erosion of the Democratic Party's historically strong support among minority voters, especially working-class Hispanic and Black voters, though Harris has shored up support. As Ruffini notes, Trump's populist messaging and anti-establishment stance have resonated with segments of these communities in ways previous Republican candidates failed to achieve. This challenges long-held assumptions about demographic destiny favoring Democrats as the country becomes more diverse.

Teixeira points out that many non-white voters, particularly working-class minorities, are more ideologically moderate or conservative than Democratic elites assume. He argues that the Democratic Party's leftward shift on cultural issues and embrace of "woke" politics has alienated some of these voters. Additionally, as minority communities become more integrated and economically diverse, the power of identity politics appears to be waning, especially among younger generations.

Trump's brash, populist style and "anti-politician" image have appealed to working-class voters across racial lines. His willingness to challenge political correctness and critique globalization resonates with those who feel the political establishment has failed them. As Ruffini observes, Trump's deliberate outreach to minority communities, even if not always substantive, sends a signal that he values their support in a way previous Republican candidates did not. He highlights things like Trump attending UFC fights and holding rallies in Detroit, Philadelphia and the South Bronx that might appeal to young men of color. 

Generational Divides

The conversation also touches on the generational divide within minority communities. Younger Black and Hispanic voters, in particular, show less party loyalty than their elders, and Ruffini relies on the work of Chryl Laird and Ismail White. They argue that political norms in Black communities are enforced through social pressure, contributing to consistent voting patterns.  The idea is called “linked fate,” that Black voters act collectively as a unit to vote for the Democratic Party to drive political power. This was enabled by tightly linked Black neighborhoods and social institutions. Part of Black identity was voting Democratic, as President Biden famously and inartfully expressed in his “you ain’t Black” comment. 

As trends such as increased racial integration, changing social networks, and a weakening of institutions like the Black church, the ties to the Democratic Party have weakened. Ruffini points specifically to Black and Latino voters who are moving to places in the sunbelt and suburbs and losing their traditional Democratic affiliation. 

Ruffini makes the case that moderate Black voters provide a powerful guardrail on ideological polarization in the Democratic Party that the Republican Party lacks. Because many moderate and even conservative Black voters still identify strongly with the Democratic Party and vote in primaries for candidates like Joe Biden, they depolarize our politics. He worries that as these voters leave, the Democratic Party will be more driven by responding to high ideology educated white voters who show up for primaries. 

Kitchen Table Issues and Place Based Politics Beat Abstract Appeal to Democracy

Both Ruffini and Teixeira emphasize the importance of economic messaging and "kitchen table" issues in appealing to working-class voters of all races. They suggest that Democrats may find more success by focusing on concrete economic policies rather than abstract appeals to identity or Democratic values. Ruffini and Teixeira both express the view that DC consultants focus too much on things like January 6th, which are not key voting issues for working-class people. 

Ruffini and Teixeira argue for breaking out of polarized elite bubbles and exposing oneself to diverse viewpoints. Teixeira recommends reading thoughtful analysis from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Ruffini recommends paying attention to focus groups and the perspectives of less politically engaged "normie" voters to understand the nuanced views that often get lost in partisan narratives.

Like what you’re hearing? Share this podcast with your friends, and support our work to depolarize American politics though our 501(c3), The Welcome Democracy Institute.

Note: This episode was recorded prior to “the debate” and Kamala Harris’ subsequent promotion to Democratic presidential nominee. Also, apologies that my desk light is visible in the video!

Guests: Reed Galen and Eitan Hersh

Episode two of The Depolarizers features The Lincoln Project co-founder Reed Galen and political scientist Eitan Hersh. Galen courageously left the Republican Party to help elect Biden in 2020. An alumnus of campaigns for John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger and George W. Bush, Galen is the quintessential example of a depolarizer. 

Hersh coined the term “political hobbyism” in his book Politics is for Power. Political hobbyism, which refers to the rise of people who treat politics like a spectator sport, has played a role in fanning the flames for political polarization and mistrust.

From Suburban Warrior to Suburban Worriers

In recent years, a notable trend has emerged in American politics: Reagan, Bush, McCain and Romney Republicans, particularly those in suburban areas, have increasingly cast their votes for Democratic candidates. These suburban, educated voters, particularly women, were a driving force in Reagan’s landslide victories. Historian Lisa McGirr called them “suburban warriors,” the base of GOP power. Today, they might be called “suburban worriers,” worried about the threats Trump poses to democracy, reproductive freedom and education in America.

In 2020, The Bulwark’s Tim Miller coined these voters “Red Dogs,” amplifying a shift that represents a significant realignment in the political landscape.

Understanding the causes of this trend, its potential longevity, and the role of "political hobbyism" in exacerbating polarization provides crucial insights into the current state of American democracy.

The rise of Donald Trump and the transformation of the Republican Party under his influence have been primary drivers of this shift. Galen, a former Republican strategist, points out that many moderate Republicans felt politically homeless after Trump's nomination in 2016. These voters, often educated suburbanites, found themselves at odds with the increasingly populist and confrontational style of the GOP under Trump.

Galen notes that in 2020, many of these disaffected Republicans likely crossed party lines to vote for Joe Biden and other Democratic candidates. This trend continued in the 2022 midterms, with moderate Republicans supporting Democratic governors like Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan and Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania (recent polls show that 57% of Independents and 32% of Republicans in Pennsylvania approve of Shapiro as governor). 

The Future of the GOP

The question of whether this trend will outlast Trump is complex. Galen argues that the transformation of the Republican Party runs deeper than Trump himself, with what he terms "MAGA" ideology having "seeped in deep into a lot of places." Polling from the Manhattan Institute indicates that 76% of Republicans identify as “MAGA,” though only 23% of Independents do. This suggests that even in a post-Trump scenario, the GOP may struggle to win back these moderate suburban voters. The rise of Republicans like Josh Hawley, JD Vance and Ron DeSantis, who seek to imitate Trump, suggests that Trump’s lingering presence will be felt for years.

Here, Hersh introduces an important caveat to this analysis through his concept of "political hobbyism." Hersh argues that most people's engagement with politics is superficial, based on social media interactions and consumption of sensationalized national news rather than substantive local involvement. This leads to a nationalized view of politics where voters develop caricatured views of the opposing party.

Hersh illustrates this with an anecdote about Democrats' views on their children marrying Republicans (roughly a third said they would feel upset). While many express discomfort with the idea, Hersh suggests this is based on an imagined extreme Republican rather than the more moderate reality they might encounter in their own communities. This disconnect between nationalized perceptions and local realities contributes to polarization and may explain some of the volatility in suburban voting patterns.

The concept of political hobbyism also helps explain why this shift among suburban Republicans might not be as durable as Democrats hope. If these voters' political engagement remains superficial, their allegiances may be more susceptible to short-term factors and emotional appeals rather than deep-seated ideological convictions.

Local Engagement Is The Antidote to Polarization 

Both Galen and Hersh emphasize the importance of local engagement as an antidote to this polarization, a theme of our first episode as well. Hersh highlights examples from his book of ordinary people doing "very ordinary things" that have an outsized impact on their communities. He argues that elevating these local leaders as "heroes" who sustain democracy through consensus-building and rule-following could help combat the negative effects of political hobbyism.

Galen adds another dimension to this analysis by discussing the difference in messaging strategies between Republicans and Democrats. He argues that Republicans are more effective at crafting narratives around values, while Democrats focus more on specific policy issues (though Harris has admirably avoided the 2020 primary approach of escalating policy extremism). This distinction may be crucial in understanding how to solidify the support of these suburban swing voters. If Democrats can craft a values-based narrative that resonates with these former Republicans, they may be able to create a more durable coalition.

The trend of suburban voters shifting toward Democrats is a significant development in American politics, primarily driven by the transformation of the GOP under Trump's influence. However, the superficial nature of most political engagement, as described by Hersh's concept of political hobbyism, suggests that this trend may be more volatile than it appears. The longevity of this shift will likely depend on several factors: the post-Trump direction of the Republican Party, the Democrats' ability to craft a compelling values-based narrative, and crucially, the success of efforts to combat political hobbyism through increased local engagement. Fostering substantive local political involvement may be key to reducing polarization and creating more stable political alignments in the future.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers every Monday.

You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute.

Note: This episode was recorded prior to “the debate” and Harris’ subsequent promotion to presidential nominee.

Theme: From 1950’s to today, parties sort along ideology 

Guests: Matt Yglesias & Sam Rosenfeld 

It’s a complaint we hear endlessly about American politics: why is everything so polarized? Our new podcast series, The Depolarizers, discusses how we got here and more importantly, how we get out of it. Our recent essay in Democracy Journal introduces a number of the themes in our podcast. We recommend including it in your podcast journey.

Our first episode features Matt Yglesias, writer of popular Substack publication Slow Boring, and Sam Rosenfeld, author of two books about polarization (The Polarizers and his latest with Daniel Schlozman, The Hollow Parties). Rosenfeld’s book inspires the name of our podcast. In it, he introduces us to those who created America's polarization in the 20th Century, and why. Throughout this episode and our show, we’ll introduce you to the people working to effectively depolarize American politics. We hope you'll join us for the ride.

To know how to move forward, we must first understand how we got here. What is the origin of strong partisanship and weak parties? As political scientist Sam Rosenfield explains in The Polarizers, the source of our current polarization is the product of an intentional strategy – not from radical extremists, but from well-intentioned, sympathetic activists in postwar America. These activists wanted the parties to be rooted not in regionalism and patronage, but rather ideological principles that voters could understand. Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said to an aide, “We ought to have two real parties – one liberal, and the other conservative.” 

At the time, the parties were not ideologically sorted; Northeastern Republicans were more liberal on economic and racial issues than Southern Democrats. But many, including leading advocates, political scientists and politicians, believed that it would be good for the parties to be sorted by ideology. This view was enshrined in The Responsible Two-Party System, a tract written by political scientists including E.E. Schattschneider that argued for ideologically coherent parties. 

These activists and political scientists argued that the lack of ideologically coherent parties constituted a failure of democracy – voters might give Democrats a national majority, but this would only empower Southern Democrats who had meaningfully different preferences. At the time, it was a live debate: Gallup frequently polled voters on the issue and found consistent voter rejection of the idea of ideologically consistent parties. When Gallup polled the question of a liberal party and a conservative party in 1947, only 13 percent of voters endorsed the idea. 

Over time, activists on both the left and right successfully shaped the parties into ideologically coherent structures. Southern Democrats slowly became Republicans, and the newly redrawn GOP coalesced around conservative ideology. The Democratic Party also became more ideologically coherent, though their more diverse coalition caused a big tent to remain slightly less ideologically homogeneous, as political scientists Matt Grossmann and Daniel Hopkins have argued (and any attendee of a Democratic National Convention can attest). Ideological liberals have long represented a smaller share of the electorate than conservatives, making a viable liberal-dominated party impossible, and the Democratic Party includes a wide range of African American moderates and conservatives that prevented ideological homogenization. 

As the parties became more ideologically coherent, the merchants of policy purity gained power. Unlike past factional leaders, they did not wield power through government patronage, but rather through ideas and increasingly through outside groups like nonprofits and PACs. These leaders and their organization shaped the ideological battlefield. They did not organize voters through material demands, but ideas. Groups like the Moral Majority and the religious right, the environmental movement, the National Rifle Association and many others sought to define the parties’ respective missions.

This unmooring from the demands of the traditional party bosses came with an unintended downside: Those wielding power within the parties have less interest in winning long-term electoral power. For autonomous, often issues-focused groups, winning elections can be tangential to the lifeblood of nonprofits: donors and volunteers. In fact, groups often find themselves in the most fecund fundraising environment when their party is out of power. This trend cuts across branches of government; witness the explosion among Democratic activists and donors since the Dobbs decision.

For factions on the edges of each party, the goal is not exclusively to ensure the party wins, but rather ensure that the factional agenda is passed when the party eventually does win – or at least that their patrons of time and treasure believe that to be so.

The factional actors dismissing electoral success is logical: once a party gains power, the dominant faction can determine the agenda. Thus, groups like the Sunrise Movement prioritize their clout within the Democratic Party, even if their litmus tests might – and do – cost Democrats elections. Similarly, the pro-life movement prioritizes beating moderate Republicans, even if these members are necessary for Republicans to have power. 

Consider the quote from one organizer within the Democratic Party, “A smaller but more progressive Democratic Caucus would be a more functional and healthy and coherent caucus.” This view has been echoed by conservative activists, who also do not prioritize the electoral fortunes of their aligned party. 

We are in the age of faction, and centrists must learn from the tactics of the factionalists on both the left and right. However, centrists bear one burden that extremists do not: an inability to sacrifice the electoral interests of the party winning. The good news is that a pragmatic agenda is much more aligned with political victory. To beat the extremists, centrists must understand how they are structured.

Like what you’re hearing? Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you find your podcasts, and subscribe to hear new episodes of The Depolarizers every Monday.

You can also support our work to depolarize American politics via our 501(c)3, The Welcome Democracy Institute.

SHOW NOTES:

Polarization is a Choice - Matt Yglesias via Slow Boring

Political cartoon mentioned in show in Rosenfeld’s book, The Polarizers

Our first episode features Matt Yglesias, writer of popular Substack publication Slow Boring and Sam Rosenfeld, author of two books about polarization (The Polarizers and his latest with Daniel Schlozman, The Hollow Parties). Rosenfeld’s book inspires the name of our podcast. In it, he introduces us to those who created America's polarization in the 20th Century, and why. Throughout this episode and our show, we’ll introduce you to the people working to effectively depolarize American politics. We hope you'll join us for the ride.

Our recent essay in Democracy Journal introduces a number of the themes in our podcast. We recommend including it in your podcast journey.