What is the future of the US Democratic Party? Analysis
The US Democratic Party is entering a period of turbulence due to the lack of an obvious leader before the 2028 elections. In the coming years, the confrontation between more moderate and more left-wing politicians is likely to intensify within the party. The exact difficulties faced by the Democrats are described in the Izvestia article.
Party turbulence
• Democrats experiencing President Donald Trump's second term are looking forward to the 2028 presidential election, when he will no longer be able to run. At the same time, the party is entering a period of rare "open" primaries without a clear leader and is facing questions about the future course, the target audience and a candidate capable of mobilizing voters.
• The active phase of preparation for the primaries is likely to begin in early 2027 and will depend on the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections. Unlike in previous cycles, if former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris does not decide to run again, the race will not have a major political figure. Among the most notable potential candidates is California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is actively positioning himself as Trump's main opponent.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is considered the most obvious figure, although her decisions may be related to the struggle for the Senate seat in New York. In the more moderate camp, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro stands out, for whom re-election in 2026 and the ability to prove that he can win a critically important state will be key.
• In addition to them, the governors of "blue" states like Andy Beshear, Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego from Arizona, as well as a number of senators and congressmen, for whom the campaign may be a way to increase awareness, are in sight. In general, six to ten serious candidates are expected. The 2026 midterm elections will be a rehearsal: potential contenders will prove that they are capable of bringing real victories to the party.
Loss of trust
The main problem of the US Democratic Party today is an acute leadership crisis. The Democrats do not have a strong figure capable of uniting different groups within the party. Betting on "old", proven politicians is complicated by their age and loss of trust, and younger politicians are often perceived as too radical. As a result, there are almost no strong centrists in the party, who are at the peak of their form.
• The Democratic Party is traditionally very diverse and prone to internal extremes. There are always several interest groups within it, each of which is trying to pull the party in its own direction. Therefore, it is hardly possible to talk about a split into two distinct wings. Rather, American society as a whole is split, tired of two parties, and against this background, attempts are constantly being made to find a "third force."
• As for the conversation about a possible unifying leader, there is no such figure yet. Attempts to bet on the Obama family, Kamala Harris or Joe Biden failed. In general, the lack of a charismatic, ponderous leader is a key problem for Democrats, especially against the background of Republicans, who have such figures visible.
Policy vector
• At the same time, the expert community also believes that the talk about the "split" of the Democratic Party is largely exaggerated. The main differences now are not related to ideology, but to tactics before the congressional elections: how acceptable are agreements with Republicans on the ground, how to build an electoral strategy and how to respond to the issue of "reshuffling" districts. The Democrats as a whole have managed to neutralize the Republicans' attempts to use this tool to their advantage, and their positions look quite stable, given the tradition that the party in power often loses support in midterm elections.
• The Democratic Party has never been a homogeneous structure. Historically, it has absorbed new movements and ideas, both moderate and radical, offering them institutional support. This is too expensive and difficult for an independent political project, so the real conditions for a split are possible only in the event of a serious economic crisis or a situation close to disaster. There are no such prerequisites in the United States right now, and it's more about a leadership crisis and the need for restructuring.
• It is worth noting that Trump himself acts as a unifying factor for the Democrats. His sharp and active actions increase interest in politics among passive voters, who usually turn on only during the election period. The increase in mobilization and turnout works in favor of the Democrats, since the first and main condition for victory is to get supporters to come to the polls.
• Trump's second term does not so much unite or split the Democrats as it fits into the traditional "pendulum" change of power in the United States. American society tends to get tired of one party and vote for another. Demographic changes, including an increase in the proportion of migrants, play into the hands of the Democrats in the long run. The internal struggle in the party, as always in the history of the United States, can both weaken it in elections and lead to renewal, but in general, the succession of power remains a stable pattern.
• Internal party infighting is more likely to weaken Republicans than Democrats. Trump's actions create an additional burden for his party's candidates at the regional level and increase criticism of them. There are no fixed camps in American politics. Ideas and policies are shifting between parties, and Trump himself serves as an indicator of this mobility, paradoxically strengthening the position of the Democrats.
When writing the material, Izvestia interviewed:
- Konstantin Blokhin, an American political scientist;
- the American political scientist Mikhail Sinelnikov-Orishak.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
