![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!Rotl!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F45ad3218-774b-4c4e-86fa-613d5aacf40c_1100x220.heic\")
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
Picture a candidate running for elected office who fits this description:<\/p>\n
- \n
- \n
He believes marriage should be between one man and one woman;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
He criticizes the incumbent president for being too soft on illegal immigration;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
He proudly touts America\u2019s relationship with Israel in a speech to AIPAC, the country\u2019s top pro-Israel lobbying group;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
He supports limits on abortion, calling it a \u201cmoral\u201d issue, and inserts language into his party\u2019s platform expressing support for reducing the frequency of abortion;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
He expresses support for the death penalty;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
He believes that black Americans should take more responsibility in their families and their own lives;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
He also appears to favor class-based affirmative action over race-based affirmative action;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Many of his supporters take a \u201ccolorblind\u201d view of race, which he affirms.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Many people likely read that description and concluded the candidate in question was a conservative Republican. However, as the title of this piece likely gave away, every one of these items <\/span>describes<\/a> <\/span>Barack<\/a> <\/span>Obama<\/a> <\/span>in<\/a> <\/span>his<\/a> <\/span>first<\/a> <\/span>campaign<\/a> <\/span>for<\/a> <\/span>the<\/a> <\/span>presidency<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n
In fact, Obama was far from the only Democrat who had such views at the time. Hillary Clinton <\/span>opposed<\/a> gay marriage as well and was widely considered a hawk on <\/span>immigration<\/a> and <\/span>foreign policy<\/a> issues. Democrats also represented several conservative-leaning House districts and Senate seats around this time, and those elected officials often shared the cultural attitudes of their voters.<\/span><\/p>\n
This may surprise some people in both parties, but it\u2019s a sign of just how much things have changed in American politics since 2008. Over the course of our project, TLP has spent considerable time analyzing Democrats\u2019 evolution, both demographically and ideologically. Since that presidential election, they have lost much of their long-faithful <\/span>working-class base<\/a>, which was more culturally moderate-to-conservative, and replaced it with <\/span>affluent, college-educated<\/a>, knowledge-economy workers who are far more <\/span>culturally left-wing<\/a>. According to Gallup\u2019s <\/span>latest polling<\/a>, fully 59 percent of Democrats now call themselves \u201cliberal,\u201d<\/span> a historic high in their data that is up from just <\/span>35 percent<\/em> 20 years ago.<\/span><\/p>\n
We have also documented how the Democrats\u2019 evolution from a center-left party to a decidedly \u201cleft\u201d one has influenced candidates as well. For example, there is evidence that voters have become increasingly less keen on centrist candidates with more \u201cheterodox\u201d views, even sometimes <\/span>those running<\/a> in harder-to-win places. Instead, a large majority <\/span>now says<\/a> that a candidate must be a \u201ctrue progressive\u201d for them to get excited.<\/span><\/p>\n
Some Democrats might object: \u201cThe world has evolved, and we expect our politicians to keep up. Even Obama and Clinton are both now pro-gay marriage and more race-conscious than they were in 2008. The party also must adapt to the shifting attitudes of their voters, who have become more diverse and subsequently more liberal.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is of course (somewhat) true.<\/span> It\u2019s reasonable to expect that Democratic leaders would move with their base as the world evolves\u2014especially in their direction on issues like gay marriage and abortion\u2014and, perhaps most importantly, as Donald Trump has come into the picture and shattered both parties\u2019 longstanding coalitions. But these demographic and ideological changes have also created real, potentially long-term vulnerabilities for Democrats at the national level.<\/span><\/p>\n
The reality, as we have long warned, is that the U.S. is a <\/span>center-right country<\/a>. As the Democratic base has shifted left and become more reliant on college-educated voters, it has moved further away from the median American on multiple fronts. This, combined with a growing skepticism toward candidates who take more measured approaches or occasionally buck party orthodoxy, risks jeopardizing the Democrats\u2019 ability to build a coalition capable of consistently competing for the <\/span>Senate<\/a> and <\/span>Electoral College<\/a>, specifically, where they will need some support from voters who may be to their right on contentious issues.<\/span><\/p>\n
In 2008, Democratic voters were clearly willing to give their candidates <\/span>breathing room<\/a> on such issues. This was likely due in part to the fact that <\/span>a majority<\/a> of their primary voters back then identified either as moderate or conservative. On some hotly debated topics, such as gay marriage, even those voters were <\/span>not yet on board<\/a>. Aside from the <\/span>Iraq War<\/a>, there were very few litmus tests placed on the party\u2019s candidates. Democrats that year not only won a robust Electoral College victory but huge majorities in Congress, too.<\/span><\/p>\n
It seems less likely, though, that today\u2019s Democratic primary electorate is prepared to be as ideologically flexible as the one that helped elect Obama two decades ago. And this begs an interesting question: could a candidate like Obama or Clinton, who spurns some party shibboleths on thorny topics or even picks occasional fights with the base, win the Democratic nomination for president today?<\/p>\n
One prospective candidate likely to test this question in 2028 is Pennsylvania Governor <\/span>Josh Shapiro<\/strong>, who has started <\/span>leaning into<\/a> his support for Israel. Being pro-Israel has long been a safe bet for candidates of both parties. However, following the country\u2019s war with Hamas and a new one with Iran, its image has <\/span>cratered<\/a> among Democrats.<\/span><\/p>\n
In light of this, many Democratic pols have come to see <\/span>ties<\/a> to or support for Israel as a liability, as evidenced by the growing number <\/span>eschewing<\/a> campaign contributions from AIPAC. Can Shapiro cross the party\u2019s base on Israel in today\u2019s environment and still have a chance to win its nomination?<\/span><\/p>\n
One candidate to watch <\/span>this<\/em> cycle is Congressman <\/span>Seth Moulton<\/strong>, who has launched a primary challenge to Senator Ed Markey this year in deep-blue Massachusetts. Shortly after the 2024 election, Moulton <\/span>argued<\/a> that his party should rethink its commitment to certain positions that had proven unpopular with the broader public\u2014specifically, allowing individuals who were born male but identify as female to participate in women\u2019s sports. Not only is this an <\/span>unpopular policy<\/a> with the broader public (79 percent oppose), but even two-thirds of <\/span>Democrats<\/em> (67 percent) oppose it.<\/span><\/p>\n
Yet, the response to Moulton\u2019s contention among local Democratic and progressive organizations wasn\u2019t curiosity or even debate\u2014it was to immediately <\/span>threaten<\/a> a primary challenge. And although he is not seeking re-election to the House, his past expressed position could prove to be <\/span>a liability<\/a> in his Senate campaign. This is notable because, this issue notwithstanding, Moulton is mostly a standard Democrat. He is near the <\/span>ideological center<\/a> of the House Democratic caucus, and he only votes with Trump <\/span>11.3 percent<\/a> of the time in Congress.<\/span> He has <\/span>spoken elsewhere<\/a> very strongly in support of LGBT Americans.<\/span><\/p>\n
The harsh reality for Moulton is that the Democratic base doesn\u2019t appear willing to let their candidates step out of line in any way on the subject\u2014even when doing so would align them with broader public opinion. This represents a stark contrast to 2008 when Obama received universal support from Democratic base voters, even as the latter <\/span>overwhelmingly supported<\/a> gay marriage, the hot-button issue of the day. Of course, Massachusetts voters are not representative of the national electorate, but the animus toward Moulton may be a sign of how much things have changed.<\/span><\/p>\n
Perhaps the ultimate test of whether centrist heterodoxy is a liability for Democrats will come from another potential 2028 candidate: <\/span>Gavin Newsom<\/strong>. Last year, he made a point of engaging with high-profile conservatives on his podcast, including figures like Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, and Ben Shapiro, which <\/span>irked<\/a> some Democrats. During his conversation with Kirk, he also remarked that he opposed using public funds for gender transition surgeries for inmates (the subject of an infamous <\/span>2024 attack ad<\/a> against Kamala Harris) and called ending sex-segregated sports \u201cdeeply unfair.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n
Despite adopting positions that some Democrats might find offensive, Newsom is currently running in <\/span>second place<\/a> behind only Harris. However, it\u2019s entirely possible that these past positions will come back to bite him in an actual primary campaign.<\/span><\/p>\n
It\u2019s worth noting that some Democrats running in more conservative-leaning places are still granted a little latitude to stray from the party. For instance, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, congressmen representing South Texas House districts, were the <\/span>only two Democrats<\/a> to vote for the GOP\u2019s bill to keep school athletic programs segregated by sex. Both won their <\/span>primary<\/a> <\/span>elections<\/a> earlier this month in districts where voters are overwhelmingly working-class and Hispanic\u2014and thus more likely to be more socially moderate or even conservative themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n
TLP\u2019s friends at <\/span>The Welcome Party<\/a><\/span> and <\/span>The Bench<\/a> have also worked to identify and support <\/span>candidates<\/a> running in redder districts who break the mold of a contemporary Democrat. In his campaign launch for Texas\u2019s 15th District, Bobby Pulido <\/span>endorsed<\/a> tougher restrictions on illegal immigration. He also proudly touts the fact that he is a gun enthusiast. Pulido hopes his \u201cBlue Dog\u201d positions can help him win a district that Trump carried by 18 points.<\/span><\/p>\n
These are great opportunities for the party to try to expand its coalition. At the presidential level, though, it\u2019s just not clear that Democratic candidates have the same flexibility they once did.<\/p>\n
Our crew sometimes jokes that candidates who fit the TLP mold<\/strong> would win one percent in a Democratic primary but 51 percent in a general election. I think this short-changes us, but it does offer an important critique of how the party has changed. We consider figures like Obama to be liberal patriots: they have an optimistic vision for the country and want to help everyone find their place in it, and they also being willing to meet people where they are, embrace ideological pluralism, find room for compromise, and sometimes even call out the excesses of their own side.<\/span><\/p>\n
Candidates like this are likely to find fans across the political spectrum and command majority support, as Obama did. Whether they can succeed in a Democratic primary today, however, is less clear.<\/span> Can the base tolerate someone who is with them on 90 to 95 percent of the issues but splits from them on a handful of contentious ones? A more ideologically homogenous coalition may well believe it can demand that candidates toe the line, down the line, which could present unnecessary risks with a national electorate.<\/span><\/p>\n
It\u2019s our hope that Obama-like candidates can begin rising to the top again and remind Democrats of the wisdom of his approach to politics, especially the necessity of compromise. As the former president <\/span>once told<\/a> a group of graduating college students, \u201cDemocracy requires compromise, even when you are 100 percent right. This is hard to explain sometimes. You can be completely right, and you still are going to have to engage folks who disagree with you. If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral purity, but you\u2019re not going to get what you want.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n
Wise words. Will his party heed his advice?<\/p>\n