Democratic candidates can win over Rust Belt voters by… attacking the Democratic Party | Jared Abbott and Bhaskar Sunkara

IIf anyone can step forward as a progressive in red America, it’s Sherrod Brown. For decades, the Ohio senator has criticized companies for shipping good-paying jobs overseas and implored Democrats to take seriously the struggles of communities that have lost manufacturing. However, in 2024, even Brown, the archetypal economic populist, has fallen to a Republican challenger.

Does it prove this, as writers like Jonathan Chait say? He arguedThat the idea of ​​restoring the working class with progressive economic policies has been tried and failed?

We wanted to know why Democrats keep losing working-class support in the Rust Belt, and what could turn things around. So, with colleagues at the Working Class Policy Center, the Labor Institute, and Rutgers University, We polled 3,000 voters Through Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. The research suggests that the story is more complex – and that Democrats’ problems in the Rust Belt are real, but solvable.

We found a consistent pattern that we call “democratic punishment.” In a randomized controlled trial, participants were shown hypothetical candidates with identical economic populist platforms. The only difference is that some are classified as Democrats, while others are classified as Independents. In all four states, Democratic candidates performed eight points worse.

In Ohio, the gap was about 16 points. in Michigan 13; In Wisconsin, 11. The voters most averse to the party label were the same groups Democrats need to win back: Latinos, working-class Americans, and others from rural and small-town communities.

This pattern helps explain why figures like Brown are able to run as hardline economic populists and still struggle, while independents like Dan Osborne in Nebraska are largely competitive. Exaggerated expectations On almost identical platforms. It’s the unpopular brand of democracy, not populism.

What is the root cause of mistrust? After the 2024 election, many commentators pointed to “wokeness” as the culprit. But our research tells a different story. When we asked voters to write a sentence about what first came to mind when they thought of Democrats, 70% of them expressed negative opinions. However, only a small minority mentioned “wokeness” or ideological extremism – 3% of Democrats, 11% of independents, and 19% of Republicans. The prevailing complaints were not about social liberalism, but about competence, honesty, and communication. Democrats were seen as out of touch, corrupt, or simply ineffective: “falling behind what is important” and not “representing their constituents for a long time.” While some of these criticisms have morphed into broader claims that Democrats are focusing on the wrong priorities, the responses suggest that cultural issues are not voters’ primary concern.

This should be a wake-up call. Rust Belt voters are not naively preoccupied with the culture wars, but rather frustrated that Democrats are not getting results. But what resonates with them is the tougher, more credible economic message.

Even if the Democratic label is a serious handicap in red and purple states, our results show that vocal economic populism that speaks directly to workers’ sense that the system is rigged can significantly boost candidates’ appeal, especially in areas that have lost millions of high-quality jobs over the past 40 years. Standard “bread and butter” Democratic messages performed more than 11 points better when combined with strong anti-corporate rhetoric (denounced corporations for cutting good jobs) than with a “lite populist” frame that only bashes a few price gougers while acknowledging that most companies are playing by the rules.

When we forced participants to choose trade-offs between 25 economic policy proposals, the results were clearer. Across partisan and class divides, voters have consistently prioritized concrete measures framed in terms of fairness and accountability for elites: capping prescription drug prices, eliminating taxes on Social Security income, and increasing taxes on large corporations and the super-rich. These policies were far ahead of flashy ideas like $1,000 monthly cash payments or trillion-dollar green industrial plans, and far ahead of traditional conservative staples like corporate tax cuts and deregulation.

Even on immigration, Rust Belt voters proved more open than expected. Nearly two-thirds supported legalization for long-settled undocumented workers who adhered to the rules. Despite years of fear-mongering on the right, the progressive stance has taken hold.

So what is the way forward? Not every candidate can reinvent himself as an independent populist. In many areas, doing so would simply split the anti-Republican vote. But Democrats are able to mitigate the “democratic penalty” by speaking out against their party’s establishment and making a populist case that neither major party has made for working people. Candidates who embrace this approach more effectively attract the same voters that Democrats lose.

The electoral map itself shows the risks. Without states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio, Democrats cannot retain national power. Sherrod-Brown’s defeat underscores that even the most credible economic populists can’t get much ahead of the party’s damaged brand.

If Democrats remain disconnected from working-class concerns, more of Brown’s supporters will fall, and Republicans will continue to gain ground in once-reliable Democratic strongholds. But if Democrats stand up to corporate elites, talk to voters about their party’s failings, and fight for policies that put working families first, they may finally chart a path back to the working class – and to the future.