This partial transcript was computer-generated. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.
Alexis Madrigal: Welcome to Forum. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before, but perhaps there is not unity among Democrats. In Mark Leibovich’s new Atlantic profile of the Democratic Party, we read about the many fault lines of this big, broad institution. But the one that struck me was Senator Elissa Slotkin reflecting what we’ve heard from many listeners during this past year.
Leibovich writes: What if the main divide among Democrats today is not, as so many assume, progressive versus moderate? Slotkin told Leibovich that the question “Is it Mamdani or is it Spanberger?” is kind of an outdated approach. The more consequential split, she said, is between leaders willing to fight and go on offense and those content to wait Trump out.
We’re going to talk about it this morning. We’re joined by Mark Leibovich, staff writer with The Atlantic. His latest article is “The Democrats Aren’t Built for This.” Welcome.
Mark Leibovich: Alexis, good to be with you.
Alexis Madrigal: We’re also joined by Aimee Allison, founder and president of She the People, a national organization dedicated to building the political power of women of color. Welcome, Amy.
Aimee Allison: Good to be here.
Alexis Madrigal: So let’s start with this fighting impulse — or not fighting. Do you think there’s agreement yet, Mark, that Democrats should be fighting? Are they fighting? Or do they see what they’re doing as fighting within this national party infrastructure?
Mark Leibovich: Yeah, I think it took a while to get there. Essentially, what I was doing with this story was trying to take the temperature of where the Democratic Party was. Starting from the 2024 election, there was a sense that the party was immediately stunned and kind of knocked back on its feet by the results. But also — and this is a bit of a cliché, but I’m going to use it anyway — kind of in the wilderness.
It’s not atypical for parties that lose big elections to go through a period of identity crisis, not really knowing where to go next, who their leaders are, and so forth. But in this case, it just seemed to go on and on. People were trying to wring their hands about the lessons and so forth. Meanwhile, Donald Trump seemed to be running roughshod over much of our democracy, and Democrats didn’t seem to be — at least according to a lot of rank-and-file Democrats — fighting hard enough to resist.
I think it took a while. Especially after the November off-year elections in Virginia, New York, and New Jersey, where Democrats really overperformed — and also in a lot of other elections across the country — the party seemed to find some footing. A lot of leaders felt more emboldened since then. I think that’s been reflected in the politics.
But I don’t think Democrats have, quote unquote, solved their problems. The main dynamic right now is that a lot of voters really don’t like what the current administration is doing. They don’t like Donald Trump, and Democrats absolutely have an opening.
Alexis Madrigal: Yeah. Aimee Allison, how do you see this point?
Amy Allison: I think that Democrats in California have tried to hold together a pretty broad ideological coalition, but many people in the party apparatus — as well as leaders who have been in place for quite a long time — aren’t ready for the moment. I’d agree: they’re not operating as if the MAGA movement, which basically transformed the Republican Party from the inside out, has also created an environment where Democrats can’t function the way they used to.
The practices, the policies, the things they used to do — those don’t work anymore because we’re in a new environment. So when it comes to assessing where the Democratic Party is, in California as well as nationally, it really comes down to how well those who run the party and those who are running for office or currently in office can adapt to the new political reality. And the answer is: most aren’t.
Right now, when we look around, there are just a handful of Democrats — in Congress or statewide — who are standouts. Many others really don’t know where to turn.
Alexis Madrigal: One of the things that’s really interesting is that Democrats have tended to be kind of institutionalist in their orientation. You know, here in California, we wanted to have voting districts that were fair and equitable. And then along come these changes — extreme gerrymandering in Texas and across the country driven by Republicans — and we end up passing Proposition 50 here in the state. Aimee, was this a sign for you that at least California Democrats were willing to play outside the institutional boundaries they had largely stayed within?
Aimee Allison: Changing the voting map was an indication that the electorate in California wants fighting — and they want fighting that’s going to put us on a more equal playing field. So yes, in terms of defining and protecting the great blue wall, which is the state of California, I think there’s a huge appetite for that kind of response to what many people see as election manipulation happening in other parts of the country.
But I think there’s more. I think the electorate in California — particularly California Democrats — want to see even bolder action when it comes to the use of tax dollars, standing up against ICE, and protections for everyday people. So yes, it was an indication that people want this kind of response. People in other states that we work with want their statewide Democrats or their federal representatives to take bold stances. They want solutions, and there’s a huge appetite to support the kind of fighting that’s going to be required — and a new kind of fighting.
Alexis Madrigal: Mark, I know in Virginia there’s been similar work on the maps in response to gerrymandering — even more extreme gerrymandering. Is that the sort of fighting you think Democratic National Party folks should get behind? Or are there other types of things you think Senator Slotkin or others you talked to were thinking about?
Mark Leibovich: I mean, I think this is obviously the best and most clear example right now. We haven’t mentioned Gavin Newsom yet — he really was the one who drove this. It seemed like something snapped in him, probably last spring, maybe around the National Guard deployments to Los Angeles. He just took the gloves off and decided not only to take on the gerrymandering — essentially tear up the map and start again — but he actually won it.
That was a big risk. It could easily have gone very sideways given the many factions involved and the history here. But he managed to pull it off. Coupled with his social media presence and his sharp remarks, I think it’s been kind of a model that’s propelled other Democrats to find their voice.
Proposition 50 was vindicated by what happened at the ballot box. And like you said, a lot of places like Virginia, possibly Maryland, and other states have followed suit or attempted to. But what’s important to point out is that this wasn’t really a local issue. Newsom acted almost entirely out of a national political imperative. This was something Republicans started in Texas, and California used the state as a kind of retaliatory cudgel — and it worked famously.
I’m sure there are other things they’ll think about, but for now this is the most practical, right-in-front-of-us example.
Alexis Madrigal: One of the things I feel like I hear a lot from our listeners and other folks here in the Bay Area is worry about the midterm elections and what the Trump administration may attempt to do — or is thinking about doing — openly. Did you hear anything from Democrats about that? In an actual scenario where the midterm elections experience nationalization — whatever that would mean — what would the Democratic plan be to fight back, Mark?
Mark Leibovich: It’s hard to know because this is so unprecedented. No one really knows what we’re dealing with yet — what election interference might look like or what tactics might be used. But one thing I do hear over and over again — and people like Nancy Pelosi, Ken Martin, the chair of the DNC, and a number of other high-level Democrats have said this — is that they are prepared. They are preparing. They have a lot of lawyers involved.
It’s obviously going to be easier in states run by Democratic governors — California, Illinois, Michigan, and so forth. But ultimately, my sense is — and this is vague because no one really knows — they say they’re very prepared and taking it seriously. That’s about what we have right now.
Alexis Madrigal: Aimee, what do you hear in your political world?
Aimee Allison: I want to point out that the Democratic Party — both here in California, which, as you pointed out, Mark, is more important nationally than essentially any other state right now in terms of opposition to Trump and MAGA policies — but also nationally, leadership has been missing in action or acting in ways that have left party faithful confused.
And listen, I work with women of color. Women of color, particularly Black women, have always been the most loyal Democratic voters. So I know what I’m talking about when I say the people who show up for Democrats in elections have been mystified — and frankly angry — at the way Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer have not really worked for unity or moved Democrats as one opposition party that could actually gum up the works for Trump’s actions.
There’s been an overreliance on the courts and an underreliance on political maneuvering where they actually have power. That’s left Democrats scratching their heads: what are they doing? Particularly when some Democrats vote for budgets that expand ICE or vote to congratulate ICE on their actions after controversial operations in places like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis.
So I say all that to say: leadership in California — particularly Gavin Newsom — becomes more important when national leaders are missing. They don’t have the strategy.
Alexis Madrigal: Here’s one listener that agrees with you:
“I’ve been a Democrat for 50 years and an avid listener to NPR for over 40. I’ve had a feeling that I’ve watched a process similar to Hemingway’s description of how to go bankrupt — gradually, then suddenly. 2024 was a disaster. Afterwards, the left suddenly remembered to talk about the working class. I think they confused the working class with the middle class all these years. Schumer can’t be given leadership. He, along with other anachronisms, have strategized the party into this hole.”
We’ll leave it up there. More on the Democrats right when we get back.
