Have Democrats Found a Silver Bullet?

Today I'll do one more post related to Tuesday's election. Admittedly, as a liberal, I have been so starved for good political news that I really want to drag out the positive vibes from the election as long as possible. However, I also think that there are still topics of interest to be discussed. Yesterday, I wrote about some of the messages that voters were sending. Number one was that they are very unhappy with cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump's governance. But, it is important to keep in mind that while many voters simply dislike Trump and, for them, that is the end of the discussion, others — especially swing voters — are more focused on how Trump is performing. For them, it is not that Trump is bad, but that the impact of Trump's policies on them is bad. Much of the success by Democratic candidates on Tuesday was owed to their ability to not only tie Republicans to Trump, but to further tie them to Trump's policy outcomes. This provides a blueprint going forward for how to oppose Republican candidates. It is a successful strategy for Democrats and one that is very hard for Republicans to defend against.

A topic of dispute among Democrats has been whether they should run against Trump or whether they should stick to focusing on "kitchen table issues". The first camp argues that Trump is such a threat to democracy that other issues are less important. The second group contends that simply running against Trump doesn't work and, instead, Democrats should focus on day-to-day issues that matter more to voters. What we learned Tuesday is that these strategies can be combined.

To be fair, I got this idea from Semafor reporter Dave Weigel. He has been repeatedly making the point that Democratic candidates that were seeing success weren't just running commercials saying that Trump is terrible. Rather, they were listing policy outcomes resulting from Trump's actions and arguing that their Republican opponents were busy supporting Trump rather than the state or district's interests. Here is Weigel in his own words:

The Dem ads about Trump weren't just "orange man bad." They were: I'm focused on lowering costs while my GOP opponent is serving Trump, who is raising costs with tariffs, canceling infrastructure, etc.

Weigel linked to an example of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey, now Governor-elect, Mikie Sherrill, that occurred during the final debate of the campaign. Sherrill began by saying that her Republican opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, has "shown zero signs of standing up to this president" and that Trump had called Ciattarelli "100% MAGA". She then went on to say that Ciattarelli had said that it was his job to support the President while she believes that it is the Governor's job to support the people of New Jersey. She criticized Ciattarelli for supporting Trump when Trump froze funding for bridges and tunnels between New Jersey and New York City. She quoted Ciattarelli saying that New Jerseyans should "take on a little bit of pain" for Trump's tariffs. In contrast, she said that she thinks "we should fight those tariffs".

This was the whole enchilada. Sherrill soundly tied Ciattarelli to Trump. She then reminded voters of the harmful effects of Trump's policies on New Jersey, both those with local impact such as the Gateway project's withdrawn funding that will harm commutes into New York City and cost jobs for workers in New Jersey, and national policies such as tariffs that have become extremely unpopular. Then Sherrill hit home by arguing that Ciattarelli's allegiance to Trump meant that he would not oppose those policies. In contrast, Sherrill promised that she would fight against those policies and do a better job of representing New Jersey's interests. This message proved successful with Sherrill winning by 13 points.

Another example occurred in Virginia. Ironically, the Republican candidate for governor, Winsome Earle-Sears, has had an on-again, off-again relationship with Trump. She supported Trump in 2020, but later turned against him and called Trump a liability for the party and said she would not support him running again. Trump is famous for holding grudges and during this year's election, refused to endorse her. Nevertheless, Earle-Sears repeatedly offered support for Trump and his policies. That was enough for the Democratic candidate Abigail Spanberger. Spanberger, like Sherrill, took the three-step method of tying Earle-Sears to Trump, showing how Trump's policies hurt Virginia, and then suggesting that Earle-Sears either supported those policies or would not oppose them.

An example of Spanberger implementing this strategy is a commercial she ran titled "Clinics". The ad starts out with a narrator saying, "Trump's bad budget backed by Winsome Earle-Sears" and then pausing for an audio clip of Earle-Sears saying that the budget will do great things for Virginia. The ad then goes on to show that Augusta Health will close three medical clinics in Virginia due to Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The narrator returns to say that "With Trump and Sears: rural clinics close, hundreds of thousands lose coverage, and costs go up for everyone." The audio clip of Earle-Sears saying the budget will do great things was then repeated.

The success of this strategy has not been missed by Democratic strategists. Yesterday, Republican Representative Elise Stefanik announced that she would run for governor of New York. Almost immediately, New York's current governor, Kathy Hochul, released an ad that exactly follows this pattern. The ad starts with Stefanik describing Trump as the "greatest president in the history of our country" and calling Stefanik Trump's "top ally in Congress." The narrator then says that Stefanik is running for governor to "put Trump first" and will put Trump "ahead of you." The ad then says that Stefanik cast the deciding vote to pass Trump's agenda that could cause 1.5 million New Yorkers to lose their health insurance. It says that Stefanik put five rural hospitals "on the chopping block" and voted to greenlight Trump's tariffs even though they are hurting farmers and jacking up costs of everyday goods. The ad also says that when Trump tried to cut $187 million in counterterrorism funds for New York, Stefanik didn't say a word. The ad concludes by saying that Stefanik will "always put Donald Trump ahead of you."

There are a couple of things that I think are notable about this ad. First, there are slight echoes of Trump's famous "Kamala is for they/them" ad. But whereas Trump's ad suggested that former Vice President Kamala Harris prioritized transgender rights over the interests of average voters, Hochul's strategy is to argue that Stefanik prioritizes Trump's interests over the interests of New Yorkers. Second is the claim that Stefanik was the deciding vote to pass Trump's agenda. This refers to the first vote to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill in the House of Representatives. The bill passed by one vote, which means that any House Republican who voted in favor of the bill could be described as the "deciding vote". Only two Republicans voted against the bill, one voted "present," and one was absent. So there are 215 Republicans who can be said to be the "deciding vote." I suspect that Republicans all over the country are going to receive this designation in ads run by Democrats.

Democrats may have found their silver bullet. One of the best political weapons is a wedge issue that can be used to split the opposition. In this case, Trump's policies are the wedge issue. Democrats can easily link Republicans to Trump and, from there, to Trump's policies, which are extremely unpopular. Trump came into office promising to lower prices. Instead, prices continue to increase, and his tariffs are making everything more expensive. Polls show that Trump is underwater on every important political issue. Yet, Republicans are afraid to oppose him. I have witnessed a surreal development in which Republicans will criticize a range of policies, all of which are Trump's policies, but then emphasize that they support Trump. Even Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has suddenly turned into a Kumbaya-singing centrist, and has criticized Republicans for not having an alternative to Obamacare, for bailing out Argentina, for focusing on foreign affairs, and for blowing up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, has then turned around and said how much she supports Trump. Who does she believe is doing those things?

Trump is notoriously thin-skinned. He will not tolerate Republican candidates criticizing him, even if that is what they need to do to win an election. Winsome Earle-Sears is a perfect example. By adopting this strategy, Democrats are forcing Republicans to choose between Trump and their constituents. Neither choice is good for the Republicans. The midterm elections are one year off, and over the next 12 months, every Republican can expect to have Trump's policies hung around their head. I can foresee a situation in which New Yorkers are shown a commercial claiming that Elise Stefanik was the deciding vote to deprive millions of New Yorkers of healthcare, that is immediately followed by a commercial in which Republican Representative Mike Lawler is also accused of being the deciding vote to deprive millions of New Yorkers of healthcare. Both commercials will be technically accurate. But unless Stefanik or Lawler are willing to split from Trump, that is the bed in which they have chosen to sleep.