When I moved to Wisconsin 16 months ago to assist with a family member’s hospice, I wouldn’t have guessed I was entering a new and unique sort of hell. I’ve lived my entire life in single-party states — Illinois and Tennessee — with a strong sense that my opinions did not matter. I always was represented by populations with greater collective power than myself, regardless of whether I agreed or disagreed.
Wisconsin is different. As one of the seven swing states in the 2024 election, I was constantly berated by public opinion. My house was flooded with negative campaign ads, commercials and door hangers, most of them being negative attack ads. It was exhausting, enough so that Election Day was a relief, just with the anxiety of having that particular burden off my back.
Such experiences make one almost wish to become a monk and forget the outside world exists.
It wasn’t that long ago that the traditional wisdom was that negative campaigning was considered a poor tactic. Unfortunately, it is the bread and butter of both parties now and is driving the American populace crazy to the point of exhaustion. This state of affairs doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon, as last week made clear.
Tuesday’s special elections
With April 30 marking President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office, he already is seeing the first signs of electoral resistance to his agenda.
April 1 marked the first major election since November. In Florida, two congressional seats needed to be filled through a special election. Meanwhile, Wisconsin became the hottest race in the country as an open Supreme Court seat resulted in one of the most expensive state elections in American history, with $90 million in spending.
Democratic-backed circuit judge Susan Crawford comfortably defeated Trump-backed judge Brad Schimel with 55% of the vote, beating predictions of another Republican victory after Trump won the “Blue Wall” swing state by 29,397 votes. While both Republican candidates in Florida won their special elections, the margin of victory narrowed severely in both elections.
The short-term effect of Crawford’s victory will be that Democrats maintain a 4-3 hold over the state’s Supreme Court through 2028, with issues such as abortion, labor and redistricting remaining outside of Republican control. As The New York Times reported, redistricting efforts may result in two congressional seats shifting toward the Democratic Party.
Tuesday also saw New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker complete a record 25-hour filibuster in the Senate against the Trump administration’s policies. As one New Jersey restaurant owner told The New York Times, “Now there’s finally some fire.”
Bad news for Democrats
Both those results were good news for Democrats, who have spent the past five months befuddled by November’s election results. Booker’s filibuster created much praise on social media among Democrats as a defiant stand against the administration.
“It doesn’t provide a clear narrative or pathway for a coherent strategy that isn’t merely reactionary.”
Unfortunately, these victories are transitory in the face of the shifting nature of both major political parties. While a victory like this does show Democrats are likely to kick back and show up to vote in the 2026 and 2028 elections, it doesn’t provide a clear narrative or pathway for a coherent strategy that isn’t merely reactionary.
The Democratic Party doesn’t have a clear leader or coalition at the moment. Early estimations for the 2028 presidential election are highlighting nearly every prominent Democrat, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
However, none of these figures has a clear mandate. It is entirely likely the 2028 Democratic debate stage will echo the 2020 stage, with more than 29 candidates on the ballot.
The Anti-Musk Party
If anything has consolidated Democratic interests in the past three months, it is the unanimous disdain for billionaire and Tesla frontman Elon Musk, whose leadership of DOGE and online activism for Trump have soured his public reputation among the left. Musk has drawn more acrimony in the past few months than Trump himself, arguably becoming the face of the administration and its most despised efforts.
Not surprisingly, Susan Crawford focused much of her campaign on an anti-Musk movement. She even named part of her campaign the “People v. Musk” tour, repeatedly using him as a target. As she said on election night, “As a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin. And we won.”
“I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin.”
Musk’s involvement in the state of Wisconsin was intense in the weeks leading up to the election, having personally spent $25 million on Brad Schimel’s campaign and attended a sizable town hall event in Green Bay the weekend before the election.
It is worth considering, though, that Musk’s role in the Trump administration is tenuous. Trump already dressed down Musk in early March for stepping outside his advisory role, while Tesla investors are demanding he step down. It’s not impossible Musk could be fired or step aside. Frankly, Musk is responsible for a lot of smoke, which makes him a tempting target when he isn’t truly in charge, thus drawing acrimony away from Trump.
Paying the price for a lack of vision
As last Tuesday shows, the Democratic Party is going to have advantages in the coming election cycles. Sitting presidents usually lose congressional seats during the midterms, and (forgoing the unlikely possibility of Trump overturning the 22nd Amendment) there will be no incumbent in 2028. Democrats may also benefit from Trump’s tariff strategy, given that the newly enacted tariffs already have caused a stock market disaster and could potentially spark an economic recession. It is also clear that, while many Americans voted for Trump for economic reasons, there are animating issues like abortion that reliably drive Democratic voters to the polls.
This doesn’t change the fact that Democrats are momentarily running around like a chicken with its head cut off. They have struggled to craft a positive message for months and remain internally divided about how to do so. It’s unclear which of the party’s stated positions are likely to galvanize Democrats and which will turn off valued centrist voters.
As Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett put it, “We have no coherent message.”
“We have no coherent message.”
The Democratic Party needs a leader if it intends to make serious inroads in the future, and that requires leadership and vision on par with the transformational change President Barack Obama created in his 2008 coalition. However, this message will need to be more than merely being against Trump and Musk.
The Trump administration already has proved itself overwhelming and exhausting for Democratic critics, who struggle to keep up with the onslaught of executive orders and tweets. Whatever path forward there is for the Democrats, it won’t be by itemizing and fighting every single battle, but by circumventing the whole with a stronger positive message — something exhausted and financially stressed voters can get behind.
Perspectives on tactics
In a recent commentary piece, New York Times opinion columnist David French argued the Democratic Party should avoid the temptation to create a liberal Tea Party, as the anti-establishment tendencies that movement created would bleed into the party and spark resentment.
“Republicans built a movement around both anger and ideology,” he said. “My mistake was in believing that the ideology was more important than the anger, but it was the anger that gave the Tea Party its political momentum, and that anger eventually swallowed the ideology. Rage is now the defining characteristic of Trump’s Republican Party. … Do Democrats think embracing Tea Party rage is the path back to power? Do they believe they can control that intense anger, once it’s unleashed?”
Similarly, Democratic political consultant James Carville argues Democrats should completely disengage with Republicans and allow them to dig their own grave while avoiding the pitfalls of resistance politics.
“With no clear leader to voice our opposition and no control in any branch of government, it’s time for Democrats to embark on the most daring political maneuver in the history of our party: roll over and play dead,” he said. “Allow the Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight and make the American people miss us. Only until the Trump administration has spiraled into the low 40s or high 30s in public approval polling percentages should we make like a pack of hyenas and go for the jugular. Until then, I’m calling for a strategic political retreat.”
Which path is right? Someone needs to figure this out soon.
Tyler Hummel is a Wisconsin-based freelance critic and journalist, a member of the Music City Film Critics Association, a regular film and literature contributor at Geeks Under Grace, and was the 2021 College Fix Fellow at Main Street Nashville.