Conor here: The complexity of our political landscape has always baffled me. Voters consistently express that their primary concerns revolve around the economy and affordability. The actions taken by political parties and government can either uplift or diminish the lives of these voters.
The unfortunate reality of the two-party system in what is often hailed as “The Greatest Democracy in the History of the World” is that those who do not subscribe to the lesser evil argument find themselves without viable options.
For anyone attempting to carve out a space for such voters, there is relentless resistance from well-established interests that will employ any tactic to maintain their advantage. Moreover, any organizer or politician advocating for initiatives like universal healthcare must first undertake incremental steps to rebuild trust in government’s capability to positively impact voters’ economic situations. There are numerous entry points for this endeavor, yet it appears that El-Sayed may already be facing significant challenges:
Former President Barack Obama and Abdul El-Sayed discussed Michigan’s U.S. Senate race in a recent phone call.
The campaign characterized the conversation as optimistic, with both looking forward to collaborating to unify Democrats ahead of the November general election… pic.twitter.com/2VTOEzuJOV
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) August 9, 2026
WELKER: You’re indicating that you would not support sending aid to Israel, which was attacked by Hamas, yet you’ve also stated that you would back military aid to Ukraine which was attacked by Russia. Where do you draw the line?
EL-SAYED: It’s about the conditions. I do… pic.twitter.com/krpjU7MM3C
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 9, 2026
Simultaneously, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)—though El-Sayed is not affiliated with them—seem to be experiencing disparate outcomes despite achieving notable victories:
BREAKING: DSA Co-Chair Megan Romer appears on FOX News and ADMITTED they aim to abolish prisons, borders, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, pass mass amnesty, and impose total government control over corporations. pic.twitter.com/4DrAYZDsLu
— Pro America Politics (@proamericapol) July 26, 2026
It’s challenging to reconcile this with the following:
DSA-aligned Democrats have now emerged as the most pro-free-trade voting bloc in the United States, in a remarkable twist of events. pic.twitter.com/BhfaCorZdy
— Joey Politano 🏳️🌈 (@JosephPolitano) August 4, 2026
The DSA seems to exhibit a big-tent approach similar to the establishment parties they intend to align with. Here’s Patrick Lawrence on this:
Decentralization has long been the guiding principle since the merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee with the New American Movement in 1982 under Michael Harrington’s leadership. The idea of forming a centralized party was never entertained, as that would necessitate a hierarchical structure. This miscalculation from Harrington has endured. The DSA aimed to operate within the Democratic Party, leveraging its existing authority structures. For decades, prior to its recent resurgence, the DSA was, more or less, irrelevant.
Now, as Democratic Socialists contest elections like party members, they are, in fact, unanchored from a formal party framework. This lack of structure leads to candidates potentially disavowing any aspect of a party platform that may not serve their political interests, resulting in a chaotic scene.
The historical consequences of Stalinist excess and the complicity of Cold War liberals in anti-Communist actions have inflicted lasting damage on leftist politics in the U.S. A centralized organization and principled authority have facilitated enduring movements in the often tumultuous realm of politics.
Polling data has consistently revealed that a significant portion of the American populace is weary of imperial engagement and yearns for national rejuvenation and improved living conditions.
DSA’s foreign policies resonate strongly with younger Democrats (under 50), increasing their likelihood to support a candidate:
End detentions/deportations — 71%
End Israel aid to free Palestine — 56%
End Cuba/Venezuela/Iran sanctions — 52%
Cut military + close bases — 52%
Nationalize transport/energy… pic.twitter.com/0ZYXbNW8jG— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) August 7, 2026
On the Republican side, even Trump’s MAGA supporters are growing disillusioned with him due to his imperial pursuits and failure to enhance their economic standing.
Whether it’s DSA, El-Sayed, or potential MAGA alternatives, voters are on a quest for anyone who can deliver. Candidates looking to make a difference must confront a two-party system designed to stifle any populist movements as well as a multitude of powerful forces entrenched in the status quo, alongside pervasive propaganda advocating American exceptionalism, and courts and media that are biased against them.
By Nicholas Jacobs, the Goldfarb Family Distinguished Chair in American Government at Colby College and the Inaugural Director of Colby’s Public Policy Lab. Originally published at The Conversation.
Since Donald Trump broke the Democrats’ blue wall by capturing working-class voters throughout the Midwest in 2016, the left has dedicated itself to answering a pivotal question: How can Democrats reclaim the working class?
Diverse solutions have emerged. Sometimes these voices belong to venerable Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who speaks vehemently against “the oligarchs.”
Or perhaps it’s Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, who declared after the 2024 election, “Democrats must reclaim our identity as the party of the working class.”
Alternatively, a fresh wave of candidates – tattooed veterans, mechanics, and bartenders – aim for their stories to serve the political role that policy often has not.
Graham Platner, a Maine Senate candidate who appeared to be the left’s latest blue-collar hero until he withdrew his campaign amid a sexual assault allegation, encapsulated this sentiment succinctly.
“We are in a form of class war,” he stated. “And if the Democratic Party is to maintain a future with working people, it must align with their interests.”
The latest prominent progressive candidate to champion working-class causes is Abdul El-Sayed, who, with his economic populism, succeeded in the 2026 Michigan Democratic Senate primary. Recognized as a “working class” advocate by the United Auto Workers, El-Sayed performed strongest in affluent, educated regions of the state, whereas his rival, Haley Stevens, garnered greater support from Detroit and working-class neighborhoods.
Nevertheless, El-Sayed’s success has revived the familiar narrative: out there exists a latent working-class majority, unified by shared economic challenges, waiting to be politically mobilized for Democratic candidates. Much like the New Deal, proponents believe “economic populism” can repeat that success.
As a political scientist who has extensively researched rural and working-class societies, I find it crucial to question whether these reform-minded Democrats genuinely care to engage with working-class voters on their own terms. After all, these voters assert they are not merely waiting for activation through the right message or candidate. The slogan “Fight the oligarchy” may not resonate as they hope.
Moreover, working-class voters maintain a distinct worldview. For over five decades, the Democratic Party’s evolution has gradually diverged from that of working-class constituents; this is not due to changes in the voters themselves, but rather in the Democratic ideologies.
In a discussion with @chrislhayes tonight, I shared my view that Democrats need to return to being an emphatically economically populist party that builds a broad coalition, inviting working-class voters even if there are disagreements on social and cultural issues. pic.twitter.com/MKuokr6Moi
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) November 14, 2024
Working-Class Identity
Since the early 1950s, the American National Election Studies has surveyed respondents regarding their self-identification as members of the working class. This article draws upon an analysis of that data.
Despite a larger segment of the electorate obtaining college degrees and rising household incomes, the percentage of Americans who identify as working class remains consistent, around 35% over the past 70 years, reaching 38% in 2024.
Working-class identity is more enduring and culturally rooted than merely being “not a billionaire.” It represents a particular lens through which to view society.
Conventional definitions of the working class often overlook how individuals perceive their own standing within society. For instance, according to the 2024 American National Election Studies, 21% of those identifying as working class possess a college degree, only 5% belong to private-sector unions, and 37% own stocks. Conversely, many individuals without a college degree do not see themselves as working class.
Historically, working-class voters have never predominantly supported the Democratic Party—even during the height of the New Deal coalition. According to the American National Election Studies, the working-class share of the Democratic electorate peaked around 56% in 1960 and has steadily declined, now standing at approximately 30%.
For decades, fewer working-class voters identify as Democrats: a majority did so in 1958 but have not since. They haven’t simply morphed into Republicans; only during the 2020 and 2024 elections – for the first time in survey history – did more working-class voters identify as Republican than Democrat, and even then, it was by narrow margins.
The evidence suggests a politically disenfranchised working class: estranged from the Democrats, but also not fully aligning with the Republicans, existing in limbo with diminishing ties to either party.
Respondents self-identifying as “Democrats” and/or “working class.” Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: Nicholas Jacobs’ analysis of American National Election Studies
Economic Abandonment
What has driven them away?
A portion of the progressive left posits a clear reason: Democrats have economically abandoned working-class voters—via trade, wages, and industrial policy. Thus, working-class voters’ reactions seem rational: rectify the economic issues, and the coalition might reassemble.
Trade emerges as a pivotal issue. In 1988, about 74% of Democrats and working-class voters endorsed restrictions on imports to safeguard American employment.
As of 2024, merely 26% of Democrats still support such limits, whereas 54% of working-class voters continue to do so.
Unlike most Democrats, a significant number of working-class communities view globalization unfavorably. This divergence in economic perspectives exists alongside a widening gap on values that tariffs alone cannot bridge.
What Fairness Requires
In 1984, Democrats and working-class voters largely agreed that fostering equality would alleviate social issues. However, a split began after 2008 and intensified following 2016, as Democrats became 28 points more inclined than working-class voters to prioritize equality concerns.
In 1986, half of mainstream Democrats and a slightly lower percentage of working-class voters believed that Black Americans fail to succeed due to lack of effort. By 2024, Democratic concurrence plummeted to 13%, while working-class agreement fell to 32%.
This divergence reflects not merely a narrative of increasing working-class racial resentment; rather, it highlights the Democratic Party’s rapid shift post-2008 towards a perspective that emphasizes systemic barriers over personal accountability.
Meanwhile, working-class voters, who traditionally viewed their situations through the lens of hard work and merit, have not undergone such a radical transformation.
Alignment Becomes Division
The same trend is apparent regarding cultural issues: working-class voters did not shift rightward in a reactionary manner; instead, Democrats moved leftward.
In 1986, similar proportions of Democrats and working-class voters agreed with the sentiment “This country would have fewer problems if there were a greater emphasis on traditional family values.” By 2024, a 25-point divide emerged.
Regarding the importance of religion in their lives, the gap was virtually nonexistent until the early 1990s but widened to 17 points by 2024. On the topic of abortion, a 3-point gap in 1980 has expanded to 30 points by 2024. Even views on immigration have shifted, with both groups nearly identical in 2000—supporting increased immigration around 8%. By 2020, Democratic support surged to 48%, while only 24% of working-class voters agreed.
Even when working-class voters ostensibly align with a Democratic policy goal, they often lack trust in the institutions meant to fulfill those goals—an erosion of faith developed over many years.
Respondents self-identifying as “Democrats” and/or “working class.” Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: Nicholas Jacobs’ analysis of American National Election Studies
How the ‘System’ Plays
In 1958, working-class voters and Democrats were closely aligned regarding government waste of tax funds, with a gap of only 5 points. By 2024, that divide extended to 27 points—not due to working-class voters shifting toward anti-government extremism, but because mainstream Democrats grew significantly more trusting of government as a means of social change.
Working-class voters are 17 points more likely than Democrats to feel that individuals like themselves lack influence over governmental actions. In 2024, a staggering 88% of working-class voters and 75% of Democrats concurred that government operates under the influence of a few powerful interests. Both groups identify the system as compromised.
However, the Democratic response tends to revolve around expanding the system rather than reforming it.
Respondents self-identifying as “Democrats” and/or “working class.” Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: Nicholas Jacobs’ analysis of American National Election Studies
Support for expanding government initiatives—from healthcare to job programs to environmental efforts—has significantly diverged since the 1980s. By 2024, approval gaps of 20 to 30 points emerged regarding government-funded health insurance, environmental spending, and guaranteed job programs.
On nearly every component of the progressive economic agenda, Democrats have shifted notably to the left of the workers they claim to represent.
Respondents self-identifying as “Democrats” and/or “working class.” Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: Nicholas Jacobs’ analysis of American National Election Studies
Not All Class War
For 60 years, working-class voters have indicated to pollsters that the political establishment does not listen to their concerns. Conversely, Democrats have grown progressively more comfortable with the systems that working-class voters have increasingly lost faith in.
This distrust emanates from tangible experiences: deindustrialization that transpired under government oversight, trade agreements backed by economists that disadvantaged workers, a 2008 financial crisis response that rescued banks while leaving them to face foreclosure, and an opioid crisis partly ignored by regulators.
It’s essential to acknowledge that the new wave of reform candidates claims to address these issues. The notion that a capable candidate can effect change is not unfounded. Voter confidence in individuals can sometimes offset a lack of institutional trust, albeit to a limited extent.
Nevertheless, focusing solely on economic political grievances only scratches the surface of the broader messages working-class voters convey. The data reveal a profound, long-term divergence in how working-class individuals and mainstream Democrats perceive fairness, government efficacy, personal accountability, and societal transformation. Simplifying this to mere class conflict traps working-class voters within a prefabricated progressive agenda rather than addressing their authentic concerns.
