What does it mean to be a Democrat at a time when Americans are polarized politically yet increasingly avoid identifying with a major party? Four months ahead of the midterms, Democrats are still searching for a unified set of principles and policies that could resonate beyond their base to rally independents, non-MAGA Republicans, and politically disengaged voters who supported Donald Trump in 2024 but are now experiencing a case of buyer’s remorse.
This year’s Democratic primaries are giving unusually high visibility to progressive, anti-establishment, and populist candidates, some of whom identify with the Democratic Socialists of America, the political home of Sen. Bernie Sanders and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Unlike in 2018, when an anti-Trump backlash elevated a group of high-profile progressives as part of the biggest Democratic wave in nearly half a century, today’s crop of challengers is as much a product of broad anti-Trump mobilization as it is a reflection of profound intra-party divisions over affordability, Israel, corporate power, and whether the party’s inherited governing model is adequate to the scale of the problems facing the nation.
Establishment Democrats are concerned that far-left populists could founder in general elections where the electorate is less partisan than in the primary. But among Democratic-leaning voters, 88% view America’s economic system as unfair, and 83% think it either needs to be torn down entirely or undergo major changes.
Fifty-three percent are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party, and 58% believe the current crop of Democrats in office isn’t doing enough to fight back against the Trump agenda. Two-thirds would rather vote for a candidate who promises to lower prices by going after corporate price gouging than one who would make it easier to build housing and expand energy production — favoring a populist affordability argument over the center-left abundance case.
Factor in Democrats’ improving perceptions of socialism (66% positive, up from 57% in 2018) and willingness to back their party’s candidates regardless of personal baggage, just to prevent Republicans from winning, and this year’s anti-establishment mood on the left could be more consequential than eight years ago.
As Republicans grapple with President Trump’s unpopularity, Democrats are expanding their advantage on a measure of voters’ preference for a party to represent them in Congress, which currently stands around 6 percentage points, roughly where it was at a similar moment in 2018. They are 7 points ahead on their perceived ability to manage the cost of living, this year’s most salient issue, and 11 points ahead on voter enthusiasm, turning out to vote in this cycle’s primary and special elections at an exceptionally high rate.
Republicans’ lack of a cohesive affordability platform provides an opening for populist Democrats, especially if they can tie cost-of-living pressures to corporate power, housing, health care, and wages in a way that feels concrete rather than ideological. In the meantime, Trump’s rhetoric portraying Democratic socialist candidates as far-left extremists puts an already battered Democratic brand (-20 points favorability on average, compared with Republicans’ -17) under additional pressure, and the party’s ability to rebut these attacks could make or break its chances with late-deciding swing voters in close races.
With President Trump’s net job approval at -17 points, Republicans’ ability to defend their majorities in the U.S. House and Senate hinges on keeping the many disparate elements of Trump’s 2024 winning coalition on board. One of those is Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), a loose public health movement rooted in “crunchy” liberal environmental politics, whose food-related priorities — including concerns about ultra-processed foods, additives, and pesticides — have a clear cross-partisan appeal.
Just under a third of U.S. adults identify with MAHA, including half of Trump’s 2024 voters and 20% of those who supported Kamala Harris for president. But its goals related to cleaning up American diets are overwhelmingly popular across the board and are one of relatively few areas of bipartisan collaboration in Congress and state legislatures.
After a strong start that positioned Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a MAHA figurehead (and former Democrat), as one of the most visible members of Trump’s cabinet, the movement is at a crossroads, increasingly divided over the administration’s moves to reduce childhood vaccinations (MAHA’s most controversial priority), protect pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits, and cater to food and agriculture interests over a grassroots agenda championed by “MAHA mom” influencers and activists.
Still, the White House views Kennedy as a valuable midterm asset and has recently dispatched him to several swing congressional districts where he appeared alongside Republican candidates, often with no known MAHA ties. Some of Kennedy-aligned political groups have made endorsements in Republican primaries, but their publicly confirmed spending has so far been limited to two high-profile contests, in one of which a MAHA-endorsed populist prevailed over a MAGA candidate backed by Trump.
Looking ahead to the general election, MAHA supporters — roughly 40% of whom are reluctant to vote for Republican candidates based on the administration’s record to date — could make a difference in close races, whether by staying home or (less likely) backing a Democrat. Meanwhile, some Democrats with records on food safety, chemical regulation, and sustainable agriculture are courting MAHA-curious voters, hoping to unravel the already fragile MAHA-MAGA alliance.
For the second election in a row, Republicans are leading the way on using AI for a growing number of campaign tasks like conducting simulated polls, creating and testing ads, fundraising, and voter outreach. So far this cycle, some of the most sophisticated, and controversial, AI-generated content has come from Republican primaries, MAGA-aligned candidates, and pro-Trump or right-leaning groups.
Republican primary races in Texas (Senate) and Kentucky (House) offer the clearest examples of deepfake-style AI attacks being used as part of intra-party escalation to help propel a MAGA candidate to victory, although other factors, like a Trump endorsement, also played a role. The Trump White House and administration officials like Health Secretary Kennedy frequently use AI-generated imagery in official communications, effectively normalizing deepfake-adjacent content for Republican-aligned voters — while further eroding trust in government and political information across the board.
On the left, some progressive Democrats are beginning to experiment with AI-generated content in primaries, especially against centrist or establishment-aligned rivals, but their use has been more cautious and they have not yet embraced deepfakes as a category.
Studies show that voters can find deepfakes persuasive, even when they know or suspect that content is false, and voice clones can be particularly hard to detect. Americans appear to be on guard, with 85% viewing AI as a likely vector for spreading election disinformation.
A majority of voters, 60%, feel confident they can tell if something is AI-generated, but that number is 46% for older adults, who are more likely to vote in midterm elections. There is some indication that a deepfake ad may have helped tip the scales for some older voters in the Kentucky District 4 primary despite the fact that it included an AI disclaimer, which is required in 27 states. (By contrast, a deepfake targeting Zohran Mamdani in the 2025 New York mayoral election generated backlash and contributed to his rival’s collapse among younger voters.)
Between now and November, we will be watching whether Democratic campaigns begin using deepfake-style content — and whether AI-generated media is deployed specifically to amplify election-integrity doubts, already more present among Republicans and independents, or manipulate turnout in close races.
