What Can Democrats Do Now?
Some New Ideas To Pique Voter Interest
Democrats need to move on and move on fast. What really scares me is whether Democrats, Independents, and any others who care about democracy can, over the next couple of years, preserve the concept of "Free & Fair Elections," and pack the 2026 campaigns with credible, charismatic candidates with some sort of refocused message that appeals to the masses. I struggle with the concern of whether Democrats can clarify and better define their misleading "woke/progressive" label.
There are so many explanations of what went wrong and how serious it is for the future of the Democratic Party, but we need to maintain perspective and remind the public how close this race really was. To win the 270, Harris only lost by 231,646 votes -- WI by 29,417 votes; MI by 80,618; and PA by 121,611. There is very little reporting on this fact, and a lot of misleading reporting about "Trump's big win" and how damaged and out of touch the Democratic Party is. Harris simply needed a little more work in WI, MI, & PA & less in other battlegrounds & she would have won.
While she narrowly lost the popular vote, and that is a concern, she only had a very short time to spread her message to the masses & was in a difficult spot in trying to establish her own identity in the shadow of Biden. Additionally, even in the most important election maybe ever, some 90 million potential voters didn't vote and 10% of them said they didn't think their vote would count. We've got some work to do there.
Trump and the MAGA movement are now armed with the power of government control, immunity from laws, and virtually unlimited funding from public and mega-billionaire private sources if needed. They are in a position to buy, bully & bribe the next election without fear of campaign law violations. Powerful odds for Democrats to overcome. In the 2026 Midterms, all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats in the U.S. Senate will be contested. Democrats need to ensure there are quality candidates running and develop a coordinated, crystal-clear message with appealing ideas to create voter momentum. It's an enormous task. But, there is no other choice.
I've been thinking about the 2024 election and all that red area that is flashed before our eyes every time we are exposed to an electoral map. Since the race was so close, I've been thinking about how the Democrats can make some inroads in those red areas and beyond. Those red areas are filled with farms, small towns, and lots of small businesses that over generations have been lured into thinking that Democrats are all about big city urban areas, east coast, west coast, elitist, and they are just the "fly-over" space in the country.
What if Democrats came up with some new ideas that break through that image, and begin to divide some of the GOP/MEGA coalitions that actually misrepresent many of those rural areas, and appeal to the deeper concerns of the electorate? Kamala Harris had some good ideas and was beginning to scratch the surface of some new ideas, but unfortunately, she didn't have time to fully develop and explain them thoroughly. In recent years Democrats have lost much of their historic connection to the middle class, hard-working backbone of the country. Harris was trying to reestablish that connection. Here are a few new ideas that could appeal to millions that may have lost their connection to the Democrats.
1. Big business v. Small business
Let's start with small business. Kamala Harris was starting to break ground here with her calls for plans to cut red tape, start-up funding, and expanded access to Federal contracting opportunities. This idea needs some further refinements and focus.
Republicans claim to be the party of all things business. Here's the difference. Big business, in whatever sector, spends much of its time competing with small businesses and attempting to drive them out or buy them out, of their business. While small businesses understand this and are often defenseless against the bigger guys, they tend to side with the Republican party and Republican-dominated trade associations (e.g. Chamber of Commerce). The primary reason is that they don't have an alternative that they trust, and that is focused on their specific issues and their difficulties in competing against their bigger adversaries. For example, Republicans have repeatedly tried to cut SBA’s funding by nearly a third and want to raise taxes and costs for small businesses by repealing Inflation Reduction Act investments. This is where Democrats must exert new efforts to develop trust and become the new "small" business advocate party. Republicans are really the party of "big" business.
I emphasize the word "small," because this is a significant focal point. In the U.S., most manufacturing companies with 500 employees or fewer, and most non-manufacturing businesses with average annual receipts under $7.5 million, will qualify as a small business. That's ridiculous -- 500 employees and $7.5 million receipts constitutes a misleading and distorted definition of "small business" and is far from the Mom & Pop, maybe 2-15 employees, which is the typical public perception of what a small business is.
In fact, there are approximately 33.3 million "small businesses" in the United States, with a significant portion generating less than $50,000 in annual revenue, and only around 9% of small businesses report annual revenue exceeding $1 million. According to the United States Census Bureau, the majority of U.S. businesses have fewer than five employees, and 89% have fewer than 20 workers. Small businesses account for 64% of new jobs annually and every year, they create 1.5 million jobs in the US. [See: Small Business Statistics: The Ultimate List in 2024]
Democrats need to focus on just the 89% with under 20 employees, that's over 29 million businesses, whose interests and issues are far different from the Republican-supported big businesses. If you consider the business owner, their family members, and their employees and their family members; that is a huge block of voters. Democrats need to dig down and double down on these businesses and their concerns, and declare that they are the new party for the "Real Small Businesses."
2. Corporate Ag v. Family Farms
Again, if you look at that voting map and all that red area that is Republican-dominated -- to a great extent, that's farm country. Much like the small business dynamics, Republicans are considered the party of the farm community. Yet, like the business community, the farm community is divided between very large-scale corporate agriculture operations versus thousands of small-scale family farm operations. Republicans are happy to represent those giant mega-corporate ag companies with their big campaign bucks and dominating influence on agriculture policy in the U.S.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has specific classifications: Family Farms: USDA defines family farms as any farm where the majority of the business is owned by individuals related by blood, marriage, or adoption. Family farms can range from very small to very large, but they generally have a strong family ownership and management structure.
Small Family Farms: These are typically farms with gross cash farm income (GCFI) of less than $350,000.
Midsize Family Farms: Farms with GCFI between $350,000 and $999,999.
Large Family Farms: These have GCFI of $1 million or more but are still owned and managed by family members.
Non-Family and Corporate Farms: Farms owned by non-family corporations or cooperatives, typically with GCFI well over $5 million and often associated with high-volume, industrial-scale production practices. These farms may operate across multiple locations or have significant investment from non-family stakeholders.
Industrial or Mega Farms: This category, while not officially defined in legal terms, often refers to large-scale concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or extensive monoculture operations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines CAFOs based on the number of animals and environmental impact; for instance, large CAFOs might have over 1,000 cattle, 2,500 swine, or 125,000 chickens.
USDA's classifications help determine eligibility for subsidies, loans, and other support programs, while additional distinctions by UEPA influence environmental and regulatory compliance. These categories help establish tax rates, labor regulations, and environmental standards across different farm sizes and business structures.
According to USDA, there were 1,798,439 "small family farms" in the United States in 2017. The average size of a small family farm is 231 acres, and they account for only 15% of all products sold. This is the farm community with a distinctly different set of issues and concerns from the corporate farms and even the larger categories of "family farms." Considering these farm families, their helping hands, and their related very small towns, they represent a sizeable voting constituency and an inroad for Democrats to the vast "red areas" of the U.S. As with the small business community discussed above, Democrats need to dig down and double down on this community, champion their specific issues, and become the new political party of the "Really Small Family Farms." Farm Aid, and its icon, Willie Nelson, have a long history with this political coalition and their efforts to expand the reach of the Good Food Movement and take action to change the dominant system of industrial agriculture and promote food from family farms. Democrats need to identify and build on this relationship by clarifying the differing issues and competing interests within the agriculture community. See for example this article: "Some in the U.S. farm industry are alarmed by Trump's embrace of RFK Jr. and tariffs"
3. Citizen Involvement In Legislation
Over the decades, Congressional members have become further and further removed and accountable to their individual constituents. With growing representative populations, flawed and defective Congressional rules, and political gerrymandering, Congressional members can literally ignore opposing positions of their constituency with little repercussions.
They can pretty much do what they want with little accountability or explanation to their constituents under the cover of extensive procedural excuses.
The Founders' vision was that there would be only 30,000 constituents for each House member. In today's world, each Member generally represents over 700,000 constituents and Senators, of course, represent the entire state. Attempting to communicate with a Congressional Member can be a very frustrating experience filled with procedural excuses, form letters, and ignored petitions. Yet, various interest groups with political contribution connections seem to have few problems.
It's time for a new system or procedure to bring the public into to the legislative decision-making process and derive some accountability. When it comes time to vote, voters should have access to voting records and information that are not tainted with misleading votes with extraneous, unrelated amendments, procedural excuses, or no votes at all on critical issues. Democrats need to articulate this issue which many constituents can relate to, make it a concern in future campaigns, and propose solutions to to bring citizens closer to the legislative process.
I would suggest a meaningful petition procedure that would simply force Congress to vote on an existing bill without any extraneous, unrelated amendments. The procedure would force media coverage and bring a level of accountability to the individual Members which constituents could then use at their discretion at the ballot box.
In order to provide credibility to the procedure, I would suggest that in cases where there is already identified bipartisan support for an existing House or Senate bill, a public petition containing at least 100,000 signatures each from Republicans, Democrats, and Independent registered voters, and properly certified, shall force a recorded vote to be taken within the House & Senate on such bills within 5-10 days of said certification. NGOs or individuals could initiate the process, petition certification would be by a credible source (e.g. House or Senate clerks), and Member votes would be duly recorded. The procedure would simply clarify a Member's position on a particular issue and avoid misleading voting records and delays or refusals to vote on important issues. The procedure would not require Members to act in any way other than vote on the petitioned bill. However, it would definitely give voters a greater and more meaningful connection to the legislative decision-making process, and I believe it would be very appealing to a large number of voters.
These are just three new ideas, completely within the overall Democratic Party philosophy, that I believe could generate some new momentum in the electorate. If they were identified and developed as part of the 2026 Midterms and 2028 Presidential campaigns, in addition to more traditional Party positions, could provide renewed voter enthusiasm and turnout in those elections.
Messaging
Finally, just a brief word on messaging. This is a critical issue to future Democratic campaigning and needs to be analyzed in-depth and polished to perfection. I am one who believes Democrats can do much better at defining their “product” and advertising it in a professional and sophisticated manner to “sell it.” We need to consult with the best and brightest in the business to develop and promote this message.