The Democrats Are Losing Voters — But They Don’t Really Want to Hear Why

Editor’s note: While many are talking about why young men moved toward Trump in 2024, Lincoln Square is committed to providing a platform for young voices to speak for themselves. This column is from C.J. Penneys, an Associate Producer for Lincoln Square.

When a political party spends millions of dollars trying to figure out why people don’t like them anymore, you have to wonder: Is this for insight, or is this for show? The Democratic Party is now pouring money into understanding why they’re losing demographics like young voters — especially young men. But even if a focus group hands them the answer on a silver platter, it wouldn’t matter. Because Democrats don’t listen to their base. They ignore it, marginalize it, and when necessary, villainize it— especially when it dares to demand real change.

Instead of offering policy, Democrats offer performance. Instead of bold action, they offer books, press tours, and TV interviews. Their “leaders” don’t inspire — they hedge, deflect, and dance around real questions, then wonder why nobody’s moved.

Kamala Harris is a good case study. She ran a campaign that should have been an easy win: a sitting Vice President, up against a fractured GOP still licking its wounds from a chaotic primary, which seemingly was only messaging on taking away rights from transpeople, immigrants, women, LGTBQ+ people, etc. But Harris never made a case for herself. When asked how she would differ from Joe Biden, a man many Democrats openly begged to step aside, she said she wouldn’t. Her messaging was an echo of a man polling underwater with the very voters she needed. On issue after issue — from Gaza to student debt — Biden broke promises or doubled down on unpopular positions. Harris, instead of offering daylight between herself and his record, stood proudly in his shadow.

Now she’s promoting a book titled 107 Days, documenting the time she had to campaign. One might think she’d use this media tour to name names or stake a claim for the future of the party. Instead, when asked to name a single Democratic leader she considers a fighter, she passed. When asked who she meant when she accused others of complacency, she wouldn’t say. Not even an easy target like Pennsylvania U.S. Senator John Fetterman, a man who built a campaign on progressive aesthetics but now cozies up to right-wing positions he once condemned. Harris wouldn’t call him out, maybe because calling out anyone would mean risking the illusion of unity the party hides behind.

This refusal to speak plainly — to say what needs to be said even when it's uncomfortable — is exactly why young voters are walking away.

The problem isn’t just Harris. New Jersey U.S. Senator Cory Booker gave the longest filibuster in U.S. Senate history. It was stirring. It was passionate. And it did absolutely nothing. No legislation was passed. No policy was blocked. No votes were changed. But he cried. He speechified. He got his press hits. And now, of course, he’s writing a book about it. What is there to even write? Hour nine? Hour ten? The bathroom breaks he didn’t take? It's not a record of success — it’s a record of symbolism.

Booker’s record of performance art on the Senate floor does not end there, not even for the year 2025 alone. The New York Post gave a semi-timeline of recent events where Booker did something clearly ineffective — and time doesn’t have to tell you that; we learn why some of his acts are ineffective the moment they happen. In July, he staged a walkout during a judicial confirmation hearing — as if leaving the room was going to stop anything. Earlier this year, he delivered an over-the-top tirade against a bipartisan package of police staffing and mental health bills, accusing his colleagues of “bending the knee” to Trump, despite the fact that the bill passed unanimously out of committee (a committee he sits on), and he hadn’t even shown up to the relevant hearing.

This all came after his record-breaking 25-hour “filibuster” against a bill that didn’t even exist yet, and long after his tent-housed, hunger-strike protest as a Newark city councilman, which changed exactly zero things. If he ever did want to challenge Trump again for the presidency, he’s certainly built a reel — though it’s more circus than campaign.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, celebrated defeating the "Trump Murder Bill" not by stripping its funding or blocking its passage, but by changing its name. Yes, he fought for the removal of the phrase “Big Beautiful Bill” because, in his words, “Nothing about this bill is beautiful.” This is what Democrats consider a win: Changing the font while the house burns down. At best, it’s embarrassing. At worst, it’s delusional.

And then there are the Sinemas and Fettermans of the party. Performative politicians who branded themselves as bold, quirky, or progressive — until power called. Kyrsten Sinema campaigned as a trailblazer: an openly LGBTQ+ senator from Arizona who looked like she might fight for the people. She got to Congress and famously gave a literal curtsy while voting against a $15 minimum wage. Her political career ended the moment voters saw through the costume.

Share

John Fetterman is more personal. As a Pennsylvanian, I thought we had our own Bernie Sanders. But after the stroke, or maybe just after winning, Fetterman started sounding less like Bernie and more like Joe Manchin. He campaigned on empathy and class struggle. Now he rails against "the left," hugs Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, and picks fights with activists. He vowed not to be another Sinema or Manchin. Instead, he joined them.

But the clearest contrast to all of this is someone many Democrats refuse to even acknowledge: Zohran Mamdani. A Democratic Socialist from Queens, Zohran doesn’t just speak the language of the people — he fights for the material conditions that actually affect them. Yes, he comes from a well-off background, and critics have tried to use that against him, questioning whether someone born into privilege can truly represent the working class. But this kind of suspicion isn’t new. It’s the same line of attack that was once used against FDR — another so-called “class traitor” who used his elite status not to uphold power, but to challenge it.

As HuffPost put it, “Zohran Mamdani Proves We Don’t Understand Rich People Who Want More For Others.” He could have stayed quiet, played nice with the party, and coasted on safe credentials. Instead, he chose to fight — for tenants, for transit riders, for the working poor. He pushed for free buses in New York City not because it’s a trendy cause, but because he understands that when your paycheck hasn’t hit and rent just cleared, $2.90 for a bus ride can be the difference between keeping your job or losing it. His politics are material, not rhetorical. And that’s exactly why I think the Democratic establishment is trying to destroy him — because his vision doesn’t just challenge the GOP; it challenges them too.

The same playbook they used on Bernie is now being used on Zohran. Accusations of antisemitism. Cherry-picked polling. Whisper campaigns. Current New York Mayor Eric Adams recently posted a chart of Jewish voter support that mysteriously left Zohran off entirely. The message is clear: "Vote blue no matter who" only applies when it’s one of their guys. When someone like Zohran wins a primary, suddenly party loyalty becomes optional.

So let’s be clear: Democrats aren’t losing voters because of TikTok trends or bad vibes (and they are not going to win those voters back by finding their “Joe Rogan of the Left”). They’re losing because people can see through the show. They see Schumer’s avocado props and Booker’s marathon speeches and Harris’s vacant optimism for what they are — distractions. They see a party that doesn’t want to win if winning means listening to its base. They see leaders more interested in TV hits than town halls, and bookshelves full of memoirs about failure sold as legacy.

Young men aren’t turning to Trump because they’re all reactionary or unreachable. Many of them are just tired of being lied to by people who claim to be on their side. Trump may be a con man, but at least he speaks like someone trying to win. Democrats speak like they’re trying to keep a TED Talk gig.

If the party wants to stop the bleeding, it can’t focus group its way out of this, and it most certainly cannot podcast its way out of this. It can’t let Marjorie Taylor Greene outflank them on issues like healthcare, housing, and college becoming more and more unaffordable.

This is not to say we should accept MTG’s shift in world view (and assume that she has better politics than when she claimed climate change is due to Jewish space lasers). The Democratic Party simply has to change. It has to fight for something real. It has to stop allowing these MAGA cult members convincing to many Americans that the GOP is the party for the people. It has to stop punishing the few people left who still believe it can.

Newsletters

The Lincoln Logue | Trump Aesthetic™: Obnoxious Décor, Criminal Friends, & Coercive Trade Policy

CJ Penneys (Charles Penneys) and Lincoln Square · Aug 2

This week, Trump tried to prove that running from a scandal doesn’t make it go away — it just makes the scandal chase you across the Atlantic in stilettos. From Scotland, he rambled through the most panicked denial yet of his Epstein ties, claiming he doesn’t draw boobs and never set foot on “the island,” as if this were a bad episode of

Read full story