I’ve been thinking about a strategic question in Democratic politics.
Do Democratic leaders believe they can keep winning elections primarily by running against Trump and Republicans or does governing eventually have to justify itself?
Negative partisanship works. Fear is a powerful mobilizer and modern politics runs heavily on it. But it has usually functioned as a supplement to performance rather than a substitute for it. Voters will accept anxiety about the alternative for quite a while. They don’t accept unsatisfying daily experience forever.
State government is where the wheel hits the road.
In states where one party governs consistently politics isn’t a message it’s a condition. People experience housing costs, taxes, schools, disorder, services, and whether ordinary transactions of daily life are easy or difficult. They may disagree about causes but they don’t experience them as abstractions.
At the moment many of the states most durably governed by Democrats are showing visible strain: budget stress, high living costs, or residents relocating elsewhere. Every state has problems but these are places where Democrats unmistakably own the outcomes.
That creates a real strategic test. A national campaign built around stopping the opposition can win elections. The question is how long it can outrun accumulated experience.
So the coming elections may tell us something broader than who voters like or dislike.
Are they still primarily voting to prevent the other party from governing?
Or are they beginning to judge the places where one party already does?
If the latter starts to dominate, then politics shifts back toward results — and fear stops being enough.
