Democrats worry they've been caught in an anger trap with Donald Trump
By: Amie Parnes (The Hill)
Donald Trump has become an excuse for the Democratic Party's refusal to move past the 2016 election. Donald Trump winning the 2016 election was an unexpected shock. But the 'anger trap' of Trump only distracts from confronting Hillary Clinton's loss as a crisis for the Democratic Party. Clinton was the ideal candidate to represent the Democratic agenda and platform despite obvious flaws in her campaign. Clinton's loss was a failure of the Democratic brand that could only be corrected by introspection and change. Democrats are still trying to revive an obsolete past with 'anger trap' provocations rather than do the hard work of preparing for the future.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
May 23, 2026 -- Democrats have spent nearly a decade in fight mode against President Trump.
And some in the party worry that they may remain trapped there.
An autopsy released by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Thursday underscored the point, saying that Democrats relied too heavily on negative partisanship and became too dependent on attacks on Trump in their messaging to voters.
The report also stated that "anti-Trump sentiment" has its limitations in terms of achieving electoral success.
As they were hammering Trump in their anger, Democrats did not provide a vision to lure voters to their side or an argument for what they would do with power.
This week at the 2026 IDEAS Conference hosted by the Center for American Progress, anger was also displayed by a series of Democratic speakers, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is a front-runner in the 2028 presidential race.
He and others spoke mostly about fighting the president and his party, a message that Democrats caution will fire up the base but may not be enough to win over independents, and thus, elections.
"Trump is the best base mobilizer for Democrats right now. But I think there is a broad understanding that the clock is ticking on how much longer Democrats can rely on polarization because of Trump to galvanize our voters," said Democratic strategist Joel Payne, highlighting the problem.
In a Substack post this week titled "Can D's control their fury," Democratic strategist Dan Turrentine also wondered whether those in his party could move past the anger in the past few election cycles.
After attending the IDEAS Conference this week, Turrentine said he was "stunned by how consumed speakers and moderators were by raw fury against Donald Trump's administration."
"Time and again, they looked and sounded angry, no matter the topic, talked incessantly about losing our democracy and the country being genuinely destroyed," Turrentine wrote in the post.
"The danger I worry about for my party leadership is that post-Virginia Supreme Court, and post-Voting Rights Act, inside the Beltway and on BlueSky, we are becoming blinded again by our fury," he added.
Those were references to two recent court decisions that handed the GOP major victories on redistricting while infuriating Democrats. The Virginia Supreme Court tossed out a new congressional map approved by Virginia voters, while the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for GOP states in the South to create new districts built for Republicans in a major shot at the Voting Rights Act.
All the focus on anger comes as Democrats wrestle with why they lost in 2024.
Part of the problem is the party's reputation, which continues to be in the dumps with voters, according to polls.
A CNN poll in April, for example, showed that just 28 percent of those surveyed had a positive view of the Democratic Party, while 56 percent viewed the party negatively.
Democrats have recently sounded the alarm in saying that while they're expected to win the House and are competitive in Senate races, they need to offer voters a plan to lure not just their base, but also independents and Republicans.
The DNC autopsy encouraged Democrats in future races to "build affirmative cases for candidates to drive enthusiasm instead of relying on reductive messaging." Anti-Trump sentiment alone, the report stated, was "insufficient to motivate voters."
Democratic strategist Steve Schale, who ran former President Obama's Florida operation in 2008, said while "anger is a motivator" for the base of the party, Democratic candidates "need to give that skeptical voter a reason to vote for you and it has to be more than 'Trump is a disaster.'"
"He makes it so easy to be negative because the content is just there," Schale said. "But there has to be a turn-the-page kind of thing too."
Schale said candidates could highlight what he called "the absurdities of the moment," pointing to Trump's interest in projects like a proposed arch in Washington as a juxtaposition to the economic anxiety many Americans are feeling, including rising gas prices and food costs.
"The contrast is always important," he said.
John Morgan, a Democratic megadonor, said Democrats' incessant focus on Trump will pay off in the midterms.
"Obsession equals turnout," Morgan said, which could help the party win control of the House and Senate. He said such a result "which would be the end of the [Trump] presidency as we know it."
In the past year, potential 2028 candidates like Newsom have telegraphed what kind of messaging they're likely to use in a campaign. Newsom, for example, has leaned heavily into being the chief Democratic combatant, appealing to Democrats who feel frustrated and powerless.
He has actively taken on Trump and Republicans on social media, launched a successful redistricting fight in California and has delivered a string of speeches slamming the administration.
At the IDEAS Conference this week, Newsom urged Democrats to "fight fire with fire."
"A year ago, my sense was, in this country, that our path back as Democrats … was through the center," he told the crowd at a Washington hotel ballroom. "Increasingly, I'd argue, it's through the fight. And people want fighters. People want people with conviction and clarity."
Payne said while that may be enough for midterms, it needs to change for the 2028 cycle.
"The project for 2026 is to be opportunistic with the unpopularity of Trump," he said. "But the project for 2028 is to tell a post-Trump story."
Be a good human. Grossly derogatory comments, blatantly inflammatory comments, excessive trolling, mean-spirited taunting and insults, scamming, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed in compliance with the site's Terms of Service and the Code of Conduct. The moderators have the final word.
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
The 'anger trap' is just a bogus excuse for noise and laziness. The Democratic Party seems to be trapped in a competition with itself. But the outrage and gaslighting for political red meat is not motivating the party to move forward into the 21st century.
I think you're completely right. Except that this applies to the right as well, although it seems to a lesser degree. To me, anyway. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but it seems more and more to me that dealing with politics through anger is what we're intentionally being encouraged to do. It's one of the reasons I've backed away from commenting much on political issues.
Do you believe there is a uniquely valid reason for being angry about Donald Trump ?
I agree. Republicans were trapped in the 1980s when ethics didn't matter and money was easy. And, yes, Republican efforts to make the rich richer did rely upon 'culture war' anger to distract from the public larceny that was taking place.
MAGA was supposed to put an end to the Reagan legacy of supply-side theft of the public good. But a penthouse billionaire from New York (the Republican favored class) somehow convinced Republicans to fight each other using the same diversionary 'culture wars' that allowed the rich to bankrupt the country for their own benefit. Donald Trump is only doing what Republicans have done since Saint Raygun declared the government was the root cause of every problem in the universe. Trump just isn't hiding it.
Not that well versed on the effects of Reagan's policies, but this sounds correct. I'll have to do some research. That said, do you have the impression that the Democrat/Republican clown show that is Congress is actually just theater designed to keep the masses distracted and that, really, they're all a subsidiary of globalist billionaires?
This will not change until we get corporate money out of politics. And since those in power seem to have no incentive to do so, quite the opposite in fact, our government will continue to be a broken mess with legislators pitting the voters against each other to distract them while they rob the local piggy banks. Sadly, many constituents have been convinced they have to donate to their brand of candidate to keep the sky from falling, aka their ideological opponent from winning, even though their money isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the corporate interests donating to campaigns.
This country has been in an extreme crisis for the past 11 years beginning with the "escalator ride". There have been ongoing and often extensive efforts to "normalize" Trump , even at times by the mainstream media. His sort of traitorus behavior needs to be constantly called out by Democrats and non-Democrats alike. Until "MAGA" is in the dust bin our country is still at risk for extremism.
What's the alternative?
Essentially the Democratic Party is still stuck in the 1960s. The party attempts to treat every issue as a 'civil rights' issue. But the audience for that type of political messaging is shrinking as the older generations die off.
Like it or not, the MAGA movement was a response to the Republican Party being stuck in the 1980s. An awareness of the flaws and failings of supply-side economics emerged during the Obama Presidency. But the rich didn't want to give up their government favoritism.
Now we're stuck reliving the 20th century 'culture wars' that don't translate to the modern context. The political crisis revealed itself during the Great Recession. Multilateral globalism has become a liability. The post-Cold War world doesn't exist any longer.
So, what's the alternative?
the MAGA movement was a product of white grievance. the timeline of politics over the past 15 years makes that clear. trump rose to prominence on white grievance.
trump is a traitor and that should be the first thing said about him from now until forever. his movement has supported a known traitor for years. it is a problem that towers over all other problems.
I would add to that the fatigue of constantly having to deal with many of the narratives Dem's were pushing, like racism, identity politics, DEI, equality of outcome and so on, which just made the issue you list above even worse.
How does the fatigue for those issues compare to the onslaught of incompetence, corruption, grift, dishonesty, vindictiveness, coercion, lawlessness, boorish behavior, and the damage to our economy and reputation by the Trump administration?
If it weren't for identity politics the right wouldn't have their anti-LGBTQA+ platform. Got to push those evil drag queens out of business... you know... for the kids. Right?
What grievance is that? Those 1960s tropes won't help Democrats figure out if they're supposed to be anti-Semitic or not. If Democrats are so tuned in to grievances then why are they silent about yet another genocide in central African countries?
Donald Trump is doing what the rich have done since Reagan was in office. The only difference is that Trump doesn't hide it.
what are you talking about? white grievance barely existed in the 1960's.
I'm talking about Democrats turning every issue into a 'civil rights' issue. According to Democrats, the 1960s marked the birth of white grievance because of 'civil rights'.
How does that help Democrats figure out if they're supposed to be anti-Semitic or not?
Well, yes, the 60's were the decade of civil rights , with good reason. White grievance most broadly is a negative reaction to multiculturalism , especially as it pertains to race, and also the belief by whites that other groups have been advanced at their expense. That was not the case at any point in the 60's.
"Well at least I know that a transgender athlete won't be allowed to compete in a race I wasn't going to watch and didn't give a fuck about until I heard a transgender person was competing! Thank God for Trump!" /s
What multiculturalism? Democrats have not advocated cultures integrating with each other. Democrats only celebrate unique separate cultures. Each culture has its very own day, week, or month of celebration. Democrats have advocated cultural dilution rather than integration.
And who did Democrats expect to pay for advancing their advocated cultural dilution? Democrats' focus on grievance never expected the disadvantaged to contribute to their own advancement.
What relevance does that have as to what MAGA was in response to?
Someone has to protect women and it looks like that won't be the democrats.
You choose to not answer the question. MAGA was the subject in the question you responded to and you introduced D/liberal policy fatigue.
My question to you then should be obvious in terms of relevance.
My question was:
Seems to me that if the D/liberal notions you mentioned were fatiguing to you, then the onslaught of the crap pulled by Trump and his administration should be exhausting.
Just take the most recent corruption of generating a slush fund for J6 convicts (and whoever else Trump wants to reward) using $1.776 billion in taxpayer dollars ginned up by an unethical (and likely illegal) agreement between the DoJ (which Trump controls) and Trump. And, of course, do not forget the immunity from audits by the IRS for Trump, sons, and businesses.
That alone should make you ill.
Protect them from what? What was the threat exactly that is so important that you accept " incompetence, corruption, grift, dishonesty, vindictiveness, coercion and lawlessness" from our government to protect what for women? A handful of amateur athlete's trophy collections? All while gutting women's rights to bodily autonomy? Classy. /s
This is such nonsense. This is a fringe issue that rarely manifests given all the possible events that take place in sports. So even if the Ds do support transgender athletes in women's sports, it affects very few people in the grand scheme.
In no way does this compare with a PotUS with an almost random use of tariffs screwing up international relationships, starting an illegal war that screws up the global economy, or fabricating a $1.776 billion slush fund to reward whoever he wishes. (Just to name a few of many.)
Trump supporters like you can of course point to select D issues and criticize them. I too am against transgender athletes participating in women's sports. But that is not even in the ballpark with the outrageous words and deeds of the Trump administration and the effect it has on billions of people.
I would, in a heartbeat, take a PotUS that supports the transgender issue but does NOT create new wars, does NOT abuse tariffs, does NOT fuck up long-established international relationships, does NOT fuck up the global economy, is NOT blatantly corrupt, etc.
You, however, clearly prefer Trump.
Sad that you have to ask but it does help prove my point
Hmmmm
Another feckless reply rather than a thoughtful rebuttal.
The Ds want medical support for abortions that are determined by the women with her doctor. The Rs want to control the bodies of pregnant women. The most clear assault on women in the past decade has been killing Roe v Wade and the subsequent harsh abortion rules that emerged in result in highly conservative states.
Uh huh
Oh, I just love cons saying they are going to protect women!
Are they going to teach their sons that no means no and that a rape culture is anathema to polite society?
I wish they would stop worrying about transgenders in women's sports. I don't think trans women have any place in cis women sports, but that's going to take care of itself
so cons....just back away from us women and go mind your own damn business
what a travesty
that is the beginnings of the "stadium" for the UFC cage match on Trumps birthday