Ryan for Newsweek: DNC should move D.C. Headquarters to Youngstown, Ohio

Democrats are out of touch and disconnected from working class voters of all races, genders, and backgrounds. That isn’t exactly breaking news. It is obvious. For many of us in the industrial Midwest, this has been like watching a decades-long train wreck in slow motion. Many of us have been screaming this from the rooftops, and no one, and I mean no one, in Washington wanted to listen. Now here we are with a brand new Trump presidency and an even further damaged Democratic brand. My suggestion as a first step on the road to recovery: Move the Democratic National Committee headquarters out of Washington, D.C. to Youngstown, Ohio.

Democrats need to get the hell out of the D.C. bubble. It’s killed our party. Force the overpaid consultants and contractors who give really bad advice to get immersed into the culture of an old mill town trying to make its way in the new economy. Make them and the staffers who work for the DNC drink coffee, eat lunch and dinner, drink beer, bowl, play bocce, go to concerts and watch sports with normal everyday working people. And they should spend their time mostly listening—not talking or tweeting.

The Democrats have, whether we like it or not, become an arrogant, preachy, coastal, inside-the-beltway, Twitter Party. We’ve become an organization of loosely tied, self interested groups who make a lot of money pitching outrage so they can raise more money for their own self preservation. Then, if any fellow Democrat has an honest, fact based disagreement, they scream and yell and call you corrupt.

It’s pretty pathetic. Our party has no clear unifying vision for America. The Party has taken extreme positions that are not connected to reality generally and do not resonate with the sensibilities of working class voters. We’ve lost touch with the hopes and dreams of everyday Americans. And we won’t reconnect with those hopes and dreams by having all of our operatives living and working just blocks from the stupid echo chamber that has become Washington, D.C.

Read more in Newsweek.

PPI 2024 Election Review And the Way Ahead for Democrats

Introduction

WILL MARSHALL, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF PPI

President-elect Donald Trump believes Americans have given him an “unprecedented and powerful mandate to govern.” Like so much of what he says, this claim blurs the line between hyperbole and fantasy. His Nov. 5 victory was solid, but no landslide.

Trump won just under half the popular vote, only 1.6% more than Vice President Kamala Harris received. With a public disapproval rating of 50%, he is the least popular presidential winner in modern times.

It’s certainly possible to look at Trump’s return to power as reflecting the new norm in U.S. elections of small and unstable majorities. Since Barack Obama’s departure, U.S. voters have tossed out the incumbents in one “change” election after another.

But such an interpretation might tempt Democrats, who were shut out of power in Congress as well as the White House, to do little but wait for their chance two and four years hence. That would be a colossal mistake.

Instead, Democrats must face a hard truth: their coalition is inexorably shrinking as non-college voters continue to defect. It’s time for honest answers to three vexing questions:

How did they lose again to the deeply flawed Trump? Does their loss signal a U.S. political realignment? And why are Democrats — and indeed center-left parties across Europe — alienating the working-class voters they once championed?

The sweep of Trump’s victory — both demographically and geographically — came as a shock. He shaved his losing margins in Democratic regions and made large gains among Democratic-leaning voter groups — young voters, Blacks, and especially Latinos.

Despite spending a half-billion dollars more than Trump, Harris won not one of the seven battleground states. In the brief time allotted her (107 days), she ran a competent campaign but could not avoid being sucked into the undertow of President Biden’s unpopularity.

Tactics aside, however, the defeat highlighted Democrats’ strategic political failure under Biden-Harris to stop hemorrhaging working-class voters.

Biden talked incessantly about fighting for working people, but his policies did not align with their interests.

Instead, he and his advisors fell victim to the fallacy of “deliverism” — the notion that passing big, multitrillion-dollar bills in Washington would impress working families and show them the “system” at last was working for them.

Instead, they got blindsided by inflation. Forty percent of these voters identified the high cost of living as their top concern. Economists differ as to its causes, but working-class voters link inflation to high government spending.

Immigration ranked second for these voters. Here again, they blamed the Biden administration for liberalizing asylum policy and presiding over a surge of over 7 million illegal migrants over the past four years. In fact, on almost all the key issues except for abortion, non-college voters expressed far higher levels of trust in Republicans than Democrats. They also were more likely to say Democrats had moved too far to the left than Republicans had to the right.

The aftershocks of Trump’s victory and U.S. voters’ rightward shift are felt across the Atlantic. Like his populist-right counterparts in Europe, Trump is riding a working-class revolt against governing elites. First confined to white Americans without college degrees, it’s now spreading to the non-white working class.

In fact, social class, now defined chiefly by education level, is replacing race and ethnicity as America’s deepest political fault line.

Since the high-water mark of Barack Obama’s presidency, Democrats have experienced a 30-point drop in non-white working-class support. That’s shattered a cherished progressive myth that “voters of color” think and vote alike along reliably Democratic lines. Harris improved on Biden’s 2020 performance with only one group — white college graduates. Yet that only underscored the strange inversion of America’s partisan loyalties: Democrats have become the party of the highly educated and professionals, while Republicans represent a multiethnic working class.

For the first time in memory, Harris won Americans making more than $100,000, while Trump won those making less than $50,000.The blue-collar exodus from the Democratic Party has been decades in the making. It won’t be fixed by minor tweaks. Democrats need to make dramatic course correction to head off a U.S. political realignment around a new populist right majority.

Voters without college degrees constitute roughly two-thirds of the U.S. electorate. Mathematically, there’s no way to build durable governing majorities with college-educated voters alone.

Morally, if Democrats hope to resume their historical role as the “party of the people,” they’ll need to reflect the mainstream values of middle-class America rather than the rarefied “luxury beliefs” of upper-class elites.

According to a post-election analysis by More in Common, Americans overwhelmingly believe that Democrats care more about advancing progressive social causes than the economic interests of average working families.

Asked to describe the party’s highest priorities, they picked “LGBT/transgender policy” second, after abortion. Actually, Democrats, like all other voter groups, picked the cost of living first, followed by health care and abortion. Transgender issues were 13th on their priority list.

Why are public perceptions so skewed? A big reason is that U.S. political discourse is mainly driven by progressive activists and right-wing populists. This leads members of both parties to assume the other party holds more extreme views that it actually does.

The outsized influence of progressive activists associates Democrats with a raft of unpopular positions on race/gender, immigration, crime and education. Trump exploited that to devastating effect against Harris.

The most lethal attack ad of the presidential campaign was a clip from a 2019 interview in which Harris explains her support for publicly-funded sex change surgery for prisoners, including detained immigrants. The kicker: “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you.”

After watching the ad, 2.7% of voters shifted to Trump. That’s a stunning result. And even if most Democrats hold more moderate views on culturally fraught issues, they pay the opportunity costs that come with the progressive left’s fixation on race, gender, police brutality, fossil abolitionism and other “social justice” issues. The amount of time Democrats spend talking about such issues diverts their focus from the kitchen table struggles of working-class families.

It is the kitchen table struggles of working-class families that now need to become the fixation for Democrats. PPI has been working with Deborah Mattinson, most recently director of strategy to U.K. Labour leader and now Prime Minister Keir Starmer, to understand how those crucial voters experienced the U.S. election. In this report, PPI presents insight and analysis of the election, and draws on our learning from the center-left around the world to set out the way ahead for Democrats.

Only by re-connecting with the working-class Americans we have lost, and providing them with a credible alternative for change, can we hope to win the next Presidential election. That work has to start now.

Read the full report. 

Ainsley and Mattinson for The Observer: On Wokeness, Patriotism and Change, Kamala Harris’s Defeat has Lessons for Starmer

Given how events unfolded, it was never going to be easy for Kamala Harris. Many Democrats are ­convinced her ­campaign saved the party from an even worse result. To be fair, it achieved some real highs: she won the debate. But she never won the argument, at least not with the ­voters who mattered most.

The US election triggered a scary deja vu moment for those of us who had watched the 2019 UK ­general ­election from behind our sofas, hands over our eyes. The Democrats lost votes with almost everyone, almost everywhere, but, like Labour in the “red wall”, most ­dramatically with traditional heartland ­voters: working-class, low-paid, non-­graduates. And, like Labour back in 2019, that lost connection with core voters had not happened overnight.

Working with the DC-based Progressive Policy Institute, we ­conducted post-election polling and focus groups with past Democrat voters who voted for Trump on 5 November. The work laid bare an anxious nation desperate for change. Be in no doubt, this was a change election: any candidate failing to offer the change the electorate craved had become a risky choice. Asking how voters felt about the results on 6 November, “relieved was the word we heard most often.

Overwhelmingly, change focused on two issues: inflation and ­immigration. Trump enjoyed a clear lead on both. Sure, Harris had some popular policies (anti price-­gouging, tax cuts, help for first-time ­buyers and small businesses), but these seemed sidelined in an overcrowded campaign, with voters concluding that she was not on their side and was too focused on “woke” issues.

Among working-class ­voters, 53% agreed the Dems had gone “too far in pushing a woke ­ideology”. They’ve “gone in a weird ­direction”, said one, “lost touch with our ­priorities”, said another. Worse still was the sense that any voter who disagreed with them was “a bad person”.

Read more in The Observer.

Why the U.S. Senate Should Reject RFK Jr.

The nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services comes at a pivotal moment for public health policy. Americans’ trust in public health institutions is at an all-time low, while the promise of rapidly advancing biotechnology is at an all-time high. 

It is unfortunate that Kennedy seems a poor steward of both. His vaccine skepticism seems designed to relitigate public health battles of the past, while his distrust of the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies could imperil new drug discovery and approval. While the right has long questioned federal health initiatives, Kennedy’s nomination — alongside a slate of other science skeptics in key health roles — augurs a more consequential change than a reshuffling of political appointees: the Republican Party has rejected modern science. The Senate should reject this nomination due to the clear harm Kennedy would do to the nation’s health.

Rapid advancements in biotechnology promise exciting innovation in pharmaceuticals, alongside enormous potential risks. This is especially true with the development of artificial intelligence tools for drug discovery.  This will be a pivotal time for the Food and Drug Administration, as the number of new drugs and novel therapeutics they have to approve dramatically increases. For example, the FDA made history in 2023 by approving the first CRISPR-based gene-edited drugs to treat sickle cell anemia. The agency will have to innovate and modernize to keep up with scientific developments.

It’s also an important moment for public health. In the wake of the COVID pandemic, trust in government health agencies has eroded. Partisanship has infected discussions of public health as climate change and dual-use technologies exacerbate the risk of future pandemics. Other than some modest internal reform at the Centers for Disease Control, the Biden administration did not give priority to fixing the structural issues that led to a shaky initial federal government response to COVID.  Rebuilding public trust while balancing future pandemic risk would be a challenge for any incoming administration. 

Unfortunately, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is ill-suited to fulfill his department’s critical dual mandate to advance biomedical innovation while protecting Americans from disease. Kennedy’s unfounded skepticism of vaccines leaves America in danger of missing out on breakthrough drugs and treatments while leaving us vulnerable to diseases of the past. His strong opposition to the weight loss drug Ozempic also betrays a reflexive anti-progress attitude poorly suited to the coming acceleration of drug development.  Kennedy also seems uninterested in future pandemic prevention, reportedly saying,  “We’re going to give infectious disease a break for about eight years.”  

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine activism warrants particular attention, given its grave real-world consequences. During a 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa that left 83 people dead, Kennedy’s organization, Children’s Health Defense, helped spread misinformation that contributed to vaccination rates dropping from 60% to 31%. Though Kennedy later claimed he “had nothing to do with people not vaccinating in Samoa,” he had visited the country months before the outbreak, supporting local anti-vaccine activists and suggesting the vaccine itself might be responsible for the deaths.  Children’s Health Defense also funded the viral conspiracy film “Plandemic,” which falsely claims that influenza vaccines can cause COVID, and that the virus was somehow “manipulated.” That’s in line with his musings that COVID may have been deliberately engineered to target “Caucasians and Black people” while sparing “Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

Kennedy may have a public health crisis waiting for him if he is confirmed.  The United States currently faces its largest-ever outbreak of H5N1 bird flu:57 people and 689 herds of cows have tested positive for the virus. The most troubling news from the ongoing outbreak is the two patients, a man in Missouri and a child in California,  who tested positive without any known ties to infected animals. A bird flu pandemic could cause catastrophic harm, and the speed and transparency of the current response do not induce confidence.  Kennedy is poorly suited to lead this response given his promotion of raw milk consumption, which is currently being recalled for contamination with extremely high levels of bird flu virus.  

Some of Trump’s other health nominations have similar involvements with pseudoscience.  Like Kennedy, Dr. David Weldon, Trump’s nominee for CDC director, believes the measles vaccine causes autism.  Dr. Mehmet Oz, the president-elect’s nominee for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, has a well-documented history of promoting questionable medical treatments and products on his television show. A 2014 study in the British Medical Journal found that nearly half of his medical recommendations either lacked evidence or contradicted medical research.

Anti-vaccine paranoia on the right predates Trump. State legislatures, particularly in Republican-governed states, have already expanded vaccine exemptions and limited public health powers over the past decade, while Project 2025 proposed paying damages to all medical professionals who were dismissed due to the CMS vaccine mandate, effectively undermining established public health protocols and potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future health crises. It also calls for expanding federal religious exemptions for both taking and administering vaccines.

 Trump has proved reluctant to tout the main health policy success of his first term: Operation Warp Speed. A Progressive Policy Institute report found that the COVID vaccines saved 2.9 million lives, avoided 12.5 million hospitalizations, and saved $500 billion in hospitalization costs. This was an enormous success of government collaboration with the private sector, and it is very telling that the former president is shying away from claiming this victory. 

The nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. isn’t just a concerning personnel decision — it represents a dangerous turning point in American politics. While vaccine skepticism and distrust of medical institutions have long simmered on the fringes, their embrace by a major political party marks a stark departure from evidence-based public health policy. This rejection of scientific consensus comes at a particularly perilous moment: as we face evolving threats from bird flu, climate change, and emerging pathogens, while simultaneously standing on the cusp of revolutionary biotechnology breakthroughs. The Senate must reject this nomination to protect our public health institutions at this critical moment for America’s scientific future.

Ainsley for The Power Test Podcast: Can you feel it? Labour’s big task

Recorded live at the Centre for Progressive Policy’s Inclusive Growth Conference on 28th November, this special episode The Power Test looks at where we are six months into the new Labour government and what it needs to do to deliver its promise of a decade of national renewal.

Following the Budget, the reelection of Donald Trump in the US, farmer protests, and a rumoured government ‘relaunch’, Sam and Ayesha, together with Chief Executive of the New Economics Foundation Dr Danny Sriskandarajah, CPP’s Director of Place and Practice Annabel Smith, and Power Test regular and Director of the Project on Center-Left Renewal at the Progressive Policy Institute Claire Ainsley, look at what Labour needs to do to deliver, restore trust in politics and survive.

Juul on Medium: The Senate Should Reject These Two Dangerous Nominations

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated a pair of unqualified and unacceptable individuals to fill two critical national security posts in his upcoming administration: Fox News personality Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence. Neither nominee possesses any experience managing organizations the size, scope, and scale of the Defense Department or America’s intelligence community. Both hold extreme views that ought to disqualify them from holding any senior national security position, much less ones with the duties and responsibilities they have been nominated for.

The Senate must exercise its Constitutional responsibility of advice and consent to reject these two presidential nominees. If confirmed, both Hegseth and Gabbard would do grave harm to American national security — primarily via the damage they would inflict on the institutions they have been nominated to lead.

Keep reading in Medium.

Marshall for The Hill: Who Will Turn the Democrats Around?

Donald Trump’s sweeping presidential victory this month proved that his 2016 win was no fluke.  Like his populist-right counterparts in Europe, Trump is riding a working-class revolt against governing elites — a spreading brushfire the Biden-Harris administration failed to comprehend and effectively counter.

After losing the national popular vote in his two previous White House runs, Trump won it this time by about 2.5 million votes this time and is right on the borderline between winning an outright majority and a plurality. He made inroads in blue cities, suburbs and states while scoring substantial gains among independents and traditionally Democratic-leaning groups: young voters as well as Black and especially Latino voters without college degrees.

This convergence in the voting behavior of the white and non-white working class punctures the progressive myth that “voters of color” think and vote alike along reliably Democratic lines. Class, now defined chiefly by education level, appears to be eclipsing ethnicity as the nation’s deepest political fault line.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Juul for Space News: Don’t Let Trump and Musk Gut NASA

If President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk get their way, NASA may become a glorified contracting agency. 

As Musk promises the American public “temporary hardship” as he looks to cut some $2 trillion from the federal budget — the equivalent of all spending outside Social Security, Medicare and interest on the national debt — Trump’s top space advisers talk openly about funneling even more public money to Musk’s SpaceX. If actually implemented, such proposals would give Musk a de facto monopoly over America’s commercial space industry, stifle healthy competition that fuels technological innovation and demoralize an already overtaxed NASA workforce.

Never mind that SpaceX remains well behind schedule when it comes to delivering a lunar lander derived from its Starship vehicle, or that it’ll need an as-yet untried on-orbit refueling method to reach the moon.

This reality makes it ludicrous to suggest, as Trump space adviser Greg Autry has done, that NASA simply contract out a human Mars mission to SpaceX. To put it bluntly, the company has not demonstrated the technical competence required to execute even less demanding missions.

NASA remains an irreplaceable and indispensable public agency. If Trump and Musk hollow it out, however, the United States will quickly find itself without any viable space program.

Keep reading in Space News.

Brown for RealClearPolitics: Bernie Sanders Screams, ‘More Cowbell!’

As Americans voted decisively for a candidate who explicitly rejects nearly everything that Bernie Sanders advocates, Vermont’s senior senator insists that the Democratic Party just wasn’t liberal enough. The mindset of the far left seems to be that the working class just needs more of what they just voted against. For Bernie, the answer is always, “more cowbell.

Four years ago, the United States elected “Scranton Joe,” a pragmatic with a long record of achievement in the Senate and the Obama administration attained through compromise and common sense. On economic issues, Joe Biden presented himself as a pro-energy, pro-growth, pro-worker – old-school Democrat. He made a point of eschewing the left’s “defund the police” fever and ended his speeches by saying, “May God bless our troops.” Americans were yearning for what he offered and elected him as a serious and pragmatic alternative to a chaotic Trump.

Then came the Elizabeth Warren camp. From day one, the Biden administration was flooded with operatives from the Bernie/Liz left wing of the Democratic Party. What ensued was an overt shift from Scranton Joe’s campaign promises to policies for and by the liberal elite. Like those annoying clothing labels that are itchy and unnecessary, the Sanders/Warren brand was sewn into nearly every policy that came out of the White House.

Keep reading in RealClearPolitics.

Brown for Progressive Post: Learn to Listen

US working-class voters have sent a clear message to Democrats. Running as a centrist and governing as a leftist is not acceptable. Will Democrats listen and learn?

There are many lessons to be learned from this most recent US election and many contributing factors for the Democratic loss: the communication ecosystems are thriving on the right; misinformation through social media platforms is rampant; there was a lack of vigour in pursuing accountability at the Department of Justice; and perhaps some minor but cumulatively important tactical missteps in a very well-run Democratic campaign. All of these issues and more led to a decisive loss for the Democratic Party.

The most important lesson, however, is the one that working-class voters are teaching us. There is a real danger that the Democratic Party will misunderstand the lesson and fail the test in future elections. We have already heard from very loud voices on the far left that Democrats were not far left enough. Bernie Sanders has made his case for this perspective and is getting some traction for this opinion. Working-class voters decisively voted for Trump, a man who explicitly rejects almost everything that Senator Sanders stands for. Somehow, Sanders now argues that the Democratic Party has abandoned the working class by not giving them more of what they just voted against.

Keep reading in Progressive Post.

Marshall for The Hill: Democrats Pay the Price for Ignoring Working Americans

Having fired Donald Trump in 2020, U.S. voters did an about-face Tuesday and sent him back to the White House. It was a remarkable political rebound, but one that owed as much to the Democratic Party’s weakness as it did to Trump’s strengths.

Despite heavily outspending her opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris carried not one battleground state in failing to reassemble the solid anti-Trump majority of four years ago. She also lagged behind Joe Biden’s 2020 performance with key Democratic-leaning groups: young voters, Hispanics, Blacks and even women.

The demographic and geographic sweep of Trump’s victory is impressive. He made inroads among urban and suburban voters, independents, young men and non-white working-class voters. The U.S. political map is getting redder.

Most importantly, Trump improved his 2020 performance with Hispanics by 25 points, despite his dehumanizing rhetoric about immigrants. Overall, he won 46 percent of the Hispanic vote, the most ever for a Republican presidential candidate.

The electorate’s rightward shift has sparked heady talk among Republicans about a new U.S. political alignment around education level and social class rather than traditional left-right polarities. It certainly is a rebuke to the left, which has been hailing the advent of a new progressive majority for much of this century.

Read more in The Hill.

Marshall on Medium: It’s Not the Economy, Stupid — It’s Trump

America’s grand experiment in democratic self-rule was launched 236 years ago in Philadelphia. Since then, it’s survived a Civil War, the Depression, wars hot and cold, and disruptive waves of economic and social change.

In today’s presidential election, it faces another major test. The central question before the voters isn’t the cost of living, immigration, or abortion. It’s repairing the health and effectiveness of America’s political and governing institutions.

Donald Trump adores self-aggrandizing superlatives, so let’s indulge him: He is beyond doubt the most successful demagogue in U.S. history. But he’s already proven that he doesn’t know how to unite and lead our country. Instead, he “wins” by magnifying our differences and setting Americans at each other’s throats.

We know exactly what to expect if he wins: Four years of intensifying social conflict, political chaos, and partisan hatred. Kamala Harris may not be perfect, but she offers at least a chance to deescalate today’s ugly civil strife and revive the norms of honesty, mutual respect, and civility that make self-government work.

Keep reading in Medium.

Malec for The Hill: Harris’s closing message must separate her vision from Biden’s

“Just win, baby.”

While acknowledging her unpopularity in swing districts, that was what then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in 2018 to vulnerable Democratic incumbents and challengers weighing the political calculation of opposing her as House Democratic leader.

Ultimately, that distancing from Pelosi worked for several incumbent and aspiring House Democrats, helping the party maximize its gains while taking back the House. Most notably in red Pennsylvania District 17, Republicans ran ads trying to link underdog challenger Conor Lamb to Pelosi, cheekily calling him one of “Nancy Pelosi’s sheep.” Yet the attack never resonated. From the beginning, Lamb vowed that he would not support Pelosi. He ended up winning the hotly contested special election, pulling off one of the biggest upsets of the cycle.

We’re now seeing a similar dynamic in this year’s presidential election. While Harris should certainly not repudiate any of President Biden’s policies that she has supported as vice president, the same underlying imperative to create more political distance exists.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Ainsley in CNN: The Kamala Harris playbook has already worked in Britain. But the ‘Special Relationship’ is getting more complicated

The official line from Starmer’s government is unwavering: London will work constructively with whoever wins the presidential contest.

But sources see similarities between Starmer and Harris’ backgrounds, ideologies and paths to power – and several of Starmer’s allies are hoping the strategy that worked for him will help Harris too.

“There are some really striking parallels,” Claire Ainsley, Starmer’s former executive director of policy, told CNN. “The voters that Harris needs to persuade and motivate are very similar to the description of the voters that Labour needed to persuade and motivate.”

Ainsley, who now heads the Project on Center-Left Renewal at the Progressive Policy Institute think tank, presented findings from Labour’s electoral victory to senior Democratic strategists and pollsters in Washington DC last month.

Her trip was part of a wider sharing of information between the two camps that is longstanding – and cuts both ways – but which is irking former President Donald Trump in the final stretches of the campaign. Trump launched an extraordinary spat with Labour on Wednesday, claiming through a lawyer they had been interfering in the election.

Read more in CNN.

Marshall for The Hill: The Many Ways Donald Trump Threatens American Prosperity

A healthy U.S. economy is finally emerging from inflation’s shadow, enabling Americans to see and feel its underlying strengths. Is the good news coming in time to give Vice President Kamala Harris a boost in the November election?

Normally, a vibrant economy lifts political incumbents, but polls show U.S. voters are still preoccupied with high living costs. Harris offers a slew of proposals for driving down the cost of housing, food, health care and other necessities.

That’s essential, but with inflation and interest rates falling, Democrats have a stronger economic hand to play. They can point at growing evidence that working families are benefiting from the U.S. economic boom, and point out that Donald Trump’s slapdash economic ideas and frantic pandering threaten to derail it.

Research by my colleague Michael Mandel shows that with inflation easing, wages for working-class Americans have risen higher than they were on Election Day 2020. In other words, U.S. workers are better off today than they were under Trump.

In addition to milder headwinds from inflation, Mandel attributes the rise in real wages to a revival of U.S. productivity growth, driven by a combination of strong government and corporate investment since 2020.

Keep reading in The Hill.