As midterms loom, Democrats learn to speak a new language: American

Leon Neal/Getty Images

“I’m a border security Democrat.”

With five words at a CNN and Jubilee Town Hall last week, Texas Senate candidate James Talarico sought to dodge the stigma of the Biden administration’s failure to secure the southern border.

Talarico is one of a crop of Democratic midterm election candidates choosing language that pivots away from past election failures. For future political viability, the Democratic Party must reclaim voters alienated by its perceived contempt for politically and culturally more conservative Americans — including those who were once the foundation of its blue-collar base but defected to President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement.

One way to do this is to craft messaging on issues like affordability that connect with working Americans and highlight the link between Trump’s decisions — like the Iran war — and the cost of groceries, gasoline and housing.

Democrats also face a linguistic minefield as they try to again talk like the voters they want to attract without angering the party’s new base of more liberal urban and highly educated voters.

In recent years, Democratic messaging has often seemed academic, esoteric, politically correct or choked with jargon. Terms like “unhoused people” and “birthing people” were adopted to include and respect people who are marginalized or vulnerable. Such language shows regard for the humanity and individual rights of others. But it has sometimes obscured meaning and baffled people who are not deeply political, or turned away voters with more conservative values.

In some cases, Republicans have used Democratic language to drive a wedge between the party and persuadable voters and to suggest it has tacked to the left. The most hard-hitting ad of the 2024 election season attacked Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over transgender issues, telling voters that “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”

Brendan McDermid/Reuters

The term “defund the police” became a national slogan after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020. Republicans soon co-opted it to argue that Democrats were weak on law and order — a narrative that circulated for several elections, even though senior party members like former President Joe Biden publicly repudiated it and its policy implications.

And in one of the most notorious examples of loose language haunting Democrats, 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton suggested some Trump fans belonged in a “basket of deplorables” — handing MAGA a rallying cry to underscore Trump’s claim that establishment elites viewed his voters with disgust.

One reason — apart from Trump’s unpopularity — why Democrats are competitive in more states than expected during this year’s midterms is that they’ve selected candidates who sound like their states.

In North Carolina, Senate nominee Roy Cooper has developed a colloquial way to argue he’d “ Make Stuff Cost Less .” He appears to be rebuilding the broadened coalition that made him governor twice in a reliably Republican state.

Talarico speaks the language of faith in pious Texas to distinguish himself from progressive Democrats. His “border security Democrat” phrase balances his support for both a hard border and a softer immigration purge that would target only undocumented criminals rather than “small business owners, grandmothers and infants.”

In Iowa, which Trump won by double digits only two years ago, Democratic Senate nominee Josh Turek brands himself a “prairie populist” and tells voters , “I understand why you voted for Trump” before he lambasts the president for raising costs and starting the kind of war he vowed never to fight.

In Maine, Democratic Senate nominee Troy Jackson refused to apologize for telling Sen. Susan Collins to “shut up” during a debate. The incumbent Republican suggested he was guilty of sexism. But Jackson, a former logger, turned the conceit of supposed establishment contempt for working people against his opponent. He said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday that, “What I’m not going to be is talked down to by Senator Collins.”

Charly Triballeau/AFP/Getty Images

Jackson added: “I’m fighting for Mainers. And, I mean, I just think that was another situation where she was talking down to me.”

Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff has meanwhile developed his own searing linguistic critique of Trump that links alleged White House corruption to the economic struggles of millions of Americans. “Under the failed president Donald J. Trump, it costs more than ever in American history to fill up your truck, stock your fridge, visit the doctor or power your home,” Ossoff said at a rally earlier this month. “They promised to drain the swamp. Instead, it’s the most corrupt administration of all time, and everybody knows it.”

Of course, Democrats have one big advantage that facilitates their linguistic balancing act: It’s far easier to find language to attack an incumbent Republican president over high prices and economic insecurity than it was for the party to defend the Biden administration for its struggles on the same issues in 2024.

And a party that failed to take advantage of a president who boasts about an economic “golden age” when Americans are paying $4.30 for gasoline and dread their grocery bills would be guilty of gross political incompetence.

In August 2025, the moderate think tank Third Way published a memo warning that the while Democrats spent “billions of dollars trying to find the perfect language to connect to voters” they used “an awful lot of words and phrases no ordinary person would ever dream of saying.” The memo concluded that “the effect of this language is to sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. To please the few, we have alienated the many—especially on culture issues, where our language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant.”

In the wreckage of another defeat to Trump, some top Democrats agreed.

Former Obama administration White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, told CNN’s Michael Smerconish a year ago that in 2024, the party allowed itself to be framed as “culturally, not only distant, but culturally isolated from where the general public is.”

Emanuel added: “You have to build a winning coalition, which means it has to be big. It has to be broad, and other voters have to be respected, something elements of our party don’t do. They like to lecture people to be exactly like them.”

Another possible Democratic presidential candidate, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, has been striking similar notes this year. He said at a dinner in Michigan that he was a “pro-diversity” governor but that to win, Democrats needed to “talk like a normal human.”

Michael Clevenger/Courier Journal/USA Today Network/Imagn Images

He criticized terms like “food insecure” for hungry and “justice-involved population” instead of prison inmates. “Sometimes these terms make it feel like we’re talking down to people, like we’re talking at them, instead of to them,” Beshear said.

Matt Bennett, executive vice president of public affairs at Third Way, said Democrats this year were doing a better job of finding ways to connect with voters.

“For the most part, we’re delighted with the people that have won their primaries and the races that they’re running, and they seem very well suited,” he said, pointing especially to the example of Cooper, who has prospered in a state that last voted Democrat for president in 2008. “He has done what it takes to win the trust of these voters.”

The general election campaign has been kinder to Democrats so far than primary season, which threw up several viral moments quickly seized upon by Republicans to portray Democrats as extremists.

In an interview with Fox News, Democratic Socialists of America co-chair Megan Romer advocated abolishing the Senate, replacing the presidency and the Supreme Court, and defunding the Pentagon. She said prisons could be abolished under long-term plans, along with national borders. The encounter ran on a loop on conservative media for days as the GOP tried to define all Democrats by association.

But Republicans are now creating their own viral moments with language that seems deliberately aimed at excluding citizens and groups.

Trump has been inciting Islamophobia in the crudest and most inflammatory terms by mocking the name of Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayedand falsely calling him a jihadist. On Monday, Vice President JD Vance suggested that a protester — a person of color who shouted that he was an American citizen — must have crossed the border illegally.

Democrats may not be the only party with a language problem.

Leon Neal/Getty Images

“我是一名支持边境安全的民主党人。”

上周，在 CNN 和 Jubilee 联合举办的市政厅会议上，德克萨斯州参议员候选人詹姆斯·塔拉里科 (James Talarico) 用五个字试图摆脱拜登政府未能确保南部边境安全的污名。

塔拉里科是众多民主党中期选举候选人之一，他们都选择用言辞来回避过去选举的失败。为了未来的政治生存，民主党必须重新赢得那些因其被认为蔑视政治和文化上更为保守的美国人而疏远的选民——包括那些曾经是其蓝领选民基础，但后来转而支持唐纳德·特朗普总统“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）运动的选民。

实现这一目标的途径之一是围绕可负担性等问题制定信息，与美国工薪阶层产生共鸣，并强调特朗普的决定（如伊朗战争）与食品杂货、汽油和住房成本之间的联系。

民主党人也面临着语言上的雷区，他们试图再次用他们想要吸引的选民的语言与他们交流，同时又不激怒该党新的、更自由派的城市和受过高等教育的选民基础。

近年来，民主党的宣传信息常常显得过于学术化、晦涩难懂、政治正确，或者充斥着晦涩难懂的术语。诸如“无家可归者”和“生育者”之类的词汇被用来包容和尊重那些被边缘化或弱势的群体。这种语言体现了对他人的人性和个人权利的尊重。但有时，它却模糊了原本的含义，让那些政治意识不深的人感到困惑，或者疏远了那些持有更保守价值观的选民。

在某些情况下，共和党人利用民主党的语言来离间本党与摇摆选民之间的关系，并暗示共和党已经左倾。2024年总统大选季中最具攻击性的广告之一，就跨性别议题攻击了民主党候选人卡马拉·哈里斯，并告诉选民：“卡马拉代表的是他们/她们，而特朗普总统代表的是你们。”

布伦丹·麦克德米德/路透社

2020 年明尼阿波利斯警察杀害乔治·弗洛伊德后，“取消警察经费”一词成为全国口号。共和党人很快利用这一口号来论证民主党人在维护法律和秩序方面软弱无力——这种说法在几次选举中流传开来，尽管像前总统乔·拜登这样的资深党员公开否认了这种说法及其政策含义。

而最臭名昭著的例子之一，是民主党人因措辞不当而饱受困扰。2016 年，希拉里·克林顿暗示一些特朗普的支持者属于“一群可悲之人”，这给了“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）运动一个集结号，以强调特朗普的说法，即建制派精英对他的选民感到厌恶。

除了特朗普不受欢迎之外，民主党在今年中期选举中在更多州展现出竞争力的一个原因是，他们选择的候选人能够代表他们所在州的民意。

在北卡罗来纳州，参议员候选人罗伊·库珀用一种通俗易懂的方式阐述了他的竞选纲领——“降低物价”。他似乎正在重建此前助他两度当选州长的广泛支持联盟，而北卡罗来纳州历来是共和党的传统票仓。

塔拉里科在虔诚的德克萨斯人中，以信仰的语言来表达自己与进步派民主党人的区别。他自称“边境安全民主党人”，这既体现了他对严格边境管控的支持，也体现了他同时支持较为温和的移民清理政策——该政策只针对非法移民罪犯，而不是“小企业主、祖母和婴儿”。

在两年前特朗普以两位数优势赢得的爱荷华州，民主党参议员候选人乔什·图雷克自称是“草原民粹主义者”，并告诉选民“我理解你们为什么投票给特朗普”，然后他猛烈抨击总统增加开支并发动了他曾誓言永远不会打的那种战争。

在缅因州，民主党参议员候选人特洛伊·杰克逊拒绝为在辩论中让参议员苏珊·柯林斯“闭嘴”而道歉。现任共和党参议员暗示他犯了性别歧视罪。但这位前伐木工人杰克逊却反击对手，指责建制派蔑视劳动人民。他在周日CNN的“国情咨文”节目中表示：“我绝不会被柯林斯参议员的轻视所影响。”

Charly Triballeau/AFP/Getty Images

杰克逊补充道：“我是在为缅因州人民而战。而且，我的意思是，我觉得那又是她居高临下地跟我说话的另一种情况。”

与此同时，民主党参议员乔恩·奥索夫也对特朗普进行了尖锐的语言批判，将白宫涉嫌腐败与数百万美国人的经济困境联系起来。奥索夫在本月初的一次集会上说：“在失败的总统唐纳德·J·特朗普的领导下，美国历史上加油、填满冰箱、看医生或为家庭供电的成本都达到了前所未有的高度。他们承诺要清除华盛顿的腐败。然而，这却是史上最腐败的政府，人尽皆知。”

当然，民主党人有一个很大的优势，这有助于他们在语言上保持平衡：攻击现任共和党总统在高物价和经济不安全问题上的言论，要比该党在 2024 年为拜登政府在相同问题上的困境辩护容易得多。

如果一个政党未能利用一位总统吹嘘经济“黄金时代”（此时美国人只需支付 4.30 美元即可购买汽油，并且对食品杂货账单感到恐惧）的机会，那么这个政党就犯下了严重的政治无能罪。

2025年8月，温和派智库“第三条道路”（Third Way）发布了一份备忘录，警告称，民主党人“花费数十亿美元试图找到与选民建立联系的完美语言”，却使用了“大量普通人想都不敢想的词语和短语”。备忘录总结道：“这种语言的后果是听起来像是极端、分裂、精英主义和晦涩难懂的觉醒主义推手。为了取悦少数人，我们疏远了大多数人——尤其是在文化议题上，我们的语言听起来高人一等、傲慢自大。”

在又一次败给特朗普的惨败中，一些民主党高层人士也达成了共识。

前奥巴马政府白宫幕僚长拉姆·伊曼纽尔（Rahm Emanuel）是 2028 年总统大选的潜在候选人，他一年前告诉 CNN 的迈克尔·斯默科尼什（Michael Smerconish），在 2024 年，民主党让自己被贴上了“不仅在文化上与公众疏远，而且在文化上与公众隔绝”的标签。

伊曼纽尔补充道：“你必须建立一个能够赢得胜利的联盟，这意味着它必须规模庞大，覆盖面广，而且必须尊重其他选民，而我们党内某些人恰恰做不到这一点。他们喜欢教训别人，让他们跟自己一模一样。”

另一位可能的民主党总统候选人，肯塔基州州长安迪·贝希尔，今年也发表了类似的言论。他在密歇根州的一次晚宴上表示，他是一位“支持多元化”的州长，但要想赢得大选，民主党人需要“像个正常人一样说话”。

Michael Clevenger/Courier Journal/USA Today Network/Imagn Images

他批评了用“粮食不安全”来指代饥饿人群，用“涉法人群”来指代监狱服刑人员等说法。“有时候，这些说法会让人感觉我们是在居高临下地对待他们，好像我们在对他们说教，而不是在和他们交流，”贝希尔说道。

第三条道路公共事务执行副总裁马特·贝内特表示，今年民主党人在寻找与选民建立联系的方式方面做得更好。

“总的来说，我们对赢得初选和竞选的候选人感到非常满意，他们似乎都很适合这个职位，”他说道，并特别提到了库珀的例子，库珀在一个自2008年以来就投票支持民主党总统候选人的州取得了成功。“他已经竭尽全力赢得了这些选民的信任。”

到目前为止，大选竞选活动对民主党人来说比初选季要友好得多。初选期间出现了一些病毒式传播的事件，共和党人迅速利用这些事件将民主党人描绘成极端分子。

美国民主社会主义者协会联合主席梅根·罗默在接受福克斯新闻采访时，主张废除参议院，更换总统职位和最高法院，并削减五角大楼的预算。她表示，根据长期计划，监狱和国界都可以被废除。这段采访在保守派媒体上反复播放数日，共和党试图借此将所有民主党人一概而论。

但共和党人现在正利用一些似乎故意排斥公民和团体的言论，制造自己的网络热点。

特朗普以最粗俗、最具煽动性的言辞煽动伊斯兰恐惧症，他嘲讽民主党参议员候选人阿卜杜勒·埃尔-赛义德的名字，并错误地称他为圣战分子。周一，副总统JD·万斯暗示，一名抗议者——一位高喊自己是美国公民的有色人种——一定是非法越境。

民主党可能不是唯一存在语言问题的政党。