SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
democratic party
How Can the Dem Win Back Working-Class Voters? Run Union Candidates
A new report finds that running and electing candidates from the labor movement is one of the most viable and under-explored paths available to both unions and the Democratic Party.
Mar 14, 2026
The Democratic Party’s slow shift away from the working class undoubtedly contributed to its recent electoral defeats. Reconnecting with the party’s foundational working-class base is essential for its survival, and a new report from the Center for Working-Class Politics, Arizona State University’s Center for Work and Democracy, and Jacobin shows that getting more union members and leaders on the ballot could provide a path to doing just that.
The Democratic Party’s loss in 2024 has sparked a wave of soul-searching about how the party can recover support groups of voters they could previously take for granted, such as Black and Latino men. Like so many of the Democrats’ previously assumed voting blocs, union workers are clearly no longer an easy win for the party, with more than 40% of union workers reporting voting for Donald Trump in 2024.
Our new report—which analyzes congressional candidates from 2010 to 2022, union campaign finance data, and interviews with current and former elected officials with union backgrounds—finds that running and electing candidates from the labor movement is one of the most viable and under-explored paths available to both unions and the Democratic Party.
Several key findings illustrate the current state of union candidacy and suggest how the Democratic Party and unions could change their approach to achieve further success in future elections.
Our report identifies all congressional candidates between 2010 and 2022 and reveals that only 5% have any union connection.
First, unions’ donations to candidates now comprise a much smaller slice of total campaign donations. They’ve fallen fivefold, from nearly 15% of total party contributions in the late 1990s to less than 3% by 2022—not because unions are giving less but because individual donations have risen massively.
In recent years, when unions do donate, they’re inclined to play it safe, giving mostly to incumbents rather than pro-union challengers. And in the rare instances they back challengers, they typically back whoever looks most likely to win, leaving the shaping of the candidate pool to the Democratic Party.
Second, candidates with union backgrounds advocate more strongly for the working class—both on the campaign trail and in office—than those without union backgrounds. As candidates, they speak more to worker issues, and as representatives, they advocate more progressive economic legislation compared with their non-union colleagues—regardless of party.
Further, our interviews with candidates and elected officials from union backgrounds highlight that experience they’ve gained specifically through their union involvement gives them an advantage in their knowledge of workplace issues, credibility to speak on labor matters, and an ability to build coalitions and be effective policymakers.
With their ongoing, already established institutional relationships with unions, they’re able to center workers’ rights in their policy plans (strengthening minimum wage laws, paid leave and benefits, worker safety regulations, and card-check laws) and keep open, fluid channels of communication with organized labor. Said relationships also give them a leg up in grassroots organization, inspiring higher turnout and deeper commitment from union members.
Third, despite their strategic value, union candidates and elected officials are not common. Our report identifies all congressional candidates between 2010 and 2022 and reveals that only 5% have any union connection.
That scarcity is not inevitable. Unions have the financial resources, organizing infrastructure, and institutional reach to actively grow a candidate pipeline if they choose to deploy them. Indeed, in critical open-seat races, unions already donate more to Democratic candidates with union backgrounds than to other Democrats.
In addition to donations, unions can lend their organizing infrastructure to directly power union-member electoral campaigns through candidate recruitment, member canvassing, and early financial backing. They can also invest in labor-led candidate schools to build a deep and sturdy pipeline, demystifying the political process for working-class candidates and increasing both the number of union candidates and their electoral success.
The report illustrates two state-level initiatives that show us what can work when unions take a more proactive approach in building a pipeline of candidates. New Jersey’s AFL-CIO Labor Candidate Program has resulted in over 1,300 election victories with a 76% win rate over 20 years. Alaska’s Arthur A. Allman Labor Candidate School has already seen eight of its trainees elected to office since its 2022 inauguration.
The common ground between these two programs: They handle the training themselves rather than leaving it to party consultants and approach candidate development as a sustainable investment for long-term strategy rather than something reserved for election cycles.
Our analysis shows that unions already have an asset they’re not using. Though their membership and formal leverage have weakened, public trust in labor unions has reached its highest point in 50 years, at a time when public confidence in almost all other political structures has essentially collapsed.
Gallup polls show public approval of unions is at its highest rate in over 60 years, with an average of about 70% of Americans expressing their support for unions last year. A GBAO poll conducted on behalf of the AFL-CIO in 2023 found that 88% of Americans under 30 view unions favorably—a record-breaking level of support.
American faith in union politics is there. Will organized labor take up the mantle?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Coalition Demands Schumer, Jeffries Step Down Over Failure to Fight 'War-Crazed' Trump
"Schumer and Jeffries have shown that they cannot be trusted to prevent more wars, more threats of wars, or the transfer of another half a trillion dollars a year into the war machine."
Mar 11, 2026
A coalition of peace groups on Wednesday launched a new national campaign calling for the top Democrats in Congress—Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—to resign from their leadership roles, citing their failure to sufficiently fight back "against a war-crazed Trump administration."
The coalition, which includes Peace Action and RootsAction, launched a petition declaring that it is "time for congressional Democrats to replace Schumer and Jeffries with leaders who are willing and able to challenge the runaway militarism that has dragged our country into launching yet another insanely destructive war," this time against Iran.
"Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have not acted to prevent war on Venezuela or the current war on Iran," the petition reads. "They worked to delay a vote on Iran until after the war had started, while failing to clearly oppose it before or after the launch of the war. Schumer and Jeffries have shown that they cannot be trusted to prevent more wars, more threats of wars, or the transfer of another half a trillion dollars a year into the war machine."
Kevin Martin, president of Peace Action—the largest grassroots peace network in the US—said in a statement that he doubts "at this point whether many people look to Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries for ‘leadership’ in Congress, but we would settle for them getting with the program and representing their base, and the majority of Americans, who want them to stand strongly against Trump’s illegal wars and domestic terror campaigns against the American people."
"They need to speak out loudly and clearly, and get their caucuses in line, to oppose the upcoming $50 billion or more for Trump’s illegal war of aggression on Iran, and to cut off US weapons to Israel," said Martin. "Failing to do so will only increase calls for them to step down or be replaced by colleagues who understand where the American people are on these and other critical issues."
Since the start of the illegal US-Israeli assault on Iran, Schumer and Jeffries have focused largely on procedural objections to the war, the Trump administration's incompetence, and the president's failure to clearly articulate his objectives, rather than explicitly opposing the military onslaught.
In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Jeffries declined to say whether he would oppose the Trump administration's expected push for $50 billion in new funding for the unauthorized war on Iran.
"We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it," Jeffries said, chiding the administration for failing to "make its case as to the rationale or justification for this war of choice in the Middle East."
Sarah Lazare and Adam Johnson wrote for The Nation last week that "it’s not enough to check the box, to do the bare minimum, to reinforce every argument for war only to balk at the process and ask whether there’s a 'plan' for after the myriad war crimes have already been committed."
"The only way to read this half-hearted response from the Democratic Party leadership," they argued, "is de facto support."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the Democrats Are Not Radical Enough
Until left Democrats are willing and able to support meaningful job guarantees, they have little chance of reaching the working people they have lost over the past 40 years of wholesale job destruction.
Mar 11, 2026
Centrist Democrats argue that the party should not “go so far left in a primary that they can’t win against MAGA in the general.” As the Center for Working Class Politics observes, these “Third Way” Democrats stress “affordability” and “abundance” without taking on the billionaire class. Progressive Democrats, including groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and Working Families Party, are seen as just too radical to attract working-class voters.
I disagree. I think the problem is that Democrats, even progressive Democrats, are not radical enough.
We have only to look at former President Franklin D.. Roosevelt’s 1941 “Four Freedoms” State of the Union address to be reminded of what our politics could be and should be. The “Four Freedoms” (of speech and religion, from want and fear) are properly the best remembered parts of the address. But just before these “four essential human freedoms,” Roosevelt listed “the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and complexity of our modern world.” They are:
- Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
- Jobs for those who can work.
- Security for those who need it.
- The ending of special privilege for the few.
- The preservation of civil liberties for all.
- The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
What did he want? He thought we “should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance,” which (thankfully!) has been done, although the support should be increased.
He believed we should “widen the opportunities for adequate medical care,” which has been done in part, with much more to do.
And he called for the nation to “plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it,” which we have pretty much stopped talking about altogether, except to mouth empty phrases about economic growth and job creation.
And this is where, in particular, progressive Democrats are not radical enough, at least not for the thousands of workers I have talked to, worked with, and taught. The economic plans offered by the Democratic Party, even those from left Democrats, fail to offer “a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.” And until they do, Democrats will continue to lose traction with working people, who live with job fear each and every day.
Why Are Democrats Not Talking About Guaranteeing a Job at a Living Wage for Everyone Who Wants to Work?
The government guarantees everyone with money to spare a safe place to put it to earn a fair market rate of return. It is called a US Treasury bond. Why doesn’t the government also guarantee everyone with labor to spare—everyone who wants to work but can’t find a job—with a place to work at a fair market rate?
There are no voices, except for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who proclaim loudly and clearly that all working people should be guaranteed a job at a living wage. Why not? Members of the moneyed class are able to protect themselves from financial risk by easily diversifying their investments. But the working class’ most critical investment—their job—is always at risk.
The jobs of working people are increasingly precarious as corporations lay off workers whenever they please, whether for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all. Today we see millions of layoffs taking place to finance mergers (watch out Hollywood!), leveraged buyouts, and stock buybacks to enrich the richest of the rich. And who knows what AI holds in store?
The millions of workers in rural America who have suffered one mass layoff after another need the power that comes from employment security—jobs that don’t just depend on the profit-maximization strategies of corporate America.
A government-backed guarantee of a job at a living wage would end the wholesale immiseration of families and communities hit by mass layoffs. It would end the kind of job blackmail that makes it difficult for workers to form unions to seek higher wages and better working conditions. This is what counterbalancing corporate power really looks like!
How would it work? Corporations would remain free to reduce their workforces. But every laid-off worker who wants to keep working would be able immediately to find equally remunerative work nearby in the public sector if private sector jobs are not available.
Also, just as employers are able to lay off anyone for business reasons, workers would be free to quit any job they no longer want and easily find another. This kind of “employment assurance” is the worker equivalent of the portfolio diversification and hedging that the wealthy use to protect and enhance their wealth. (And as we all know, when this financial system crashes, the federal government always protects the assets of the wealthy, but not the jobs of working people.)
Is there sufficient public sector work to support such a program? Of course there is, especially if the country commits to rebuilding its physical and human infrastructure. Surely every municipality and state agency needs more workers right now to meet their current goals, let alone new ones to enhance the public’s interests. There’s no shortage of public goods that need to be produced.
Could we afford it? Yes, it would be costly. But the money would be well spent to build better communities. Just ask any group of workers what their communities need, and they will quickly rattle off how to improve them.
And if we all share the costs in proportion to our wealth, we can certainly afford it. Warren Buffett’s tax rate should not be lower than his secretary’s! A small tax on the trade of stocks, bonds, and derivatives might even cover it.
Working-Class Empowerment
Funding and practicality are not the only things holding progressive Democrats back. I worry that power of capital has, if just unconsciously, narrowed their vision. Too many Democrats of all stripes seem to believe that corporate control over employment is an unalterable fact of economic life. Therefore, they don’t go for the jugular—employment guarantees.
The millions of workers in rural America who have suffered one mass layoff after another need the power that comes from employment security—jobs that don’t just depend on the profit-maximization strategies of corporate America.
Until left Democrats are willing and able to support meaningful job guarantees, they have little chance of reaching the working people they have lost over the past 40 years of wholesale job destruction. Massaging the messages is no match for saying loudly and clearly that if you want to work, there is an acceptable job waiting for you.
Many left Democrats believe that we need to shift from a profit-first to a people-first economy. All to the good. But that has little meaning unless working people are assured of a decent paying job if they are looking for work. And also, able to leave a bad job without suffering economic annihilation!
It’s time for the left to become economic radicals again!
(Many thanks to labor historian Mike Merrill for his assistance on this piece.)
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular