

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A new study found that progressive economic populism can win back Rust Belt voters—inside the Democratic Party where necessary, outside it where possible.
Democrats know they have a problem with working-class voters but don’t agree on the cause. Commentators chalk Kamala Harris’ 2024 loss to high prices, an unusually short campaign cycle, or voter resentment against the possibility of having an African American woman as president. But the Democratic Party’s working-class woes have much deeper roots.
Many voters in key battleground states feel burned by decades of Democrats’ unrealized promises to improve the lives of working people, failure to reign in obscene economic inequality, and support for economically disastrous policies—from NAFTA to the entrance of China to the World Trade Organization—that led to the loss of countless jobs and futures in their states.
A new study from the Center for Working-Class Politics (CWCP), with the Labor Institute and Rutgers University, uses a 3,000-person YouGov survey in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to test whether economic populism—tapping into resentment and insecurity from decades of corporate excess and bipartisan neglect—can win back voters who’ve turned away from the Democratic Party.
Let’s start with the good news. Economic populism is popular among Rust Belt voters—particularly when it explicitly calls out corporate greed and mass layoffs. Strong economic populism—as opposed to “populist-lite” messaging that acknowledges there are few bad apples in the otherwise healthy barrel of large corporations—was particularly popular among many of the groups Democrats have struggled to reach: working-class voters, voters without a four-year college degree, voters whose incomes are less than $50k per year, and Latino voters.
If Democrats want to win, they’ll need to put delivering good jobs and holding corporations accountable at the center of everything they do and say.
But if economic populism is so popular, why did even the most stalwart Rust Belt economic populists—like former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown—struggle in 2024? The survey reveals that the Democratic Party label often drags the message underwater. When the very same populist message was delivered by a candidate labeled “Democrat” rather than “Independent,” support dropped by an average of 8.4 points—a gap that balloons into double digits in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. In Pennsylvania, by contrast, there’s no meaningful penalty. In races decided by a few points, that brand discount can prove decisive.
To identify the best path forward for economic populists, the survey next assessed Rust Belt voters’ top economic policy priorities. Across ideological lines, respondents prioritized policies framed around fairness, anti-corruption, and economic security. Proposals like capping prescription drug prices, stopping corporate price gouging, and reigning in political corruption were among the top priorities regardless of partisanship or class. Policies to raise taxes on the wealthy and expand access to good jobs also performed well.
A new proposal barring companies that take taxpayer money from laying off workers also polled surprisingly well—and held up under Republican attacks. The policy was popular even though respondents had never heard of it and it challenges corporations’ right to chase short-term profit at communities’ expense, putting it well outside the acceptable range of mainstream Democratic economic proposals. The policy directly channels Rust Belt communities’ resentment over decades of mass layoffs into a commonsense rule—“if you take from the public, you can’t harm the public”—while signaling a tougher, jobs-first stance than Democrats typically embrace.
Costly or abstract proposals—such as $1,000 monthly payments to all Americans or a trillion-dollar industrial policy for clean energy—as well as traditional conservative ideas like corporate tax cuts and deregulation ranked poorly overall, drawing only pockets of partisan support.
The survey results suggest two simultaneous paths to success for economic populists. In competitive districts where running as an Independent would do little beyond ensure Republican victory, a party hoping to win back the working class should rebuild the Democratic brand by running disciplined and bold economic populist campaigns around policies to reduce costs, create good jobs, and hold elites accountable. Candidates who show independence from donor-class priorities and build a track record as champions of working-class priorities can still make the “D” stand for something again.
In other contexts, however, economic populists should test independent campaigns—following the model of Nebraska’s 2024 Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborne. This should be strategic, targeting deep-red districts and states where running outside the Democratic Party won’t simply hand the race to Republicans, but there are many places where it could be viable. The study also finds majority support for creating an Independent Workers Political Association to back such efforts, with enthusiasm highest among non-college voters, young people, voters of color, and the economically insecure, and with meaningful support from Independents and Republicans as well.
In short, progressive economic populism can win back Rust Belt voters—inside the Democratic Party where necessary, outside it where possible. The most effective strategy is not mysterious: Speak plainly about who profits from layoffs and price gouging and focus obsessively on policies that put workers first. If Democrats want to win, they’ll need to put delivering good jobs and holding corporations accountable at the center of everything they do and say. The path to victory in 2026 and beyond lies in giving voters a reason to believe that Democrats (and independent economic populists) have their backs while Republicans continue to cut workers’ benefits and do nothing to bring back jobs and dignity to long-suffering Rust Belt communities.
"Unlike Trump, I believe we need more than just press releases, polite requests to drug companies, and pilot projects," the senator said.
As President Donald Trump's deadline for large drugmakers to make "binding commitments" to cut prices expired on Monday, Sen. Bernie Sanders released a report showing that the cost of hundreds of prescriptions has risen in the United States since the Republican returned to office in January.
In response to the president's May executive order and July letters giving drugmakers 60 days to act, Sanders (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, "directed his staff to examine prescription drug prices," explains the report, The Art of the Bad Deal: Trump's Failure to Lower Prescription Drug Prices.
The committee staffers documented price increases for 688 medications—310 brand-name drugs and 378 generic ones—during Trump's second term, with a median increase of 5.5% and 25 treatments more than doubling in cost.
"Of the 17 companies that received a letter from President Trump on July 31, 2025, 15 raised the price of at least one product since Trump took office," the report notes. "Since Trump sent letters asking drug companies to lower prices, the prices of 87 drugs have increased."

Overall, the highest hike was 1,555%. Eton Pharmaceuticals increased the price of Galzin, which is used to treat a rare genetic liver disorder called Wilson's disease, from $5,400 to $88,800 per year in the United States—even though it only costs $1,400 in the United Kingdom and $2,800 in Germany.
The report highlights some other examples, such as Novartis' cancer drug Kymriah, which increased by $25,600, or 4.5%, to $594,000 annually. In the UK, it costs $381,000 a year, and in Germany it's $282,000. The report also notes the company's executive compensation last year: $83.3 million.
Vertex jacked up the price of Trikafta, used to treat cystic fibrosis, by 7%, or $23,900, to $365,000 a year, according to the report. Just north of the US, in Canada, it's only $146,000. The company's executive compensation for 2024 was $12.7 million.
Johnson & Johnson increased the price of Xarelto, used to treat and prevent blood clots, by 5% to $7,200—far higher than its cost in Canada ($750), the UK ($880), and Germany ($1,300). The company also hiked the price of Spravato, a nasal spray used to treat depression, by 8% to $28,100, roughly double the cost in those other three countries. Its executive compensation was $64.5 million.
"These price increases are just the beginning. Trump's chaotic across-the-board tariffs will further increase prices," the report warns. "Trump has already imposed a 15% tariff on pharmaceutical products from Europe and Japan, and he has threatened to increase tariffs on pharmaceuticals to up to 250%."
"On September 25, Trump announced that he will impose a 100% tariff on pharmaceutical products starting October 1 unless a product's manufacturer is making or is planning to make the product in the US," the publication details. "Insurers are already reporting that higher drug prices arising from tariffs will result in higher health insurance premiums."
The report continues:
In addition, instead of working with Congress to pass legislation to lower prescription drug prices, the Trump administration spent its first months in office racing to sign a law that makes the largest federal healthcare cuts in history. The cuts will make it harder for millions of Americans to afford prescription drugs as people lose coverage and face ballooning premium bills and rising out-of-pocket costs. In addition, hidden in the administration's One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a multibillion-dollar giveaway to some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.
OBBBA prevents or delays Medicare from negotiating the price of some of the most expensive prescription drugs. Public reporting and analyses have identified several drugs that will benefit from this loophole.
The document stresses that "any real solution to lowering prescription drug prices will require legislation, not just press releases," and points to Sanders' Prescription Drug Price Relief Act, which "would ensure Americans do not pay more for prescription drugs than the median price paid in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan."
Although Trump's health and human services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., "committed to working with Sen. Sanders on this legislation at a hearing in May 2025, HHS stopped responding to staff-level requests to work together to get this bill passed into law after one meeting," according to the report.
Echoing the report, Sanders said in a Monday statement that "I agree with President Trump: It is an outrage that the American people pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. But unlike Trump, I believe we need more than just press releases, polite requests to drug companies, and pilot projects. We need real action to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and substantially reduce the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans."
"If President Trump is serious about making real change, he will support my legislation to make sure Americans pay no more than people in other major countries for the exact same prescription drug," added Sanders, a longtime advocate of Medicare for All. "Now is the time to end the greed of the pharmaceutical industry."
"Because of you and congressional Republicans, seniors will continue to face astronomical, unaffordable costs for lifesaving cancer treatments," said Sens. Ron Wyden and Catherine Cortez Masto.
Two Democratic senators on Monday tore into their Republican counterparts for "sneaking" a provision into their party's massive budget legislation that they said would provide a "multibillion dollar bailout" for the American pharmaceutical industry.
In a letter sent to U.S. President Donald Trump, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) pointed out that the budget package "includes provisions that block or delay the Trump administration from using Medicare drug price negotiation to lower the price of certain blockbuster drugs" including "the top-selling cancer drugs in the world, such as Keytruda, Opdivo, Darzalex, and more."
The senators explained that Keytruda was originally due to become subject to Medicare price negotiations starting next year, but that has now been put on ice by the GOP's legislation.
"We see no policy rationale whatsoever for delaying the... ability to negotiate lower prices on these drugs other than handing money over to the industry," they charged. "Because of you and congressional Republicans, seniors will continue to face astronomical, unaffordable costs for lifesaving cancer treatments."
The senators noted the cruel irony of this gift to the pharmaceutical industry was that Republicans offset its cost by slashing roughly $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade, a move that's projected to strip health insurance from millions of Americans.
"Republicans were able to find billions of dollars to bailout the pharmaceutical industry in their multitrillion tax bill, but you claimed that fiscal austerity required you to enact the largest healthcare cuts in history, terminating coverage for more than 15 million Americans and hiking healthcare costs for everyone, even imposing a 'sick tax' on the lowest income Americans," the senators argued. "Republicans' budget bill benefited the ultrawealthy and big corporations, like Big Pharma, with tax cuts and bailouts at the expense of working and middle-class Americans' healthcare."
The senators also slammed Trump's decision to eschew Medicare price negotiations of the kind first employed by former U.S. President Joe Biden's administration after the passage of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that authorized such negotiations for a limited set of drugs for the first time. Instead, they pointed out that Trump has demanded pharmaceutical companies cut prices on Americans by raising them everywhere else in the world, which they described as a "flashy, empty announcement."
Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, similarly dismissed Trump's recent letters to pharmaceutical companies last week as a completely ineffective approach to lowering prescription drug costs.
"If President Trump was serious about lowering drug prices for Americans, instead of promising to help drug corporations profiteer in other countries, he would work with Congress to pass legislation to lower prices here so Big Pharma can no longer charge U.S. patients and taxpayers the highest prices in the world," he said.
Trump in recent days has been making a number of mathematically impossible promises to lower the cost of drugs for Americans by as much as "1,200%," which would mean that pharmaceutical companies would be paying Americans substantial sums of money in exchange for taking their drugs.