To win over working-class voters, Democrats need to stop talking about democracy

Researchers Outline Strategies for Democrats Seeking Working-Class Support

A report by two California-based researchers examines differences in policy priorities between college-educated liberals and voters without four-year degrees. The document, shared with NPR ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, draws on a survey of more than 5,000 respondents conducted earlier this year and proposes adjustments in messaging on economic and cultural issues.

Joan C. Williams, a law professor at the University of California Hastings, and Jared Abbott, who leads the Center for Working Class Politics, define the working class as adults without a bachelor's degree who earn between $40,000 and $100,000 annually. Both authors describe their objective as building broader support for progressive policy outcomes. Williams stated in an interview that she seeks "a sustained progressive coalition capable of delivering on progressive goals."

The report states that Democratic candidates have lost ground among working-class voters across racial groups. It attributes this pattern to a mismatch between the issues emphasized by many college-educated party supporters and the priorities reported by the surveyed working-class respondents. Top concerns listed for the latter group include wages, consumer prices, and personal safety. The authors recommend that candidates address these topics directly rather than leading with other subjects.

According to the Class Gaps Poll data cited in the report, respondents without college degrees ranked "resisting authoritarianism" near the bottom of a 20-item list, while college-educated liberals placed it second. The same survey found larger gaps on topics such as LGBTQ+ rights, abortion access, climate policy, immigration, and income redistribution. The report does not include the full questionnaire or detailed crosstabs, so independent verification of the exact rankings is not possible from the released materials.

Williams and Abbott argue that repeated emphasis on institutional threats has limited resonance with the working-class sample. They recommend instead consistent focus on economic security framed around self-reliance and stable employment. The report suggests that candidates can retain support from college-educated voters while improving standing with others by linking secondary issues to job creation, energy costs, or competition with foreign producers.

The authors tested alternative phrasing on several topics. Climate proposals described as investments that lower household energy bills and create manufacturing positions received higher support in the working-class subsample than language centered on reducing emissions. The report notes that these reframed messages did not produce measurable declines in approval among college-educated respondents in the same poll.

Williams and Abbott caution that such adjustments succeed only when presented as genuine efforts to address shared economic conditions rather than tactical repositioning. They define the target audience for their recommendations as progressives who wish to expand their coalition without altering core policy aims.

The report appears against the backdrop of the 2024 presidential election, in which Democratic messaging included repeated references to democratic norms and reproductive rights. The authors contend that sustained attention to those themes contributed to weaker performance among non-college voters. They advise candidates in the current cycle to maintain an economic emphasis while testing language that connects additional priorities to material outcomes.

Abbott stated that recent Democratic candidates have largely maintained an economic focus in public statements. The report presents this approach as consistent with the survey findings on voter priorities. No data from the 2026 cycle itself is included, as the document was prepared before primary contests concluded.

The analysis rests entirely on the Class Gaps Poll and the authors' interpretation of its results. The poll's sponsor, sample methodology, and margin of error are not detailed in the materials provided to NPR.