Polls Show Drop in Trump Backing Among White Evangelicals

Representative Ro Khanna has stepped forward with a clear historical argument for the Democratic Party’s direction. Speaking alongside Senator Bernie Sanders at a Los Angeles rally this month, the California Democrat declared that the party must reclaim its identity as New Deal Democrats rather than corporate or neoliberal ones. The line drew applause from the crowd but also highlighted a longer-running debate inside the party about which era of its past offers the best guide for the present.

Khanna’s references to Franklin Roosevelt are not casual. He has repeatedly invoked Roosevelt’s 1944 Economic Bill of Rights, which proposed guarantees to employment, housing, medical care, and education. In recent speeches he has paired that program with contemporary proposals for higher minimum wages, expanded public investment in manufacturing, and stronger antitrust enforcement. The approach treats the New Deal not as a fixed set of programs but as a governing philosophy that used federal power to reshape market outcomes after a period of economic crisis and political instability.

The timing of Khanna’s comments coincides with polling that shows eroding support for President Trump among white evangelical voters. Three recent surveys indicate measurable declines in that group’s approval of the president, a shift that could alter turnout calculations in the 2026 midterms. While the two developments operate in different coalitions, both point to voter restlessness with the dominant political alignments of the last decade. Democratic strategists have long argued that economic messaging can reach beyond traditional party lines; Khanna’s rhetoric tests whether an explicit return to mid-century progressive language can accelerate that process.

Critics inside the party contend that such framing risks overstating continuity with the 1930s and 1940s. The New Deal operated in a different demographic and institutional environment, they note, and many of its signature programs were later narrowed or restructured. Khanna’s response has been to emphasize principles rather than precise replicas: government’s role in guaranteeing baseline economic security and countering concentrated private power. He has cited Roosevelt’s own 1930 statement that the country needed to become “fairly radical for a generation” as evidence that earlier Democrats recognized moments when incrementalism was insufficient.

The argument carries implications for the 2028 presidential contest. Khanna has not declared a candidacy, yet his recent appearances and fund-raising have drawn attention from donors and activists looking for a candidate who can blend technological expertise with redistributionist economics. Whether that combination can consolidate support among voters who have drifted from both major parties remains an open question. The recent polling on evangelical voters suggests that Republican support is not monolithic, but translating dissatisfaction into Democratic gains will require concrete offers on wages, housing costs, and health care access.

For now, Khanna’s intervention has reopened a discussion about which historical precedents the party should claim. The New Deal era supplies one set of tools and rhetoric; other periods offer different lessons. The coming months will show whether voters respond to the choice Khanna has placed before them.