This year’s midterm elections will likely shape the future of the Democratic Party and determine whether the Democrats continue their trend toward radical, far-left, neo-Marxist policies or return to the more center-left position the party popularized before the end of the Second World War.

In the wake of the 2024 presidential election that returned President Donald Trump to the White House, voters reported that they considered then-Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris “too extreme.” Her policies included open borders, unrestricted abortion promotion, gender transition procedures for children, a borderline-socialist economic agenda, and more. According to NBC News exit polls, 48% of voters classified Harris’s policies as “too extreme,” while nearly 60% of voters told Fox News that they were “concerned” that Harris’s agenda is “too extreme.”

Of the more-than-one-quarter of Americans who described their 2024 presidential vote as against a candidate, rather than for a candidate, nearly 60% said that they were voting against Harris. Such survey results — in addition to Trump’s capture of both the electoral college and popular vote — seemingly indicated that far-left Democratic Party policies like those Harris championed were unpopular with the American public — unpopular enough to cost the Democrats the White House, at any rate.

Off-year elections in 2025, however, yielded mixed messaging for Democratic strategists and policymakers. Newly-elected Virginia Governor Abigal Spanberger (D) campaigned as a moderate Democrat, decisively defeating Republican opponent and ex-Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears. (Despite Spanberger’s “moderate” image, she quickly began enacting far-left policies upon taking office earlier this year.) Meanwhile, avowed socialist and pro-immigration radical Zohran Mamdani not only won the Democratic nomination for the New York City mayorship, but bested former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, running as an Independent after losing the Democratic nomination to Mamdani and became the first Muslim mayor of New York City. Socialist Katie Wilson (D) won the mayorship of Seattle, St. Paul elected a mayor who admitted to being an illegal immigrant, and Downingtown, Pa. elected an openly-transgender-identifying mayor.

Now, with midterm elections looming and the specter of 2028 not far off, the Democratic Party faces a dilemma. Some strategists are pressing to distance candidates from the radical policies that crippled Harris’s 2024 White House bid, while others point to the success of figures like Mamdani and Wilson, coupled with growing discontent over the Trump administration’s handling of affordability issues, as evidence that socialism and ultra-progressive social policies appeal to voters.

Option One: Move to the middle. Sunday and Monday, the Democrat-aligned think tank Third Way hosted its “Winning the Middle” conference in South Carolina, urging Democrats to take a more centrist approach and not nominate a socialist presidential candidate in 2028. According to Axios, Third Way President Jon Cowan called the Democrats’ far-left wing “out of touch,” warning that the party would face almost certain defeat if it were to nominate someone in the mold of socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), singling out ultra-progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as a potential successor to Sanders politically.

Cowan observed that groups linked to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have “flipped zero” contentious seats in the House of Representatives since 2018, but a spokesman for Justice Democrats, the organization predominantly responsible for Ocasio-Cortez’s election, responded that progressive groups are more focused on launching primary challenges against “corporate Dems in deep-blue seats” than on targeting Republican-held congressional districts.

Option Two: Lean into the far-left. Various ultra-progressive organizations are trying to persuade Ocasio-Cortez to launch a bid for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, again according to Axios. “One big reason: They see no clear alternative. Bernie Sanders (84) is too old — and no other Sanders-like pol with national punch is emerging,” Axios conveyed. The argument being put forth centers largely on the New York-based congresswoman’s name recognition and political cachet, which proponents say would automatically give her a boost in polling and allow her to raise an estimated $100 million through online fundraising alone.

Another point of consideration is a matter of timing: if the nomination seems to be out of Ocasio-Cortez’s reach, she could potentially drop out and pivot to a high-profile Senate bid, challenging incumbent Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “There’s a window of opportunity for a left-wing nominee that may not come again for a generation,” Axios reported. “Democratic-socialist and liberal victories in New York City and elsewhere — with potentially more this fall — have changed the political playing field.”

Flanked by former Sanders campaign advisors and strategists, Ocasio-Cortez and her team are reportedly keeping a close eye on congressional primaries and races this year in order to “validate the theory that voters are hungry for a left-wing outsider in 2028.” While Ocasio-Cortez has been a Sanders ally, reports suggest that she may have no interest in a White House run and could instead be preparing a network to support another far-left candidate. Other prospective White House contenders floated by Democratic Party insiders include pseudo-socialist Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and open-borders advocate Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

If far-left, socialist-style candidates emerge victorious in high-profile congressional districts in November, or even if they defeat enough establishment-type Democrats in hotly-contested primaries, the party’s ultra-progressive wing will likely feel emboldened to run one of their own in the Democratic presidential primary for 2028.

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter observed, “This internecine scuffle among the Democratic Party apparatchiks has been simmering since the party was dealt its biggest defeat in decades in 2024.” He recounted that shortly after Trump assumed office the second time, then-Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) David Hogg left the organization amidst a conflict over his commitment to primarying Democrats who were not far enough to the Left. “It’s been clear for a while that the fissure between the progressive and establishment elements in the party was going to widen into a canyon,” Carpenter said. “As the midterms and the 2028 presidential contest approach, these elements inside the Democratic Party will vie for control of the party.”

“My question is: is this simply a disagreement in party branding, or is this a legitimate disagreement in policy as well? The Democratic Party has planted its flag on the wrong side of a series of 80-20% issues, like late-term abortion, gender-transitioning minors, critical race theory, and so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives, all of which are unpopular with a majority of voters,” Carpenter posited. “My sense is that the Democratic Party is merely debating how the party should brand itself, rather than any actual moderation in policy,” he added, pointing to Spanberger as an example. “Spanberger was cautious not to confirm accusations that she is a left-wing radical during her 2025 campaign, but in just a few short months, she has governed as a left-wing radical,” Carpenter noted. “The so-called moderates in the party will still push for the same radical abortion position and the most radical pro-transgender policies as the progressive wing. The only difference is that the so-called moderates are savvy enough not to campaign on them.”

But even if Democrats manage to secure a majority in the House in the midterm elections, the party will have to maintain momentum through 2028, and Democrats are already splintering over the potential of impeaching Trump — again. According to Semafor, Democrats are considering launching an “oversight” project if they retake a House majority, targeting corporations and firms that have cooperated with the Trump administration. “The shadow of Trump’s first term will hang over Democrats’ decisions,” Semafor opined, warning that Democrats may “encounter deep internal divisions over how far to go in conducting oversight while also passing their own agenda.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), for example, has already teased the possibility of impeaching Trump, specifically citing alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which bars presidents from accepting gifts from foreign governments or U.S. taxpayers. “The cardinal, original sin of Trump was to decide that he was going to use the presidency as a profit-making enterprise in his first term, and I would say that Congress should have impeached him for receiving millions and millions of dollars from foreign governments,” Raskin claimed.

During the first Trump presidency, Raskin was the lead impeachment manager for the second impeachment of Trump, centered on the events of January 6, 2021. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the top House Oversight Democrat, focused his attention on corporations partnering with the White House. “There [are] opportunities to look at not just corporations that we think are enabling some of Trump’s corruption,” he said, “but certainly corporations that are not supporting American families and not really focusing on affordability.”

Within just months of Trump’s return to the White House, some Democrats were already breaking out the articles of impeachment. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) led the charge, joined by a handful of other Democrats, but party leadership was hesitant to embrace the move. Semafor noted that Democrats are aware that they likely lack the Senate votes to convict Trump even if he’s impeached in the House. However, Democratic leaders have been less averse to the prospect of impeaching Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem.

Yet a third faction of the Democrats is less concerned with political retribution and more concerned with addressing issues like affordability. “We have to do oversight and accountability, and we have to talk about the affordability agenda, how we’re going to make life better for people if we are given the opportunity to lead, and if we’re given the opportunity to govern,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said. He warned that impeachments and investigations cost time and money; if high-profile progressives like Raskin promise impeachments, voters would undoubtedly grow impatient, demanding results that may never materialize.

Author and political commentator Philip Finkelstein suggested that Democrats appear unlikely to learn from their past mistakes. “Trump capitalized on far-left foolishness [in 2020], and he did it again in 2024. The liberal media and those in charge of the Democratic Party couldn’t — seemingly still don’t — see what the majority of Americans take to be common sense,” he opined.

Even though Joe Biden claimed victory in the 2020 election, Trump’s polling results demonstrated that his support was still strong. “Yet, four years later, the Democrats somehow saw fit to run Kamala Harris. Despite Biden’s own role in causing this disaster, the real mystery is how the establishment … thought it made sense to bypass the democratic process and nominate a gaffe-prone and unpopular vice president from California who had never won a single primary,” Finklestein observed. “The writing was always on the wall. Democrats lost, and they will keep losing national elections until they consciously choose a rebirth for their party. They need to remove from power within the party the faction that allowed Trump to paint everyone on the left as more deranged than his own unhinged brand of populism.”