Where Have All the Democrats Gone?: The Soul of the Party in the Age of Extremes

by Ruy Teixeira, John B. Judis

A much-needed wake-up call for the Democrats, which reveals how the party has lost sight of its core principles and endangered its political future―from the authors of “one of the most influential political books of the 21st century” ( The New York Times )

For decades, American politics has been plagued by a breakdown between the Democratic and Republican parties, in which victory has inevitably led to defeat and vice versa. Both parties have lost sight of the people at the center of the American electorate, leading to polarization and paralysis. In Where Have All the Democrats Gone? , John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira reveal the tectonic changes shaping the country’s current political landscape that both pundits and political scientists have missed.

The Democratic Party, once the preserve of small towns as well as big cities and of the industrial working class and the newly immigrated, has abandoned and even actively alienated many of these voters. In this clarion call and essential argument for common sense and common ground, Judis and Teixeira reveal the transformation of American politics and provide a razor-sharp critique of where the Democrats have gone awry and how they can avoid political disaster in the days ahead.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Political Science, Current Affairs

325 pages, Hardcover

First published November 7, 2023

About the author

Ruy Teixeira is a Senior Fellow at both The Century Foundation and American Progress. He is also co-director of the States of Change: Demographics and Democracy project, a collaboration that brings together the Center for American Progress, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution.

His most recent book is The Optimistic Leftist: Why the 21st Century Will Be Better Than You Think. His other books include The Emerging Democratic Majority; America’s Forgotten Majority: Why the White Working Class Still Matters; The Disappearing American Voter; and Red, Blue and Purple America: The Future of Election Demographics.

Teixeira’s book The Emerging Democratic Majority, written with John Judis in 2002, was the most widely discussed political book of that year and generated praise across the political spectrum, from George Will on the right to E.J. Dionne on the left. It was selected as one of the best books of the year by The Economist.

Reviews

[Lucas · Rating 2 out of 5]

To my Goodreads friends -- sorry in advance for such a boring, serious review, I had a lot of thoughts about this book that I needed to get out.

After Trump’s 2024 victory, it’s become clear certain strategies adopted by Democrats, Progressives, and leftists are ineffective at best, and often counterproductive. We're facing a fundamental failure to connect with the very voters whose support we need most. NYT polling before the election found that a near majority of Americans say Donald Trump is not too far to the left or right, while a similar proportion of Americans say Kamala Harris is too far to the left. This perception gap reveals not just a communication problem, but a deeper disconnect between progressive messaging and the American mainstream.

I was haunted by the book's introduction, where the authors talk to a former steel worker in Dundalk, MD, and quote his description of the Democrats:

I think the Democrats are what we used to call the jet-setter class. They are the ones who go to Europe on vacation. They are the ones who don't care where the stuff is made. I think the working class has caught on to that."

For people diving into explanations for Trump's success in this election, this book is worth reading. The two authors are old-school New Deal liberals, pushing for Democrats to adopt a strong emphasis on economic populism while pivoting hard to the center on cultural issues to win back the working-class voters they have lost. The first half argues that the Neoliberal turn of Democrats has harmed them electorally with the working-class voters they are now losing. I'm not sure I'm convinced by this narrative. This simplifies the political difficulties of the Democrats at the time and is simply too convenient to the author's own priors. Timothy Shenk lays out a much more nuanced account of the period that seems much more compelling to me.

The second half of the book goes into what the authors characterize as Democratic "cultural radicalism" and its impact on voter alienation. Their analysis here is sharp and often insightful, but things get messy when they pivot from diagnosis to prescription.

This becomes particularly evident in their discussion of gender identity issues, where their analysis suffers from both dated evidence and questionable interpretations. For instance, the authors rely heavily on a 2015 Houston referendum to draw conclusions about contemporary public attitudes – an approach that ignores dramatic shifts in public opinion over the past decade.

Or this passage:

“Their attempt to subvert the very category of women, and the protections won by the women’s movement, and to subvert the understanding of being gay and lesbian won by those movements has very little to do with democracy. Its attempt to impose a new social conformity, based on a theory of gender that flies in the face of evolution. It’s as if the perception that the earth is flat supersedes the findings of astronomy.”

To claim that trans activists' theory of gender "flies in the face of evolution" is to show you have missed the point entirely.

I still think this book deserves a place in current debates about the Democratic Party's future. But readers with politics that are different from the authors' should approach it with a critical eye, particularly when the authors shift from strategic analysis to ideological stances. These arguments are sometimes worth thinking through and engaging with, but particularly on gender, they miss the mark.

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Democrats, we believe, need to look in the mirror and examine the extent to which their own failures contributed to the rise of the most toxic tendencies on the political right."

[Sophie Rice · Rating 5 out of 5]

This might be the only political science book that I've read that makes me think the field is actually worth saving.

Good book. I've mentioned this book in many conversations so glad it lived up to the hype. Salient points about why the Democratic party has failed to garner a lasting majority in the US. Strong arguments about the isolation of the party from the working class and the working of the shadow point that impacts national politics to the detriment of the Dems.

[Chad Manske · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thought-provoking analysis of the Democratic Party in the United States amidst the political polarization of recent years. The authors delve into the internal struggles and ideological shifts within the Democratic Party, exploring how the party has evolved and adapted to changing political landscapes. One of the key strengths of the book is his deep understanding of the historical context and the intricacies of political dynamics. Through their insightful analysis, they shed light on the challenges facing the Democratic Party and offers valuable insights into potential pathways forward. The authors make complex political concepts accessible to a wider audience and their arguments are well-reasoned and supported by thorough research, providing readers with a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. Overall, “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” is a timely and important read for anyone interested in understanding the current state of the Democratic Party and the broader political landscape in the United States.

[Libby · Rating 4 out of 5]

This first half of this book discusses how Democrats’ neoliberal economics over the past few decades has led to an exodus of working class voters from the party. I enjoyed this portion and felt like I learned a lot about our country’s economic policy from Carter onwards. The second half was more based on vibes than research and focused on Democrats shift to “cultural radicalism” on many social issues. I didn’t agree with many of those takes, but would still recommend the book overall

[Whit · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I don't necessarily agree with all of the authors' conclusions, I do think they have their finger on the pulse of how and why democrats have hemorrhaged support among the working class in the last few decades and particularly since 2016. While written in 2023, their conclusions proved largely true in the 2024 election as well. They offer what I believe to be a reasonable path forward for the party that is currently experiencing an identity crisis

[Jake · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ll be recommending this a lot

[Sasha Fuson · Rating 3 out of 5]

the first part honestly offers a really great and well laid-out, cause-and-effect outline of democratic presidents/policies since the great depression and how the american people have responded to some of their major successes and failures. it was very informative and easy to follow and argued that democrats must learn from their mistakes if they want to regain their footing as the party of “the people” and win elections.

the second part, however, mostly argued that if democrats want to win elections their politics of “the people” cannot contain any multiculturalism, concede any cultural/identity issues, and focus on liberal economics. a lot of what they claimed to be “radical and divisive” i thought to just be (hardly) on the left side of Fox News, and their idea of moderation/electability read like justification for bringing the middle further to the right.

[Ann Jasper · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book offers a credible overview of how the party went from (1) representing unions and working families to prioritizing global econ interests (i.e., business) which weakened union clout within the party and (2) promoting the "college intellectual" left-leaning social issues even when most of the party held more nuanced/moderate views. On this second point, the authors discuss how civil debate about issues like racism, gender, and climate change has been suppressed by the party so that the positions became more extreme in absence of these debate guardrails.

[Steven · Rating 1 out of 5]

An incredibly snarky book purported to be written by Democrats but instead espousing a long litany of cultural complaints about absolutely everything happening anywhere to the left of Fox News. Their underlying message is that all those uppity people with newfangled ideas about rights and respect need to just shut up and know their place. Poorly researched and blatantly biased. Very hard to get through it with any respect for the authors.

[Gianluca · Rating 5 out of 5]

Libro molto bello e interessante che si interroga sulle recenti sconfitte del Partito Democratico americano.

Diviso in due parti, nella prima esamina la storia recente del partito, concentrandosi su Clinton, Obama e Biden. Questa sezione è probabilmente la più complessa da leggere, dato che gli autori fanno un grande uso di dati e sondaggi. Tuttavia, permette di avere un inquadramento chiaro della storia politica americana più recente.
La seconda parte, invece, è dedicata a quello che definiscono “radicalismo culturale”. Analizzando quattro temi chiave del dibattito odierno occidentale (discriminazione razziale, immigrazione, diritti civili e crisi climatica), gli autori sostengono che il Partito Democratico è stato fortemente influenzato da gruppi di interesse radicali interni al partito, che lo hanno portato a sposare posizioni estreme. Il risultato è che, così facendo, i Dem si sono alienati l’elettorato medio americano che non vive nei grandi centri urbani.

Nella conclusione, gli autori sostengono che per riconquistare l’elettorato il Partito Democratico deve adottare posizioni liberali in economia e moderate in ambito culturale.

Libro davvero molto attuale ed interessante, soprattutto la seconda parte, in cui si analizza come il posizionamento più “radicale” dei Dem in alcune questioni abbia condotto a sconfitte in elezioni locali, statali o federali. Infine, l’analisi dettagliata del ruolo dei partiti ombra all’interno dei partiti stessi permette di avere una visione più completa della realtà della politica americana!

[Kristopher Larsen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Data heavy (and by data, I mean almost exclusively polling data from the 80's through 20's) examination of how the Dems have lost ground by running to the right. Written before the last election, so missing the current shift but nothing too surprising or illuminating.

[Wes · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent summary of how the Democrats lost the white working class (once their base of support) to the Republican party over the course of the last few decades. If you read the news, listen to political podcasts, read off-kilter Substacks, etc, then there is not a lot of new info here, but it's laid out in an excellent summary that occasionally made connections I had never previously considered.

[Alex Furst · Rating 2 out of 5]

Book #5 of 2025. "Where Have All the Democrats Gone?" by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira. 2/5 rating. 280 p.
This book discusses how Democrats went from support by the working class, into a party seen as that of the educated - and snobby, politically-correct - elite. And therefore not for everyday people.

The book was really dry. Especially the first portion talking about a large majority of presidents and their impact on swinging the working-class support away from Democrats.

The second part was somewhat more interesting, talking about radical cultural views that alienated working-class (and especially white working-class men) from the Democratic Party. This was often by small "shadow-party" groups that Democrats felt a need to kowtow to or face wrath through social media protests and other negative publicity.

As we are facing the failure by Democrats to win what should have been an easy election, I have been thinking about where the US goes from here in politics. This book made me think about the ideas I support and working to take a deeper look at their benefit to people. While I always lead any topic with compassion, I don't know that it's always been even-handed in the idea of who is being helped and who is hurt? I'm looking to become much more data-backed. Today's fights have turned into both sides not taking compromises that will help out 80%.

In short, traditional liberal economics, that help out working-class people and shore up at least some form of a social safety-net, are actually supported by over half of the electorate. What has stopped the Democrats from winning on this majority are two main things:
1) They have been influenced too much by Silicon Valley and Wall Street and moved away from helping the "common man"
2) They have bowed to the influence of many extreme cultural positions, that while most voters support milder versions of, start losing voters in their extreme forms put forth by the party

"What these results show is that the seemingly harsh difference in cultural outlook that have come to define liberalism and conservatism don't reflect the positions of most American voters."

This book just really was a fight to get through. It did make me think and hopefully will make me more even-handed and empathetic if (hopefully, when!) I finally get into elected office.

Quotes:
"The Democratic Party has had its greatest success when it sought to represent the common man and woman against the rich and powerful, the people against the elite, and the plebians against the patricians."
"The civics books will say that this rough equality encourages constructive compromise, but in the last three decades, it has more often been a recipe for gridlock and stalemate, epitomized in battles over increasing the debt limit and in repeated government shutdowns. This stalemate has increased voters' distrust of Washington and of government."
"Trump's victory was attributable, above all, to the shift of white working-class voters into the Republican column, including many who had voted for Obama. In the country as a whole, the Republican advantage among white working-class voters went up 6 points to a staggering 31 points."
"If you go back even further to 2012, Democrats have lost an amazing 25 points off their advantage among the nonwhite working class."
"What began happening in the last decade is a defection, pure and simple, of working-class voters."
"But there was also a subtler effect of the China shock and of the jobs lost to Mexico under NAFTA. Republicans, of course, had played a prominent role in boosting both trade treaties, and the Great Divide had opened up under Reagan and Volcker, but the people who lived in middle America felt betrayed by the Democrats' role in championing these treaties. They saw the Democrats as a party of Hollywood, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley that no longer cared about the welfare of the 'forgotten middle class.'"
"Democrats need only look at the Senate, House, and governor's races in Florida to see what could go wrong, and how the party's identification with cultural radicalism can turn a swing state into a solidly Republican one."
"The district's revision, cheered by shadow party groups like the foundation-backed Justice Policy Institute, reaffirmed the old charge that 'progressives' are more sympathetic to criminals than to their victims."
"From the big swings among Hispanics toward Trump in 2020 to the Asian and Hispanic support for Republican gubernatorial candidates like Glenn Youngkin in Virginia, Ron DeSantis in Florida, and Lee Zeldin in New York to the leading role of Asian voters in ousting radical school board members and Boudin in San Francisco, it's become clear that Democratic acquiescence in the new radical orthodoxy around race is a liability with these voters and an obstacle to gaining majorities that could adopt programs in housing, health care, employment, and education that could actually benefit lower-income minorities."
"As Hesburgh had argued [in 1986], the only way to genuinely discourage illegal immigrants was by blocking their employment through a counterfeit-proof verification program that imposed harsh penalties on employers who flouted it. But under pressure from business and also from Hispanic lobbies, Congress proved unwilling to pass such a program."
"The Jordan Commission also recognized that if you want to improve the lot of less-educated and -skilled Americans already here, you have to limit the flow of legal and illegal unskilled immigrants into the country. There is reason to believe that the uncontrolled onrush of unskilled and low skilled migrants after 1965 was a factor in perpetuating African American ghettos in major cities, keeping down the wages of first generation migrants, and creating resentful left-behinds in small towns through the Midwest. There is also reason to believe these groups are beginning to understand this and that their growing rejection of the Democrats' stand on immigration is a consideration in their abandoning Democratic candidates."
"As [environmental scientist Vaclav] Smil pointed out in an interview with the +New York Times+: 'People toss out these deadlines without any reflection on the scale and the complexity of the problem... What's the point of setting goals which cannot be achieved? People call it aspirational. I call it delusional.'"
"In almost every election since 2016, the result has rested on which party is able to best link the other party's candidate to the cultural radical strands within their party."
"As the parties themselves have become increasingly identified with their cultural extremes, more voters identify themselves as 'independents.' According to Gallup, Democrats and independents took up equal parts of the electorate in 2008, but the ranks of people who identified as independents began to swell after that. In 2022, 41 percent identified as 'independent' compared to 28 percent as Republican or Democrat."
"What these results show is that the seeningly harsh difference in cultural outlook that have come to define liberalism and conservatism don't reflect the positions of most American voters. They are products partly of the American two-party system, which encourages each party to try to unearth what is most controversial in the other and of the shadow party groups and individuals on both sides who for decades have promoted cultural radicalism on race, immigration, sex and gender, the environment, faith, family, and flag."
"Democrats, we believe, need to look in the mirror and examine the extent to which their own failures contributed to the rise of the most toxic tendencies on the political right."

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I often do, I have been reading two books simultaneously, both dealing with a similar subject. I usually find I gain unexpected insights on the subject from each one. This time I have been reading about the crimes, tricks and power play the Republicans have used/are using to limit and suppress democracy, while in this book the story is the Democrats constant blowing of elections by ignoring their natural strength, going back to 1932 of promoting the economic well-being of everyday Americans by chasing after Wall Street, or by falling into cultural radicalism nonsense on issues of race, immigration, gender (pronouns!) or climate. Well written with sensible and I think, winning, recommendations, but will they follow them?

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

tldr; party apparatus taken over by cultural elite with no understanding of average Americans.

[Keenan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sloppily written, but their conclusions are largely correct.

[Jay Molette · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first half of the book talks about Democrats economic policy that has strayed away from the desires of the people and instead been representative of the wants and needs of interest groups. That analysis I can get behind. The Citizen's United ruling is a detriment to our country and will remain so until we pass a constitutional amendment or until the ever shrinking Supreme Court liberal minority gets a majority again. Basically, when Hell freezes over.

The latter half of the book is where I run into issues. The Authors hammer at the left for woke DEI, Open Borders, and Trans-people. I do not personally consider myself on the most progressive end of the Democratic Party, and I can acknowledge some missteps when Democrats have gone overboard on certain niche issues. Kamala Harris's statements about transgender inmates came back to haunt her in a certain infamous ad.

That being said, I am a rust-belt, union factory worker who grew up in a rural county whose best friend is a trans-woman who came out while attending a conservative Christian college. Trans-rights are not reserved for people who attend liberal arts colleges in big cities on the east and west coast. Biden, who is widely considered a moderate figure, said that trans discrimination is "the civil rights issue of our time." This is true. Conservatives railed against gays for years, and elected Democrats being closet gay-marriage supporters didn't get Democrats huge governing majorities. Republicans have all but given up on combating gays because they have moved on to trans people as the next battle in the culture wars. Trans-People will eventually get the same level of public support as the rest of the LGBTIA spectrum.

The Democrats need to find their footing on the border and immigration, which need to be discussed as two separate issues. Open Borders is not a solution that most folks find tenable, but Democrats also won't be able to sit back and watch as the inhumane policies that Trump suggests are implemented.

Black folks ought to be listened to and supported by the Democratic Party. The author pushes examples of issues like reparations that don't have a majority of public support, and the goings on of liberal universities, but along the way discourages whites from looking inward at some of the inherent biases that even well intentioned white people have.The right wing vitriol that stems from even alluding to the existence of lingering racism in our "post-racial" society makes racism self-evident. The Democrats also get unfairly blamed for "defund the police," which was never a mainstream position in the party and did not inspire any legislation nationally.


Democrats certainly need to avoid the fringe of every social movement that arises and should do a better job of distancing themselves from issues on campuses and items that aren't a legislative priority for them. But, they also can walk back on support of people of color, the LGBT community, and immigrants. I believe the book is to be well-intentioned, and I agree with many of the economic statements made, but I think larger than any social issue, the Democratic Party has to focus on delivering results to the public and communicating to the public about them. The Biden Administration did a good job at policy but ultimately couldn't communicate it through a past his prime Joe Biden. The state of global affairs, including two wars we have a financial tie to, an escalated stand-off with China, and an international period of inflation proved to be too-steep for most incumbents of the world to overcome. Joe Biden/Kamala Harris were no exception.

I think if anyone wants to save themselves some time, they can just watch the clip of Ruy Teixeira on the Daily Show, and just know that I am on team Jon Stewart.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting and provocative argument, even if I didn't totally agree with it. These are two old grumpy dudes, but they have been keen observers of American politics for a long time, and what they argue here about the decline of the Democratic Party is worth listening to.

Their argument is that the Democratic Party has left behind its working class base and become the party of the "winners" of the modern service/ideas/tech economy who are more middle-upper middle class and well-educated. It has done so in 2 ways: first, by moving too far away from the more populist, protectionist, and pro-welfare state programs of the New Deal and Great Society towards neoliberal economics and globalization. Second, by embracing what they call post-1960s cultural radicalism, or positions on gender, race, climate, and immigration that are well outside the American mainstream and alienating to the very working class voters the party needs to succeed. The solution is to embrace economic policies that support the working and middle class first, taking more mainstream if still liberal positions on social issues, and distancing itself from banks and big businesses that pulled the party away from labor and working class interests.

J and T are pretty moderate liberals, and I don't think their arguments will persuade many progressives. It is interesting that they end up closer to Sanders than to, say, Obama on economic policies. But they are very centrist when it comes to hot-button social issues, and while they are grumpy about these issues and occasionally exaggerate, they are right that the views/ideas of major liberal and progressive institutions in the US, including much of the Dem Party leadership, are quite distant and often incomprehensible . They have extensive poll data to show that in the 2010s the "shadow party" of liberal institutions drifted into forms of radicalism on these issues (radicalism here defined as distance from the median of public opinion) that hurt them at the ballot box and made Republicans appear reasonable. That doesn't mean those views are wrong; I'm probably more sympathetic to BLM, the climate movement, and LGBTQ rights movements than these guys are. But the data don't lie, especially among working-class voters. The fact that Trump has been steadily gaining among working class people of all colors suggests something fundamentally flawed about the way Democrats are behaving on both economic and social issues (although J and T strongly praise Biden's more industrialist, nationalistic policies).

This book is better at explaining why the Democrats lost support than why the Republicans gained it. I do think they underestimate the racial and gender basis (as well as the sheer craziness) of Trump rise. They were a little harsh on Clinton and Obama. And they relied on some false equivalences between outlets like the New York Times (way less radical than they think) and propagandistic right-wing outlets like Fox and Breitbart. Even if you don't agree overall, this book still pinpoints big issues with the Democratic Party today and is useful for thinking through those problems.

[Joey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summed up, Judis and Teixeira in this book contend that the Democratic Party would best serve itself politically by going after the working class voters that once comprised the party’s backbone. They argue in the first half of the book that Democrats’ drift away from New Deal economic liberalism and toward supply side economics — the neoliberalism championed by Reagan and maintained by the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama — has fueled voter anger, particularly among the working class who have watched their jobs shift overseas and morph into service sector employment filled by low wage immigrants, both legal and undocumented. In the book’s second half, Judis and Teixeira focus on social and cultural issues, maintaining that entities like media outlets, social media-based groups, influencers, non-profits, and wealthy donors — all of which constitute what Judis and Teixeira term “the shadow party” — have drug the Democratic Party hard leftward to radical positions that alienate the working class voters the party needs to not only win elections but also correct the United States’ floundering.

The authors are extremely moderate, a fact confirmed by how they clearly annoy left-wing readers and reviewers who accuse them of essentially serving as closeted conservatives. This actually strengthens Judis and Teixeira’s contention that the Democratic Party has drifted too far left; a vocal minority agitates for radical left-wing stances and policies on everything from climate change to immigration while majorities or large pluralities of total voters lean the other way on these divisive issues. Politically, the party undercuts itself when it kowtows to the extremes of the shadow party.

The second half of “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” is probably more arguable than the first, in that decent arguments can be made counter to the authors’ stances. The book’s first half, however, in which the authors lament the rise of U.S. trade deficits, unfettered globalization, and the overall stranglehold of big business over U.S. politics, is hard to dispute.

This book, read along with Judis’s other recent volumes, 2016’s “The Populist Explosion” and 2019’s “The Nationalist Revival,” makes a powerful argument that neoliberalism sparked and fostered the populism and nationalism animating much of the world, but particularly the United States and Europe. “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” leverages the arguments of Judis’s works on populism and nationalism to make the case for government action to bolster the U.S. economy against foreign trade schemes and put working class Americans back to work making American goods for export. But it’s hard to do so as Americans struggle over cultural wedge issues; Judis and Teixeira suggest that Democrats align themselves more closely with the majority of voters to build a coalition that can strengthen the country.

[Cat Rayne · Rating 3 out of 5]

The authors, Democrat loyalists, so this is not a biased attack on the party, attempt a clarion call to the party leaders to return to their roots of true liberalism, not foster the extremist guides of “the shadow party.” Yes, they went there.

The book quickly spans the last 100 years or so of U.S. politics and then wrote of the ways the Democrat party has lost its way with the common man, their former liberal platform, and their intense focus on extremist policies.

The book proved an honest look at the party today and did not hold back the usual barbs against the Republicans which clearly gave way to the bias the authors tried to rise above. The reality of it was that while it did address specifics with the Democrat party, it really was an indictment of our political divides and machinations that politicians (of every stripe) use to manipulate people for votes.

Particularly liked Part II Cultural Radicalism that addressed the modern culture, how it is manipulated and how political wrangling supersedes any real positive change. The authors strive hard here to show the varied stands on issues of racism, immigration, gender theory and turning the coin for different views and then land in a soft middle to denigrate extremes on both sides.
Both parties have sunk to lows unimaginable and neither deserve the loyal support many people give them. Kudos to Judis and Teixeria for attempting to address the missteps and lost vision in the party they support. Politics today is about being less bad than the other guy which gets the nation nowhere.

Too many people hang on the past platforms and successes of the Democrats and Republicans but in 2024 both have changed extensively. John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have a chance in the parties they defined in their time. This isn’t a bad thing, but there has yet to be much good in the idea either.

[Courtney · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you agree (or can be persuaded) that the Democratic Party loses elections because they largely ignore the needs of working-class voters, the authors’ argument in Where Have All the Democrats Gone? is a fair one. It certainly opened my eyes to issues and origin stories I never gave much weight to.

But what doesn’t work is how one-sided Judis and Teixeira’s criticism is. It’s reasonable to say that they’re laser-focused on Democrats and Democrats only here, but it’s pretty distracting—if not dishonest—how slanted their argument is. Save for a few sentences at the very end, there’s virtually no acknowledgment of the Republican Party’s devolution into a consistently toxic, cynical governing arm, the way they significantly benefit from the country’s electoral system, how they have an entirely unchecked media apparatus at their disposal, etc. Democrats aren’t constantly falling on their faces in a vacuum.

Although I don’t think the authors are making a “both sides” argument here, to flat-out ignore genuine, tangible advantages the other party regularly weaponizes is extremely misleading to me. Yes, readability matters in accounts like these. But there’s a big difference between readability and oversimplification. This one falls much closer to the latter side of the spectrum.

The second half of the book is actually BS, though. I can accept the idea that “””radical””” issues and identities can be alienating or confusing to those who aren’t regularly exposed to others who don’t look or sound like them. But what I can’t accept—and completely condemn, in fact—is the sneering tone in which these authors write about real issues like trans acceptance and racial justice. Protecting the vulnerable and actively engaging with their concerns is not mutually exclusive to working-class voters throughout the Midwest (as if trans people or other marginalized communities can’t be both—or have a vested interest in the care and protection of both).

[Joni · Rating 3 out of 5]

[ To the editors of Goodreads - please allow half-point increments for rating books] I gave this book a 3. The first part (174 pages) was a 2. The rest of the book was a 3. If allowed I would have given this book a 2.5. In the past , there have been a few books I wanted to give a 4.5 but was not allowed. I reserve a 5 for books that I loved very much.

Getting back to this book - the first half was dull and overly statistical. (I teach mathematics and if if I was bored, can you imagine a general non-technical reader.) Also the writers think all of the problems are caused by evil Wall Street, evil bankers, evil corporations. To quote Margaret Thatcher, " The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money". I am old enough to remember when US cars were lousy and only the influx of better quality Japanese cars and competition led to better domestic automobiles. People sometimes forget that the US public are consumers too. Cheaper and better products improve people's lives.

The 2nd half of the book was better. The authors were more balanced - especially regarding immigration, climate control, Black Lives Matter, etc.

I don't know if there is any easy solution to the decaying small towns whose main industries have either left or closed. The country is moving more and more to an information/ technology phase and unfortunately, there will be people, towns, industries that will suffer.

Government is not the answer. Why are there federal Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, etc?

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson.

[Lada · Rating 1 out of 5]

Perhaps the book presents valid insights, but I couldn't get past the sloppiness/lack of factchecking. I happen to live in Mountain View, and so was surprised to read the following near the beginning of the book:
"..., Mountain View, a posh town (population 80,000) that is part of Silicon Valley. Alphabet (Google) and Meta (Facebook) are both headquartered there. It's main drag boasts chic boutiques and restaurants."
How hard could it be to look up where Meta is headquartered? And I'm not sure where the chic boutiques are located on Castro St. (if that is what is meant by Mountain View's main drag). Yes, Mountain View has nice restaurants, but retail -- not as much.
Then it shifts to Santa Clara County mid-paragraph and says "Its congressman is Ro Khanna" making it sound like this would apply to Mountain View, but that's a different congressional district. Next paragraph it is quoting Khanna, but then shifts to Lenny Siegel, former Mountain View mayor (points for that -- Lenny is a good guy), making it seem like it's still about Mountain View.
Maybe it doesn't matter that Meta is in Menlo Park or that the chic boutiques are elsewhere too (Palo Alto? Los Altos? Santana Row? -- Khanna's district does include Santana Row), the broad brush strokes are still probably right, but if I'm going to be spending time with a book in hopes of finding truth, I'd like it to be written by an author who cares about writing precisely.

[George Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting take on the Democrats inability to hold on to voters in groups that Democratic strategists thought they had a lock on. While we now know that Trump gained voter share in groups that do not seem intuitive, here is a book released in November of 2023 with the same caution. In a nut shell, the authors posit that the Democratic Party jettisoned economic populism that is historically connected to The New Deal. Simultaneously, they posit that the Democratic party embraced certain solutions to real social problems that were too extreme for large portions of the electorate, including too much of the party's base.

Of particular note, they posit a "Fox News Fallacy" within the party, which is that too many Democrats (especially party leaders) assume that if an issue is brought up on Fox News, there must therefore be no factual basis for the criticism. While they go through many such issues, big ones they cite are whether many voters see border security as an important issue, and the perceived importance of robust, well resourced policing in the aftermath of the 2020 civil unrest that followed the George Floyd murder and its hangover (in regards to police funding, manning, and retention).

No matter where you come down on the issue, it is at least an in depth look, written ahead of the hype of Harris' loss, on why stats and pollsters misjudged the election.

[Paul Fisette · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think this book offered an important, if at times flawed, perspective on the Democratic platform as it exists in 2023 that was worth reading to gain a different perspective.

The first half of the book is a short retelling of the last 90 years of U.S. politics through a very particular viewpoint, and it felt at times like this could have been one chapter of context setting, I think the authors would have had more success here if they had broken down what they believe to be the key strengths of a classic Democratic platform and expanded on each one using historical examples - and in my opinion it would have strengthened their overall argument in the second half of the book.

As for the second half - I think a compelling argument was made that the Democratic party has lost its way with working class voters and in particular is losing support among working class voters of color, which goes against the conventional wisdom in Democratic circles. I thought their chapters on immigration and sexual identity were compelling, however their last key chapter on climate change was a stretch. Whether voters regard climate change as an existential threat has no bearing on whether it actually is an existential threat - the science is the science.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Judis and Teixeira set out and succeed in answering the question they pose in the book’s title - “Where have all the democrats gone?” The first half of the book maps the history of the Democratic Party from the mid twentieth century to today, and all of the shifts and realignments with voters being alienated from the party (the 1960’s southern democrats, the 1980’s Reagan democrats, to name a few). The second half describes particular political and social issues that the authors believe are most responsible for the exodus from the democrat party (immigration, identity politics, climate change).

This is a phenomenal book; it is especially prophetic being written before the 2024 election, in which Trump managed to assemble the most consequential coalition of American voters in at least two generations. Judis and Teixeira explain how. Many democrats will complain and be tempted to dismiss the theses of this book; they should carefully examine the exit polling data of the most recent election to understand just how spot on and meticulous this work is. If they do not, as the authors warn, the 2024 disaster is just the beginning.

[Janalyn, the blind reviewer · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a book about how the Democrats should’ve been the majority leader and where they failed and why they’re not as big a present in Washington and America as a initially hoped at the beginning of this century. Explains where they failed where they could do better who ruined it for them and those who could possibly save the party. I myself found my attention wandering while reading this book despite the fact I am a big lover of political nonfiction this sounded like the same old same old and more of the same but this could just be me because it is written by two very knowledgeable intelligent man who is books I have read in the past and totally enjoyed so take it with a grain of salt you may love it I found it OK. I want to thank the publisher and Net galley for my free arc copy please forgive any mistakes as I am blind and dictate my review.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m sympathetic to the argument here. Clearly, there is a good amount of truth to the thesis and the authors have some helpful thoughts on righting the Democratic ship electorally. I read their substack and sometime listen to the podcasts.

I’d put off reading the book thinking that I already got the message. Should’ve trusted that instinct.

The book is a lot weaker than the other mediums for delivering the authors’ views. Too fluffed up with the authors’ bungled attempt to backstop their views with a very opinionated view of recent political history that acknowledges no countervailing viewpoints and repeatedly overreaches, even on straightforward factual points. Those shortcomings bury a lot of the important takeaways.

[The_J · Rating 2 out of 5]

These authors are trying to square of extremist to theoretic circle of a majority Democratic Majority (one of the quotes was even praising illegal immigrants to boost the vote). While it is refreshing to have the authors of The Emerging Democratic Majority nigh confess to their bias, this book is about explaining how their prior Grand Scheme of inevitability was true even though it didn't happen. Reagan minimized, Carter attempted to be explained, Clinton (the Friend of Epstein with revelations ongoing) glorified, and it would not be the same without a peonage to Obama. Why are race relations worse after 8 years of Obama? Couldn't be the actions of the Democrats, not in this tome.