Killing Two Birds With One Stone: How To Beat Trump's Third-Term Ambitions And Overcome The Democratic Party's Lack of Messenger In A Single Blow
A rare win/win scenario for the Democrats.
We Need A Hero
No one in America, absolutely no person who works in Democratic party politics, no one who is a pundit, a political researcher, an elected official, or anything whatsoever, can tell you who the current leader of the Democratic Party is. This isn’t just anecdotal; there was a recent poll that showed that when asked, a large plurality of people said they didn’t know who the leader of the Democrats was, with 31.5% saying ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Nobody’.
We are in a unique, viral media-driven environment where outsized personality matters as much as well-crafted policies. In the Republican Party, they have their obvious media albatross in Donald Trump, the consummate modern PT Barnum performer, who has wooed and swindled everyone over from banks, to reality TV show watchers, to roughly half of the voters in this country. The power that Donald Trump possesses is that he is able to, by social media posts or even offhand gestures, define the daily Republican agenda and speak authoritatively on behalf of the entire party.
Although the things Trump says often cause market chaos, or are otherwise unintelligible, inane, or even downright insane, there is no one in the country who cares to see what Mike Johnson or John Thune have to say about Republican policy and priorities, or any other Republican for that matter, because although they are important figures, it is Trump alone that carries the mythical aura of gravitas so admired by ancient Romans yet quite familiar to us by different names. However we want to call it, no one denies Trump is the leader of the Republican Party, and commands their utmost fealty.
That is a problem for Democrats, and will continue to be so until they finally have a new leader, someone who can also authoritatively set party agenda and policy. Now, typically, this would happen during the presidential election, and the nominee would be that person. Debbie Wasserman Schultz ran the DNC during Obama’s tenure for instance but not a single soul ever considered her over him in terms of leading the Democrats. But this is not a typical time, and we cannot afford the luxury of waiting until late spring 2028 until we finally have a nominee.
This is not the first Trump admin nor the first Bush admin, the last times Democrats were in opposition with no control of any branch of government. Bush 1 might as well have happened on the moon, considering the changes that took place during the calamity that was 9/11 for our national psyche. As for Trump 1, that era was unique in that Democrats hummed and sung to one tune, that Trump was some illegitimately installed puppet President, unfit and incapable of holding the office he held, a tune quite a few Republicans whistled along too as well, even within the White House. Trump’s presidency was an aberration, a glitch, and many predicted that between Mueller and Congress and everything else, that Trump would not even serve his full term. That unified the party. We don’t have that luxury today: yes, we got saddled with a lame duck in denial under Biden and then a replacement who did herself no favors politically, but more than that: everyone wants to beat Trump, sure, but unlike in Trump 1, when we had Mueller and all that, nobody agrees on how to do that.
The result is that there are a thousand differing bickering voices all clamoring for attention, which carries extra risk considering that the Democratic brand sucks, which in turn means that people will be inherently predisposed to believing the very worst of the worst about the Democratic Party.
Quick: what should the Democrats believe in, say, on the border? You will get a unique answer from every single person knowledgeable about Democratic partisan politics. If people are predisposed to disliking the Democrats, as many Americans are considering their brand toxicity, then whatever the worst response is given by the most despicable Democrat in the country risks becoming Democratic canon law, at least in voter perceptions. This isn’t hyperbole. Let’s run through a very plausible scenario that could happen next year.
Consider Trashman Fred, a Democratic candidate for Congress in New York’s 6th district. The last time he showered was in 1982. He spent 2 years in prison for indecent exposure in 1988. He runs for Congress like clockwork every two years. When asked about the border, Trashman Fred said that, “we should eat ‘em.” When asked to clarify, he added, “I meant the babies climbing the fence, we oughta make a good stew outta their bones.”
Let’s be clear: Trashman Fred does not exist. He is not a real person. But many people like Trashman Fred can and do run for office every year. Without a clear leader in place, the Democrats risk making people like Trashman Fred their spokespeople. Doubt this will happen? Do you doubt that Trump and the Republicans wouldn’t elevate people like Trashman Fred’s “eat the babies” policy as exemplar of Democratic insanity? Do you doubt that there are not people who act and sound like Trashman Fred right now, who do run in Democratic primaries all the time? Again, Democrats are about as popular as lice. People are already predisposed to believing the worst about things they don’t like. They don’t tend to give much grace to such hated entities.
Maybe it doesn’t matter. Maybe the Democrats can survive with uplifted real-life figures like Trashman Fred or the present leader of the Party by popular acclamation, Mr Nobody. It likely wouldn’t matter much at the 50,000 foot level, when all the votes are finally tallied. But consider the weight of nearly 365 days of missed media opportunities until the midterms, the weight of not having someone being able to say “this is what being a Democratic actually means”. It’s downright foolish, like someone violating a basic maxim of war like ‘secure your baggage train’. Like the military fool, we would deserve to lose our own campaigns in that case. In fact, many would say we already tried not having a chief spokesperson for the party, it was called the Biden administration.
He’s Gotta Be Fast, He’s Gotta Be Cool, He’s Gotta Be Larger Than Life (Larger Than Life)
So, who should it be? Honestly, there’s only one logical choice. First, let’s recognize the once-in-a-lifetime opening Trump has already handed us: his bumptious desire to run for a third term. Yes, he’s been demurred but don’t be tricked: he needs this like a man dying of thirst needs a sip of water. As an already historically unpopular President, this would be a fool’s gambit if not for the fact he suffers from Netanyahu Syndrome; that is, his imminent arrest and incarceration should he ever stop being President of the United States. He may yet be forced to trust in Vance to keep him safe but a narcissist like himself only trusts himself with that power; he’d much rather decide his own fate.
And, as we’ve already established, Trump is the de facto dictator of the Republican party. He dictates, they jump. It’s just that simple. If he said tomorrow the sky was “Big Beautiful Orange, Like Me!”, the Republican Congress and Courts would at the same time affirm this as absolute, immutable truth. So, if he demanded a vote on this specific constitutional amendment, the Republicans, unlike at any other point in their recent history (within living memory, certainly), would go right along with it. Unless, of course, he’s bluffing, which he is.
The amendment, of course, will never pass. Every single Democrat and likely a few Republicans would vote against it. But, what if Democrats called Trump’s bluff? Because that’s exactly what this is: a bluff. Trump doesn’t really want to open the door for running for a third term because that would lead to perhaps his worst electoral nightmare: a one-on-one matchup against Barack Obama.
The former President Obama is an imperfect man, of course. His failures in Syria and Libya left much to be desired. His choice of Vice President was damning in hindsight. And his domestic policy could be most charitably described as well-intentioned half-measures. Yet he is the most reasonably aged popular politician in America right now, at 59% approval and at a crisp 64 years old. The meme of him being “tried, tested, and fit” is literally true. The Democrats have him and only him as their choice of leader at the moment. The only downside would be the possible rumors that Mrs Obama has threatened to divorce him if he did have the ability to run for a third term, but let’s be real: this isn’t actually happening.
No Constitutional Amendment is going to be passed that allows Presidents to run for more than two terms, even if every single Democrat agreed to go along with it. This is Trump’s bluff. Let’s call it. Democrats should start to loudly agree, in the name of greater democracy in allowing the voters to decide who their leader should be, that the 22nd Amendment should be revised. Former President Obama should be the loudest in saying, “If Trump is so eager for a matchup against me, I’m more than game,” making no mistake about his intentions to run for President in 2028. Imagine a short form video of Obama, in his athletic form and shorts, throwing jump shot after jump shot interspersed with Trump’s waddling.
At the same time, the DNC should revise their rules to try creating a “Party Leader” position, to exist in years when they don’t control the Presidency or any legislative branch. This Party Leader will be chosen, at least this first go-around, ASAP in a Party ‘mini-primary’. Yes, it is the same idea that was floated back when Biden was dropping out, before he endorsed Harris, back with a vengeance. The position should be open to anyone, with the election conducted online amongst Democratic Party donors (AKA anyone who has donated to the Democrats in recent years; this is quicker and cheaper than running it through the 50 state electoral commissions).
As this is happening, and Obama is visibly gearing up to flex on Trump in 2028, Democrats will be entering the midterm elections having a vibrant, national, and most importantly, quick dialogue about the things they believe in. Let’s air out our collective grievances, take a deep breath, then sit down and listen to the former President stand-up on a debate stage on primetime, and proudly declare his (and our) vision for America, and let that be the unifying vision for the Democrats going forward. And what will Obama say, specifically? This isn’t a mystery! It’s just (political) science, and Obama, for all his faults, knows what works. He will talk about the need to Donald Trump’s executive overreaches, about Trump’s gross corruption, and about his abuse of authority, interspersed with examples of real people who have been directly hurt by Trump’s actions, from small business owners crushed by tariffs, to families and US citizens torn apart ICE, to even Mahmoud Khalil. He will lay his case against Trump while at the same time hammering home the populist message of our time: that Democrats will champion greater affordability and bring the cost of everything down, that Democrats will defend Social Security and Medicare, and that Democrats will protect a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.
It is a coin toss, of course. Maybe Bernie wins, maybe AOC wins, heck, maybe Zohran Mamdani, the newly anointed Mayor-Elect of New York City, wins. That’s fine, actually. Any one of those people are capable, intelligent communicators who can read the polls as well as Obama. If Obama ran against those people and lost, it’d be a humiliation for him for sure, but who can say that the voters did not fairly consider all the options and decide their verdict? If the election is fair and open to all, no one can cry foul and rupture the Party as a consequence. Considering Obama’s popularity in America to say nothing of the Party, a good bet would be that he would win.
And this would play extremely well tactically as the Party writ large, behind Obama, threatens to pass the supposedly pro-Trump plan to get rid of Presidential term limits. The media and the populace might not otherwise take Obama as Leader seriously. They might not take anyone else seriously, for sure. But if that person was also the presumptive nominee for President, and therefore possessing a rough one-in-two chance of becoming President in 4 years, everyone will take the position far more seriously; it is only because Obama would be a serious contender for President, a thing he can only be with an amendment to the Constitution, that everyone would take both the Democrats calling Trump’s bluff seriously and take Obama as Leader seriously. The (again, quickly held) election would add to that gravitas and overall effect.
Trump will most assuredly quickly back down and have the GOP quash Democratic demands to put the Amendment up for a vote, much like he did with the Epstein inquiry. And if he doesn’t, indeed much like with the Epstein documents, it’s a win/win for Democrats. After all, if he did release the documents, it likely proves that he’s a criminal pedophile; if he continues to refuse to release, he has the stench of possibly being a criminal pedophile corruptly covering up his ill crimes. To many people, it’s all the same. If Trump backs down from amending the Constitution, Democrats will still have an elected national leader capable of being the voice of the opposition in Obama. If Trump doesn’t back down, and America does end up amending the Constitution (c’mon, it would be at least a little funny if all we agreed to do it on a dare and then we all actually did it for real), with bipartisan congressional and state legislative support, then that is a cliff Democrats should be eager to fall off of with the Republicans. President Obama has won the Presidency twice against better men. He would wipe the floor with an older, more corrupt, more damaged Trump. It is a Russian roulette game where one party loses and one party always wins, that is the card Trump has dealt us.
Where have all the good men gone (in the Democratic Party)?
Let’s assume all goes according to plan, at least, the sensible version where Trump meekly forgoes amending the Constitution for good and effectively begs for mercy against Obama (a fact Democrats should triumph). Obama becomes the National Party Leader of the Democrats. Other than being the prime stump speaker and fundraiser for the party, he would be the face of transforming each midterm election into a national referendum against Trump, with his popular face leading the charge, using the aforementioned finely attuned winning messages of the day.
Let’s say Democrats do well, taking back the House and if not outright nabbing the Senate then coming within a hair-breadth distance of doing so. Then what? Then former President Obama, having led his party to victory one last time and being constitutionally forbidden from running for President, will begin to fade from relevance as the Presidential primaries of 2028 kick up. He could still function in that perfunctory role of leader between the midterms and the actual convention when the nominee is picked; he would just command far less attention in that case. That being said, there are no conceivable downsides in having President Obama continuing to be out there as a safe, neutral voice for Democratic policies and values every single day while the divisive ugliness of a primary happens on another channel or social media timelines entirely different. Of course, by the time the actual convention roles around, the Democrats will already have an established nominee (this assumes one candidate is able of getting a majority of delegates, which has happened pretty much every time in recent history), and so Obama will gracefully fade away by the Convention, handing off the leadership baton to the Democratic nominee for President.
That can be anyone who qualifies for the Presidency (no Zohran, alas), and it will truly be a free-for-all. But just like President Obama’s team spent 2011 defining the Republicans in the tee-up to 2012, the Democrats need to do the same thing in 2027 in preparation for 2028 in order to win, just like they did in 2012. It’s also how the Republicans got back in power, by having their unifying figure in Trump remain consistently out there even in his wilderness years.
The only problem is that now we don’t have a unifying figure like President Obama to do it. But what if, just ask yourself: what if, we literally, actually did? And then, whoever the nominee is can just pick up the torch that Obama basically carried to the finish line. Whomever the Republican nominee is, be it Eric Trump or JD Vance, they will have far less luck than they did in 2016 or 2024. A rockstar roster, a kickass message, and good policies is how we beat the Republicans and win again.
We can have all of that. It’s within our grasp, right now. All we, specifically people like President Obama and others, need to ask ourselves is: what are we willing to do to stop Trump? If Trump is the existential threat of all our combined and equal rhetoric, then surely that demands some common sacrifice? Surely that at minimum demands a change in the status quo of formal Party rules and informal norms? We’ve never had an official Opposition Party Leader like in Westminster systems but we’ve never had a President like Trump either. Either this is the “break-glass” emergency of the ages or it isn’t, and we can just continue to sleep-walk through history, much like Democrats did during the Biden epoch, to our very likely communal demise.
The choice, as ever, is yours.