The Democratic Party faces a growing rift over how to take on President Donald Trump. On one side, younger, more defiant members are pushing for generational change and a harder line. On the other? Moderates and institutionalists who seem pretty comfortable clinging to the status quo.
The split has been on full display in the party’s response to the wrongful deportation of Maryland father Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was sent to a notoriously brutal prison in El Salvador without due process.
Democrats Like Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen Have Been on the front linesdemanding accountability and treating the case like the crisis it is. Others, such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, are dismissing the party’s focus on Garcia as a “distraction,” urging Democrats to hit Trump on tariffs and trade instead.
“This is the distraction of the day. The art of distraction,” Newsom said. “And here, we zig and zag. This is the debate they want. This is their 80-20 issue, as they’ve described it.”
Newsom’s right that opinion polls show Trump slightly more vulnerable on the economy than on immigration. A new Civiqs poll for Daily Kos found that 54% of registered voters disapprove of how Trump is handling the economy, while 51% disapprove of his immigration record. So yes, there’s a small strategic window on economic issues.
But writing off a human rights violation as a mere “distraction” isn’t just morally bankrupt—it’s politically stupid.
Newsom is probably betting that the general electorate has shifted so far right on immigration that nobody cares that a father of two was wrongly deported from Maryland to a vicious Salvadoran prison. But that’s just not true.
Civiqs found that 63% of registered voters oppose deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. legally, while just 27% support it. And if you want to look at things from a craven electability angle, the numbers among independent voters are almost the same: 28% support, 62% oppose.
The strategic divide among Democrats is happening at the same time the party is being rocked by a generational power struggle: a calcified leadership reluctant to change versus a new wave of leaders ready to torch the playbook.
This tension, simmering for years, is now boiling over. Some in leadership are trying to muzzle outspoken membersadvising them to cool down their rhetoric and stop making the party look too combative. In other words: Don’t rock the boat, don’t poke the bear, and definitely don’t do anything that might upset the delicate optics.
But that caution-first mindset doesn’t match the moment—or the mood of the electorate. Voters aren’t asking for calm. They’re asking for courage.
Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg seems to have gotten the memo. He recently made waves by announcing a $20 million campaign to primary older Democratic incumbents in deep-blue districts, seeming to shake up Congress’s gerontocracy and inject new blood into the party’s leadership pipeline.
Unsurprisingly, the old guard isn’t thrilled—but the base might be.
A new poll from Change Research found that 90% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters preferred a moderate fighter over a quiet progressive, and a staggering 95% said they’d choose a progressive fighter over a quiet moderate. The numbers held steady across age, race, and ethnicity.
The message couldn’t be clearer. Democrats want spine. They want fight. And they’ll reward it.
Just look at the crowds that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have drawn on their “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, or the money they’ve hauled in while doing it. The grassroots energy is there, but only if the party is willing to match it.
Too many Democrats still believe they can win by being slightly less offensive than Republicans. But they won’t beat a fascist movement by politely disagreeing with it. They’ll have to fight—and show voters they’re not afraid to.
If the leadership won’t step up, the base will find people who will.
Campaign Action
