The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)
I could see this. Pretty much where they are now on social issues and maybe even fiscal issues, but pushing to the center on immigration, crime, and foreign policy. Especially if they get enough defections of low SES minority voters. The “base” will probably continue to become higher SES voters but they will need some libertarian-ish WWC voters to build as a national party, especially in the senate. In the senate, losing Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Florida, and maybe Pennsylvania (It should be obvious in a month) can’t be made up with Arizona, Georgia, and eventually Texas and North Carolina. In order to stay on the top, they will need to do better in states where people seem to be interested if they listen to them. Those states are Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas and maybe Utah.(and maybe Wyoming if there is some sort of bargain on the climate).
If this sounds unreasonable, These sort of voters are the ones who put Perot on the map in 1992 and who Democrats really targeted in 2006 and 2008. Democrats did not come home empty handed but they basically lost everything out there after 2010 (Hietkamp survived for a while and Tester is still out there). With the Dobbs v Jackson decision and Democrats not having enough votes in the senate, this is the path of Least Resistance. Which is kind of good, really. This future party would be more in line with my interests at least. Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part.
Interesting how Democrats have pretty consistently neglected the states you mentioned since the Eisenhower era, first because they were obsessed with winning back Dixie for nostalgic reasons and now because they've ultra-focused on winning the suburbs.
I think part of the reason they found strength in 2006 and 08 is because those voters tend to be anti-war and civil libertarian, both of which Democrats were perceived as at the time. Also gun control was not really a national issue. If Democrats become the more hawkish militaristic party (which many here are suggesting) they'll continue to struggle with these voters. I think they might be winnable but that would require coming out much more strongly on being anti-drug war and allowing for a big tent on guns. Abortion on it's own isn't enough.
