Cozen Currents: Democrats Rage Against the Machine

“Progressives and Democratic Socialists in particular racked up several wins this primary election cycle. The driving force behind the Democratic Party’s direction (and the Republican Party’s for that matter), however, is not any specific ideology but rather a visceral rage against the establishment.” — Howard Schweitzer, CEO, Cozen O’Connor Public Strategies

The Cozen Lens

• Progressives surged onto the national stage with a series of Democratic primary victories this year; however, their success so far has largely been confined to safe blue territory. These progressives aren’t expected to pose the same challenges to Democratic congressional leadership as the Tea Party or House Freedom Caucus have to their GOP counterparts.
• In the absence of congressional action on AI, California is leading the conversation over regulating frontier models and AI deployment, particularly in relation to employment.
• The US-Canada trade conflict escalated further last week, creating a political headache for Republican Senate candidates in the border states caught in the crossfire.

Subscribe to Cozen Currents

Democratic Anger is Not an Herbal Tea Party

Leftward Expansion. Insurgent candidates have unseated establishment-backed Democratic incumbents across the map this cycle, but the underlying driver appears more anti-establishment than ideological.

• Progressives and Democratic Socialists secured numerous victories over party-backed candidates this summer in New Jersey, New York City, Denver, and most notably, in Michigan, where former Detroit health official Abdul El-Sayed defeated Rep. Haley Stevens in the open Senate seat primary. All told, Politico reports that seven Democratic congressional incumbents lost their re-election bids this cycle, and another seven were defeated in their bids for different offices.
• Even so, it hasn’t been a uniform sweep: High-profile Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong lost Wisconsin’s gubernatorial primary to David Crowley amid scrutiny of her general-election viability. More recently, outside Senator Ed Markey’s (D-MA) primary victory, progressive candidates came up short in recent contests across Massachusetts and New Hampshire, after also struggling in upstate New York, Nebraska, Utah, and Missouri earlier this summer.
• The surge, and uneven nature, of recent progressive victories is partly because much of the insurgents’ appeal appears to be more anti-establishment than ideological. A recent Strength in Numbers analysis found that whether a voter wants to tear the system down better predicts favorable views of popular progressive candidates and elected officials than left-right ideology. Another issue is Democrats’ premium on “electability.” A July Cook Political Report analysis found that progressive wins this summer clustered in safe blue seats or purple districts that are prime Democratic pickups regardless of the nominee, rather than in the competitive seats that will determine the House majority this fall.

A New Tea Party? A larger left contingent could complicate governing at the margins, but its near-term impact in Washington may be smaller than pundits expect.

• The left’s success this cycle has raised questions about whether new progressive lawmakers will take on a “Tea Party”-like role should Democrats flip the House in November. But with forecasts projecting Democrats to net about 15 seats on Election Day, the handful of insurgents may not have the leverage to affect the party’s agenda the way House Freedom Caucus members did this Congress as the Democratic majority may be large enough that the insurgents won’t be able to hold the rest of the caucus hostage. Furthermore, the Democratic freshmen are unlikely to share a specific common policy agenda the way the Tea Party members have.
• On the leadership front, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is heavily favored to become speaker despite some progressive grumbling. Punchbowl News reported this spring that much of the left has lined up behind him, with Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-TX) telling the outlet, “If we win the majority, I expect that he’ll be speaker.” Members largely dismiss anti-Jeffries talk as campaign-trail positioning.
• In the Senate, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is also facing resistance to his leadership from Democratic nominees across the ideological spectrum. But Schumer has several things working in his favor, particularly if the party picks up seats this fall: the leadership post requires only simple-majority support, and the contest is conducted by secret ballot, conditions that often benefit the incumbent.

The Implications for 2028. Despite the unevenness of their primary record, progressives have advanced their project, and the open question now is who will carry it into 2028.

• Having captured the anti-system/anti-establishment torch, progressives now rank among the most popular figures in the Democratic Party and among Americans writ large. Strength in Numbers polling finds Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) second in popularity among voters, only to former President Barack Obama, followed closely by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
• With Sanders unlikely to run in 2028 because of his age, the progressive lane within the Democratic primary is wide open. After this summer’s success, the left’s organizing infrastructure has expanded to help whoever steps forward to fill it. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is best positioned in early primary polls to step into Sanders’ shoes, but should she opt for a Senate run instead, a number of newly-minted lawmakers may jump at the opportunity.

AI’s Golden (State) Moment

AI Safety Protections. Recent warnings from individuals in the AI industry have reshaped the conversation about AI safety, but California is moving more quickly than Congress to enact new rules.

• In the past, Governor Gavin Newsom has been an ally of Silicon Valley, such as when he vetoed an earlier version of the state’s frontier AI model law. Ahead of an expected campaign for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, though, he has taken a more populist approach to tech in his final legislative session as governor.
• Last week, Newsom signed two bills into law to expand the Golden State’s AI safety regulatory regime by creating a framework for independent verification organizations to assess AI models and a registry for AI auditors. He also signed a first-in-the-nation bill to require AI chatbot safeguards for children, a notable shift from his veto of a chatbot bill last year.
• California is unlikely to slow down on regulating AI. The Golden State’s likely next governor, Democratic gubernatorial nominee and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, said at a Politico event last week that “we hardly have any” AI rules and that “real guardrails” are needed.

AI and Employment. The growth of AI is likely to have a substantial impact on jobs and thus far California has led the policy response.

• Newsom staked out a position on this issue earlier this year with an executive order (EO) preparing the state government for AI-related job displacement. His EO laid down a marker for addressing the implications of AI for labor markets, which could help set him apart from a likely crowded 2028 Democratic presidential primary field. Public polling has indicated that Americans have trepidations about AI.
• The California legislature passed a host of bills limiting the use of AI in the workplace and addressing AI-related job loss. Lawmakers passed a bill to block employers from relying solely on automated decision-making systems for disciplinary action, terminations, or deactivation decisions and a bill to ban workplaces from deploying surveillance tools that use AI to collect neural data or draw conclusions about an individual’s emotional state. Lawmakers also passed a bill to amend California’s WARN Act, which regulates how businesses can conduct layoffs, with new rules for giving notice of mass layoffs caused in whole or in part by AI automation.
• California’s AI laws are significant because of the presence of Silicon Valley and the size of the state’s economy, but also because the Golden State could prompt a broader wave of similar state AI policies throughout the country.

Blame Canada?

Trade War Deepens With Canada. The US-Canada tariff fight escalated further last week, while a threatened doubling of Section 232 tariffs on Canadian steel, autos, and auto parts looms for January 1.

• After failing to secure a deal to avert new US tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods last month, the conflict escalated again last week when Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on $20 billion of US goods took effect. President Trump then announced another set of US actions, including adjustments to the original tariffs and a ban on certain Canadian imports set to take effect later this month.
• In addition to these near-term measures, Trump has threatened to raise the Section 232 tariffs on Canadian steel, autos, automobile parts, and trucks from 25 percent to 50 percent, effective January 1. This would represent a significant escalation of the current conflict, though it would be mitigated somewhat if Trump maintains the current exemptions to these tariffs for US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)-qualified goods. Notably, this exemption does not apply to the most recent round of tariffs imposed by each country.

Tit-for-Tat Delays USMCA Timeline. Even if new major actions are paused for now, last week’s moves suggest more tit-for-tat measures are likely, delaying a USMCA extension at least until 2027 and potentially into 2028.

• While significant additional measures may be on hold for the next several months, Trump’s actions last week suggest that in addition to the continuing war of words, there may be more rounds of tit-for-tat retaliation. One reason Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney likely feels emboldened to continue responding to the White House is the political popularity of this stance in Canada.
• A long-term consequence of this fall’s trade dispute is that it will likely delay an extension of the USMCA. While an agreement was long unlikely before 2027, the longer this US-Canada trade conflict lasts, the more likely it is that a deal may not be reached until 2028. Still, Trump will remain incentivized to strike a deal before the end of his term to leave his mark on the trade agreement. However, the longer he waits, Mexico and Canada could become more likely to wait for the next administration in hopes of getting a better deal.

Trade War Hits Home in Senate Races. With several competitive Senate races in states bordering Canada, the US-Canada trade conflict comes at a challenging time for Republican candidates. Canada has exerted tariff pressures on these states, which has forced Republican candidates to answer for Trump’s actions.

• Unlike Carney, Trump lacks strong domestic political support for the U.S.-Canada trade war. This opposition is further complicated by the political situations in the states bordering Canada, which have key Senate races this fall. These states include Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Ohio. To leverage this dynamic against Trump, the Carney administration has sought to target industries prevalent in these states with retaliatory tariffs, in some cases affecting upwards of $1 billion in goods exported from those states.
• The challenge for GOP candidates in these states is that they must answer for the White House’s decisions. In some cases, these candidates are choosing to distance themselves from Trump, such as Senator Susan Collins’ (R-ME) repeated criticism of the Canadian tariffs. Others, though, such as Michigan Republican Senate nominee Mike Rogers, are opting for a more middle-ground approach. Rogers contends that some tariffs are “necessary, but are not a one-size-fits-all solution.” A key reason for these different approaches is the candidates’ relationship with Trump: Rogers seeks to be seen as close to the president, while Collins seeks to portray herself as more independent.

Share

Share this...

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin