One of the problems both Democrats and the GOP have is to communicate to voters "where they are". Most voters are not into political philosophy and political science, autocracy v democracy. That is a bank shot; do this, and then such and such could result. They just want to know if there is enough money in the bank or their paycheck to pay bills and live comfortably. The end result is what voters want to know.
Most politicians like to put public policy issues into some sort of context, and then argue how this or that fits in or violates that. ( i.e., GOP: tax breaks for the rich are good for the economy; lifts all boats) It is a harder sell just to talk about context than to talk about the end result of how that affects daily lives. That's the problem with a bank shot. It takes thought and leaves room for scepticism. Here are examples of just context theories: from the GOP side, "small government, low taxes," and big tent Democrats these days, "protect democracy, no Kings, support middle class and not billionaires."
"Hands off ", don't take away government services that benefit me. That's a good example of a direct shot with everyone demonstrating, identifying what is important to themselves. The end result is what voters want. Trump won in 2025 because he was specific, made promises to lower the costs of living, and now is vulnerable because he is making life even more unaffordable. Voters still ask, so how does he, she, or that policy help me cope with life's demands? Does it make it easier to afford what I need, groceries, a place to live, educate my kids,; can I afford to go to a doctor and pay bills if I or family members are in the hospital or a nursing home, a job, and transportation to get to work? The candidate who addresses these questions specifically is the winner if Mamdani's success in the NY primary is a template: rent control, free transportation, and child care.
The No Kings turnout did show many do equate fear that Trump is a threat to their personal freedom as a benefit of not being governed by a King, but that direct shot needs to be better expressed to be a direct hit. For example: free to speak out without being a victim or fear of revenge and military crackdown threats, or permtting media that may differ from a leader fair for all insteand of a loyal few, (basically first amendment freedoms and civil rights and due process, rule of law, not rule by executive orders, checks and balances), but put in terms of the end benefits of protecting those civil rights protected in the amendments).
Along comes Zorhan Mamdani, and he talks about affordability (a concern of most Americans and says how with rent control, free public transportation, and child care. Nothing abstract there, and he leaves every other candidate in the dust. Those are direct hits, not theoretical bank shots. The GOP yells, he's a communist, he's for infatada, while voters ask, so what's bad about rent control , free transit, and child care, and being fair to everyone, too, so that's bad? He's talking about treating everyone fairly, respecting, that's so bad? That's a direct hit and a lesson to the rest of the Democrats seeking election wins in 2026 and 2028.
