large part

Thanks in large part to President Trump’s disastrous policies, Democrats have a decent shot at not just retaking the House, but maybe even flipping the Senate.

Here’s the thing to know: Midterms are a referendum on the incumbent president. And this is especially true when the president is Donald Trump, who dominates every news cycle. He creates weather. He is, in short, always the issue.

But what happens when Trump is gone? What happens when Democrats have to defend their record of leadership? What happens when the referendum is on them?

Even now — as Dems appear to be surging — polling suggests that fewer than 40% of Americans view the Democratic Party favorably. That’s not exactly a mandate.

Yes, voters might choose Democrats as the lesser of two evils this November, but that doesn’t mean Americans are out there buying Democratic foam fingers. Not yet, anyway.

It also doesn’t mean Democrats are technically competent. As I type this, the Republican National Committee currently has a 7-to-1 money advantage over Democrats.

While Dems might win in 2026 in spite of all of their problems, a false sense of security would not bode well for 2028 — and beyond.

In fact, “beyond” starts to look structurally challenging, with things like the 2030 census and potential changes to voting laws threatening to rearrange the electoral map in ways Democrats will not enjoy.

But before we spiral into a dystopian future, let’s focus on the single most important decision Democrats will make: their 2028 presidential nominee. I’m not saying issues don’t matter. They do. But candidates function as shorthand for those policies.

That’s how politics works now: less like a detailed policy seminar, and more like a series of vibes that overwhelm us on our iPhones.

The next Democratic nominee will redefine what their party stands for. This one choice could spell defeat or a stunning victory that ushers in a political reordering.

Part of the challenge is that Trump has scrambled traditional political categories. He has borrowed selectively from modern Democratic economic policy preferences — tariffs, skepticism of free trade — while discarding unpopular ideas like entitlement reform and parts of the old Republican moral framework.

The next Democratic nominee will have to scramble things, too.

This isn’t a call for them to “move to the center” or “radicalize to the left.” Scrambling isn’t a linear project.

Let’s start with the premise that Democrats cannot afford to be outflanked on populism again. That already happened once, and it was not their finest hour.

Economic inequality is rising, and artificial intelligence threatens to widen that gap while disrupting millions of jobs. Meanwhile, the tech billionaires (who will profit handsomely from AI) are all lining up behind MAGA.

Putting these tech bros on the ballot should be a no-brainer.

Likewise, young people who were wooed in part by Trump’s “no new wars” promise are suddenly disenchanted.

Democrats should capitalize by nominating a candidate who can credibly promise “no stupid wars.”

In 2024, Trump capitalized on areas where progressives became out of step with mainstream values on cultural issues. Here, Democrats face a different challenge: realigning with mainstream public opinion without sounding inauthentic or uncompassionate.

Let’s take the issue of immigration. Democrats can vehemently oppose the ICE raids while also promising to keep most of Trump’s border policies in place.

Consider the recent comments of Texas Democrat James Talarico, the Senate nominee who recently criticized outside advocacy groups that convinced the Biden administration “that it was racist to support border security.” He added: “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

But that’s not the only issue that has proven to be devastating for Dems. As Thomas B. Edsall recently wrote in the New York Times, “The trans issue clearly weakened Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, leaving her open to devastating pro-Trump ads.”

Here, a future Democratic nominee might simply say, “What adults do is none of our business, but I am not going to support taxpayer funding of ‘gender-affirming surgery’ — or the use of irreversible treatments or procedures for kids, or trans women competing in women’s sports.”

This statement might not sit well with some progressives, but it would decidedly be on the side of public opinion (three-quarters of adults say trans women shouldn’t be allowed to play female sports).

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Dems to take my advice in the 2028 presidential race — especially if they have a great midterm election night.

Indeed, Ruy Teixeira, a political scientist who has warned Democrats that they have shifted too far to the left, recently lamented that “the desire for change seems to be hovering around zero, as more and more Democrats have convinced themselves that their problems have essentially been solved.”

The path forward is not especially mysterious, but it is very difficult.

In the short term, Democrats can probably ride the blue wave. But in the long term, they need a standard bearer who can synthesize economic populism with mainstream American cultural credibility.

The future may rest on whether that political savior ever arrives.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

SACRAMENTO — While the UCLA women’s basketball team has a veteran roster that was in this exact position a season ago, the Bruins have an entirely different vibe during their current postseason run.

The No. 1-seed Bruins (34-1) will face No. 3-seed Duke (27-8) in the Elite Eight on Sunday for the chance to go back to the Final Four a year after UCLA beat Louisiana State to reach the Final Four before immediately suffering a blowout loss to eventual national champion UConn.

This year, they expect something different, in large part because of an upgraded starting lineup.

A tangible difference is the addition of Charlisse Leger-Walker and Gianna Kneepkens. Each was the top scorer on their former squads — Washington State and Utah, respectively — and have taken on drastically different roles as arguably the fourth and fifth pieces of this Bruins team.

Charlisse Leger-Walker hits a reverse layup in front of Minnesota’s Grace Grocholski during the tournament on Friday in Sacramento.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

“It’s huge we have them,” said senior Gabriela Jaquez, who has spent her entire NCAA career with the Bruins. “They’re perfect fits here. Charlisse as a point guard has been great, and then just being a guard out there, a ready shooter, doing whatever we need, and obviously them being able to defend is really great for our team.”

With the Cougars, Leger-Walker averaged double-digit scoring and more than 10 shots per game in every season. With the Bruins, her production has dropped to 8.7 points per game on 7.1 shots.

Where she has improved, though, is a career-high 5.7 assists per contest.

“I look at the talent we have, especially on the offensive end, there are a lot of times where I don’t have to shoot and force some of the shots that I would have to back at Washington State,” she said. “I’ve always been able to facilitate and be that connector, but this is the role I am needed in the most here.”

Kneepkens was the Utes’ top shooting option and Pac-12 freshman of the year. There, she was relied on as the team’s top three-point shooter, and after Alissa Pili left, their top scorer overall.

During her graduate season, she has taken a significant reduction in shots per game, going from 12.3 field goals per game to 9.4.

“I think it tells you what their ‘why’ is, what their purpose is, why they came here,” UCLA coach Cori Close said. “It wasn’t to get their own stats. It was to be a part of something bigger than themselves.”

On a night where neither of them did much shooting against Minnesota, though, it was their defensive length that made a significant difference against a physical Golden Gophers team. It was the kind of defense they could not have played a year ago with Londynn Jones, who transferred to USC, in the spot Leger-Walker now occupies and Angela Dugalic starting rather than providing invaluable depth coming off the bench.

UCLA guard Gianna Kneepkens dribbles under pressure from Oklahoma State forward Achol Akot during an NCAA tournament game at Pauley Pavilion on March 23.

(Ronaldo Bolanos/Los Angeles Times)

Offensively, Leger-Walker’s presence has given the Bruins more options to score from throughout the floor. Known as a three-point threat at Washington State, she needs to be guarded on the perimeter but also not be left to connect to other open players.

“But I think Charlisse, specifically, is one of the best processing point guards I’ve ever been around,” Close said. “Her ability to understand how rotations are happening in the second line, what’s the next play and if she makes one mistake, boy, she’s not making it a second time. … Having Charlisse on our team has freed Kiki [Rice] up in some ways and vice versa. So that’s been really fun to see.”

Rice has played more of a shooting guard role this season with Leger-Walker taking over at point guard, which has opened her up to shoot more and drive to the hoop without facilitating as often.

That freedom has given Rice her best offense season yet.

“[Leger-Walker’s] basketball IQ is insane,” Rice said. “She gets buckets, she defends super well, she does it all for us. She’s selfless, and she kind of knows when to take over. I’m grateful we’ve had her this year.”

Close said that Kneepkens played one of her best defensive games in the win over Minnesota, but that her length playing as a wing has opened up the UCLA defense to guard the perimeter all season.

“It’s just learning to play with great players,” Kneepkens said. “If that’s finding them when they’re open, then I’ll do that. Or if I need to take my shot, I’ll do that too.”

UCLA’s biggest wins have featured dominant performances from Lauren Betts and generally, its other bigs — Sienna Betts and Dugalic — playing at their best.

But the true depth of the Bruins has come from having long guards who can defend and change up what they need to do in any given matchup. They might be the difference going into the toughest parts of the tournament.

“Coming to a program also where you are surrounded by elite players, and at the end of the day we want to win and be a part of a program that can do that,” Leger-Walker said. “Whatever that role is that we have to adjust to throughout the season, I think, we really bought into that.”