As the 2026 Democratic primaries approach, a significant majority of candidates are adopting populist themes centered on economic concerns, according to recent research conducted by the Center for Working-Class Politics (CWCP) in collaboration with the Rural Urban Bridge Initiative (RUBI). The study, which surveyed over 6,000 Americans in late June and early July, examined the effectiveness of various campaign messages used by Democratic candidates and assessed their resonance among different voter groups.

The research finds that more than 70% of Democratic candidates are now emphasizing populist rhetoric that attributes systemic problems to wealthy elites, reflecting a broader effort to reclaim support from working-class voters after decades of decline. Notable examples include Brian Poindexter, a union ironworker who ran on a “workers first” platform to win a House primary near Cleveland; Sherrod Brown, who campaigns in Ohio highlighting a “rigged system” narrative; Troy Jackson, a logger and Senate candidate in Maine; and Josh Turek, a self-described “prairie populist” running in Iowa.

The survey tested 13 distinct Democratic messages, presenting participants with randomized Republican attack messages modeled on actual GOP campaign rhetoric to evaluate Democratic messaging’s resilience under criticism. The standout strategy, termed “kitchen-table populism,” focuses on everyday struggles such as rising costs for rent and groceries, stagnant wages, and the desire for better opportunities for children. This approach calls for reducing living expenses, ensuring corporations pay their fair share, and cracking down on manipulation of the system, collectively promoting the simple principle that hard work should yield rewards.

Alternative messaging styles performed less successfully. A “divide-and-conquer” narrative, exemplified by Texas Senate candidate James Talarico, emphasizes economic elites purposely dividing working people along racial and cultural lines. While this message holds some appeal, particularly in competitive areas like Texas, it was notably less effective nationwide than kitchen-table populism. The most poorly received variation within this category involves framing voters as duped into blaming scapegoats, a “race-class narrative” that was perceived by many as condescending and disconnected from voters’ immediate economic realities, underperforming even among non-white and Democratic respondents.

Another tested alternative was a broad anti-Trump message promoted by establishment liberals aiming to unite Never-Trump Republicans, independents, and Democrats through a shared opposition to the former president. Despite efforts to link Trump’s attacks on democratic norms to economic hardship, this strategy fared poorly with rural voters and those open to Trump’s appeal.

The study also revealed nuances within populist rhetoric. While anti-corruption messages strongly resonated, especially with Republican voters—where combining an anti-corruption promise with cost-of-living concerns increased support by 18 points—more aggressive language blaming “big corporations” or “the wealthy few” alienated some voters, particularly Republicans who swung 25 points away from such messages. Similarly, progressive-coded messages condemning oligarchs and fascists underperformed kitchen-table populism significantly among Democrats, as well as among working-class, rural, and swing voters.

Researchers caution against interpreting these findings as a call for centrism or moderation. Instead, the data suggest a pathway beyond the perceived binary between energizing the progressive base with strongly liberal rhetoric and appealing to Trump-leaning working-class voters with more conservative messaging. The most effective communications emphasize a shared narrative of a rigged system and promise economic rebalancing without resorting to moralizing or divisive rhetoric, seeking to unite working Americans across political divides.