2026-10-20T04:01:44.688Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/20/politics/talarico-ossoff-midterm-election-democrats
“我是一名支持边境安全的民主党人。”
上周在CNN与朱比利市政厅活动中,得克萨斯州联邦参议员候选人詹姆斯·塔拉里科用短短五个字,试图摆脱拜登政府未能守住南部边境所带来的污名。
塔拉里科是一批民主党中期选举候选人中的一员,他们选择的措辞避开了过往选举中的失误。为了未来的政治生存,民主党必须重新争取那些因该党被认为对政治和文化上更保守的美国人抱有轻蔑态度而疏离的选民——其中包括曾是民主党蓝领基础核心、后来倒向唐纳德·特朗普总统“让美国再次伟大”运动的群体。
实现这一目标的途径之一,是围绕经济负担能力等议题打造信息,与工薪阶层美国人建立共鸣,并点明特朗普的决策——比如伊朗战争——与食品杂货、汽油和住房成本之间的关联。
民主党还面临着一个语言雷区:他们既要努力像自己想要吸引的选民那样说话,又不能激怒本党新兴的自由派城市和高学历选民基础。
近年来,民主党传递的信息往往显得学术化、晦涩难懂、政治正确,或是充斥着行话。为了包容和尊重边缘化或弱势群体,他们采用了“无家可归者”“生育者”等表述。这类语言体现了对他人人性和个人权利的尊重,但有时也会让含义变得模糊,让不熟悉深层政治的人感到困惑,或是让价值观更保守的选民望而却步。
在某些情况下,共和党利用民主党的措辞在该党与摇摆选民之间制造隔阂,并暗示民主党已经向左翼靠拢。2024年竞选季最具冲击力的一则广告攻击民主党候选人卡玛拉·哈里斯的跨性别政策,告诉选民“卡玛拉支持‘他们/她们’,特朗普总统支持你”。
“ defund the police(削减警方经费)”一词在2020年明尼阿波利斯一名警察杀害乔治·弗洛伊德后成为全国性口号。共和党很快借此宣称民主党在法律与秩序问题上软弱无力——这一论调在多届选举中流传,尽管像前总统乔·拜登这样的资深民主党成员公开驳斥了这一说法及其政策内涵。
而在语言失当困扰民主党最臭名昭著的案例中,2016年民主党总统候选人希拉里·克林顿称部分特朗普支持者属于“令人反感的一群”——这给“让美国再次伟大”阵营递上了一个战斗口号,强化了特朗普的论调:建制派精英对他的选民抱有厌恶情绪。
“我理解你为什么投票给特朗普”
除了特朗普不受欢迎之外,民主党在今年中期选举中比预期更具竞争力的一个原因是,他们选出了听起来符合本州选民风格的候选人。
在北卡罗来纳州,联邦参议员候选人罗伊·库珀提出了通俗易懂的口号,主张“让东西更便宜”。他似乎正在重建广泛的联盟,这一联盟曾让他在这个 reliably Republican(倾向共和党)的州两度当选州长。
塔拉里科用虔诚的德州人常用的语言表达信仰,以区别于进步派民主党人。他的“支持边境安全的民主党人”这一说法,既体现了他对严格边境管控的支持,也支持对仅针对无证罪犯而非“小企业主、祖母和婴儿”的温和移民驱逐政策。
在特朗普两年前以两位数优势拿下的艾奥瓦州,民主党联邦参议员候选人乔希·图雷克自称“草原民粹主义者”,并告诉选民:“我理解你为什么投票给特朗普”,随后他抨击总统抬高物价、发动了他曾发誓绝不会打的战争。
在缅因州,民主党联邦参议员候选人特洛伊·杰克逊拒绝为辩论期间对参议员苏珊·柯林斯说“闭嘴”而道歉。这位在任的共和党议员暗示他有性别歧视。但曾当过伐木工的杰克逊将所谓建制派对工薪阶层的轻蔑这一论调反过来指向了对手。他在周日CNN的“国情咨文”节目中表示:“我绝不会任由柯林斯参议员居高临下地对我说话。”
杰克逊补充道:“我是在为缅因州民众而战。我只是认为,当时又是另一个她居高临下对我说话的场合。”
与此同时,民主党参议员乔恩·奥索夫形成了自己对特朗普尖锐的语言批判,将所谓的白宫腐败与数百万美国人的经济困境联系起来。“在失败的总统唐纳德·J·特朗普治下,给卡车加油、给冰箱备货、看医生或给家里供电的成本,比美国历史上任何时候都高,”奥索夫在本月早些时候的一场集会上表示,“他们承诺要‘抽干沼泽’。结果却成了有史以来最腐败的政府,人人都心知肚明。”
当然,民主党在语言平衡方面有一个巨大优势:攻击现任共和党总统的高物价和经济不安全问题,远比2024年该党为拜登政府在同类问题上的困境辩护要容易得多。
如果一个政党在美国人面临4.3美元一加仑汽油、为食品账单发愁之际,却未能利用一位吹嘘经济处于“黄金时代”的总统,那就是犯下了严重的政治无能之罪。
2025年8月,温和派智库“第三道路”发布一份备忘录警告称,民主党虽然“斥巨资寻找完美的语言以连接选民”,却“使用了大量普通人绝不会使用的词句”。该备忘录总结道:“这类语言的效果是听起来像极端、分裂、精英主义、故弄玄虚的‘觉醒’ enforcement(执行者)。为了取悦少数人,我们疏远了多数人——尤其是在文化议题上,我们的语言听起来高人一等、傲慢自大。”
在再次败给特朗普的惨败之后,一些民主党高层对此表示认同。
前奥巴马政府白宫办公厅主任拉姆·伊曼纽尔是2028年总统职位的潜在候选人,他一年前告诉CNN的迈克尔·斯默科尼什,2024年,民主党让自己被塑造成“不仅在文化上疏远公众,而且在文化上与大众脱节”。
伊曼纽尔补充道:“你必须建立一个获胜的联盟,这意味着联盟必须庞大、广泛,其他选民必须得到尊重,而我们党内的一些派系做不到这一点。他们喜欢说教,要求别人和他们一模一样。”
另一位潜在的民主党总统候选人、肯塔基州州长安迪·贝希尔今年也表达了类似的观点。他在密歇根州的一场晚宴上表示,自己是一位“支持多元化”的州长,但要赢得选举,民主党需要“像普通人一样说话”。
他批评了“粮食不安全”指代饥饿人群、“涉及司法的人口”指代囚犯这类表述。“有时候这些说法会让我们感觉是在居高临下地和人们说话,而不是和他们对话,”贝希尔说道。
“第三道路”公共事务执行副总裁马特·贝内特表示,民主党今年在寻找与选民沟通的方式上做得更好。
“总体而言,我们对那些赢得初选并正在参选的候选人感到非常满意,他们看起来非常合适,”他说,并特别提到了库珀的例子,该州上一次支持民主党总统候选人还是在2008年。“他做到了赢得这些选民信任所需的一切。”
到目前为止,大选竞选对民主党比初选季更有利,初选期间出现了多个病毒式传播时刻,被共和党迅速抓住,将民主党描绘成极端分子。
在接受福克斯新闻采访时,美国民主社会主义联合主席梅根·罗默主张废除参议院、取代总统职位和最高法院,并削减五角大楼经费。她表示,从长期计划来看,监狱和国家边界也可以废除。这段采访在保守派媒体循环播放了数日,共和党试图将所有民主党人与她的言论绑定。
但共和党如今也在用刻意排斥公民和群体的语言制造病毒式传播时刻。
特朗普一直在用最粗俗、最具煽动性的言辞煽动伊斯兰恐惧症,嘲讽民主党联邦参议员候选人阿卜杜勒·埃尔-赛义德的名字,并 falsely(虚假地)称他为圣战分子。周一,副总统JD·万斯暗示,一名抗议者——一名大喊自己是美国公民的有色人种——一定是非法越境而来。
民主党可能不是唯一存在语言问题的政党。
As midterms loom, Democrats learn to speak a new language: American
2026-10-20T04:01:44.688Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/20/politics/talarico-ossoff-midterm-election-democrats
“I’m a border security Democrat.”
With five words at a CNN and Jubilee Town Hall last week, Texas Senate candidate James Talarico sought to dodge the stigma of the Biden administration’s failure to secure the southern border.
Talarico is one of a crop of Democratic midterm election candidates choosing language that pivots away from past election failures. For future political viability, the Democratic Party must reclaim voters alienated by its perceived contempt for politically and culturally more conservative Americans — including those who were once the foundation of its blue-collar base but defected to President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement.
One way to do this is to craft messaging on issues like affordability that connect with working Americans and highlight the link between Trump’s decisions — like the Iran war — and the cost of groceries, gasoline and housing.
Democrats also face a linguistic minefield as they try to again talk like the voters they want to attract without angering the party’s new base of more liberal urban and highly educated voters.
In recent years, Democratic messaging has often seemed academic, esoteric, politically correct or choked with jargon. Terms like “unhoused people” and “birthing people” were adopted to include and respect people who are marginalized or vulnerable. Such language shows regard for the humanity and individual rights of others. But it has sometimes obscured meaning and baffled people who are not deeply political, or turned away voters with more conservative values.
In some cases, Republicans have used Democratic language to drive a wedge between the party and persuadable voters and to suggest it has tacked to the left. The most hard-hitting ad of the 2024 election season attacked Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over transgender issues, telling voters that “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”
The term “defund the police” became a national slogan after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020. Republicans soon co-opted it to argue that Democrats were weak on law and order — a narrative that circulated for several elections, even though senior party members like former President Joe Biden publicly repudiated it and its policy implications.
And in one of the most notorious examples of loose language haunting Democrats, 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton suggested some Trump fans belonged in a “basket of deplorables” — handing MAGA a rallying cry to underscore Trump’s claim that establishment elites viewed his voters with disgust.
‘I understand why you voted for Trump’
One reason — apart from Trump’s unpopularity — why Democrats are competitive in more states than expected during this year’s midterms is that they’ve selected candidates who sound like their states.
In North Carolina, Senate nominee Roy Cooper has developed a colloquial way to argue he’d “Make Stuff Cost Less.” He appears to be rebuilding the broadened coalition that made him governor twice in a reliably Republican state.
Talarico speaks the language of faith in pious Texas to distinguish himself from progressive Democrats. His “border security Democrat” phrase balances his support for both a hard border and a softer immigration purge that would target only undocumented criminals rather than “small business owners, grandmothers and infants.”
In Iowa, which Trump won by double digits only two years ago, Democratic Senate nominee Josh Turek brands himself a “prairie populist” and tells voters, “I understand why you voted for Trump” before he lambasts the president for raising costs and starting the kind of war he vowed never to fight.
In Maine, Democratic Senate nominee Troy Jackson refused to apologize for telling Sen. Susan Collins to “shut up” during a debate. The incumbent Republican suggested he was guilty of sexism. But Jackson, a former logger, turned the conceit of supposed establishment contempt for working people against his opponent. He said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday that, “What I’m not going to be is talked down to by Senator Collins.”
Jackson added: “I’m fighting for Mainers. And, I mean, I just think that was another situation where she was talking down to me.”
Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff has meanwhile developed his own searing linguistic critique of Trump that links alleged White House corruption to the economic struggles of millions of Americans. “Under the failed president Donald J. Trump, it costs more than ever in American history to fill up your truck, stock your fridge, visit the doctor or power your home,” Ossoff said at a rally earlier this month. “They promised to drain the swamp. Instead, it’s the most corrupt administration of all time, and everybody knows it.”
Of course, Democrats have one big advantage that facilitates their linguistic balancing act: It’s far easier to find language to attack an incumbent Republican president over high prices and economic insecurity than it was for the party to defend the Biden administration for its struggles on the same issues in 2024.
And a party that failed to take advantage of a president who boasts about an economic “golden age” when Americans are paying $4.30 for gasoline and dread their grocery bills would be guilty of gross political incompetence.
In August 2025, the moderate think tank Third Way published a memo warning that the while Democrats spent “billions of dollars trying to find the perfect language to connect to voters” they used “an awful lot of words and phrases no ordinary person would ever dream of saying.” The memo concluded that “the effect of this language is to sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. To please the few, we have alienated the many—especially on culture issues, where our language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant.”
In the wreckage of another defeat to Trump, some top Democrats agreed.
Former Obama administration White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, told CNN’s Michael Smerconish a year ago that in 2024, the party allowed itself to be framed as “culturally, not only distant, but culturally isolated from where the general public is.”
Emanuel added: “You have to build a winning coalition, which means it has to be big. It has to be broad, and other voters have to be respected, something elements of our party don’t do. They like to lecture people to be exactly like them.”
Another possible Democratic presidential candidate, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, has been striking similar notes this year. He said at a dinner in Michigan that he was a “pro-diversity” governor but that to win, Democrats needed to “talk like a normal human.”
He criticized terms like “food insecure” for hungry and “justice-involved population” instead of prison inmates. “Sometimes these terms make it feel like we’re talking down to people, like we’re talking at them, instead of to them,” Beshear said.
Matt Bennett, executive vice president of public affairs at Third Way, said Democrats this year were doing a better job of finding ways to connect with voters.
“For the most part, we’re delighted with the people that have won their primaries and the races that they’re running, and they seem very well suited,” he said, pointing especially to the example of Cooper, who has prospered in a state that last voted Democrat for president in 2008. “He has done what it takes to win the trust of these voters.”
The general election campaign has been kinder to Democrats so far than primary season, which threw up several viral moments quickly seized upon by Republicans to portray Democrats as extremists.
In an interview with Fox News, Democratic Socialists of America co-chair Megan Romer advocated abolishing the Senate, replacing the presidency and the Supreme Court, and defunding the Pentagon. She said prisons could be abolished under long-term plans, along with national borders. The encounter ran on a loop on conservative media for days as the GOP tried to define all Democrats by association.
But Republicans are now creating their own viral moments with language that seems deliberately aimed at excluding citizens and groups.
Trump has been inciting Islamophobia in the crudest and most inflammatory terms by mocking the name of Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayedand falsely calling him a jihadist. On Monday, Vice President JD Vance suggested that a protester — a person of color who shouted that he was an American citizen — must have crossed the border illegally.
Democrats may not be the only party with a language problem.
发表回复