Democrats mull putting forward their own ‘Contract with America’
January 10 2026, 08:00
For months, House Democratic leaders have mulled over creating their own “Contract with America” to pitch to voters before this fall’s midterms.
Like the set of Republican ideas often credited with helping win the 1994 elections, the document would outline the party’s goals if it took back the lower chamber — an ambitious set of aims for candidates to rally around.
In conversations I’ve had this week with members of Congress, leadership staffers and outside strategists, it seems clear that the party leadership is leaning toward doing so. The remaining questions largely revolve around when to release it and how detailed they need to get.
Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who would likely be elected speaker if the plan works, has been publicly previewing a three-pronged plan that is thought to be the best blueprint: addressing the high cost of living, dealing with health care and cleaning up corruption — another name for heavily investigating the Trump administration.
But so far, it’s not a partywide plan, much less a PDF that Democratic candidates can put on their websites.
There is still plenty of time. The original Contract with America, put forward by future Speaker Newt Gingrich, didn’t come out until six weeks before the elections, which ended up in a landslide for the GOP.
It would show voters that they are coming in with a plan on Day 1.
Democrats in favor of writing their own version this year see it as pretty simple. It would show voters that they are coming in with a plan on Day 1 at a time when they have the wind at their back electorally but the party still has a very low approval rating. And it would go a long way with the party’s activist base, which is still upset that the Democratic National Committee decided not to release an autopsy of the 2024 losses.
This kind of conversation comes up every midterm election. The difference is the party’s standing with voters is at a historic low, despite the fact that it overperformed in race after race in the off-year elections of 2025. Supporters argue that a plan could go a long way toward gaining back some trust in the party.
Members such as California Rep. Eric Swalwell — who is also running for governor — have pitched a message that President Donald Trump and Republicans “cost too much” and that Democrats are going to pass bills to fix that, weaving together concerns about high prices with Trump’s executive overreach.
“Literally, in what we’re paying for groceries, goods, homes, etc.,” he told me. “And then figuratively: What it means for our rights — for, like, immigrants in our community, for women and their rights.”
But the real key for Swalwell, a member of the Judiciary Committee and one of the most outspoken critics of Trump, is outlining to the American people what type of accountability they can expect if Democrats get the gavel.
“You have to make it clear that there are going to be consequences for bad actors. Their asses are coming to the committee, they’re testifying under oath, it’s all coming out,” Swalwell said. “Also, you may deter people right now who are thinking about doing a dirty Trump deal that he’s done with law firms or university presidents or entertainment companies.”
But then there are the downsides. The biggest? If you make a promise, you’re going to have to figure out how to actually do it. Overpromising in 2026 is the fastest way for Democrats to get a beatdown come 2028. The fix for that is to keep it exciting enough to bring out voters but also to make it something you can actually do.
Amanda Litman, president of Run for Something, said that the plan needs to be “ambitious but realistic,” because promising voters that, say, you’ll make housing affordable when there are large structural reasons that won’t happen will just lead voters to “blame you.”
Releasing a blueprint could allow Republicans to take the midterms from a referendum on Trump.
Other downsides are pretty obvious. Releasing a blueprint could allow Republicans to take the midterms from a referendum on Trump to a tussle between Republican and Democratic policies.
Getting to consensus may also be difficult for a party that’s grown into a big tent that includes everyone from disaffected former Republicans to progressive activists. Those conversations won’t stay private for long, which would only create a classic “Democrats in disarray” moment.
As one former senior official from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who spoke off-the-record in order to be candid, put it to me: “The caucus is diverse in viewpoint and in every way. And so, like, it [forces] us to squabble. But that’s going to happen. And that’s fine. [But] Democrats are more obsessed with being [in] lockstep than Republicans are, frankly, in a weird way.”
While the original Contract with America was signed by all but two of the nonincumbent Republican House candidates, a Democratic version might not get as much buy-in.
Most Democratic strategists agree that candidates running in red or even purple districts should do whatever they need to do to win. But, they add, making some promises to voters while Republicans can’t come to an agreement on a day-to-day basis could go a long way.
