If At First You Don't Succeed... Offer More Free Stuff
Democrats are openly trying to buy Trump voters. Hilarity ensues.
In Catholic school in the seventies and eighties, two things were guaranteed: sooner or later you’d get your knuckles cracked by a ruler-wielding nun, and you’d take theology five days a week from kindergarten through graduation. My high school even devoted an entire academic year to a religious deep dive into Death and Dying. That wasn’t a unit. That was the actual name of the class I attended daily for nearly ten months. Catholic schools don’t exactly dabble in subtlety.
Thanks to a uniquely eccentric teacher named Mr. Snyder, Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s five stages of grief—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—are permanently burned into my brain. Which is remarkable, considering I can never, ever remember where I left my glasses, why I walked into the kitchen, or what the actual lyrics are to Blinded by the Light, even though I’ve looked them up a thousand times. (I even wrote an entire book about that.)
Democrats have been navigating this course for the last decade.
First came denial. Donald Trump won’t really run for president. Oh, he’s running? Hahahaha well, he won’t win. He won? No, he didn’t—Russia did. He certainly won’t win again. Maybe he’ll die in office?
Then came anger. He’s a fascist. A racist. A rapist! And his supporters? Deplorables, insurrectionists, grandma killers, garbage, science deniers, domestic terrorists, and blindly, irrationally devoted to a tyrant. MAGA isn’t just wrong—it’s reprehensible. The political equivalent of finding out your neighbor has a jar of human fingers on his nightstand. Impeach him. Convict him! Put him in prison and throw away the key. Do whatever it takes to get that man as far from the White House as humanly, legally, and constitutionally possible.
Now, at long last, we’ve arrived at bargaining.
For years, the left has been trying to figure out how to win back working-class voters. Thanks to Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, the party has landed on raising the federal minimum wage to $25 an hour. Murphy calls it a “unifying issue” that could “bring Trump voters over” to the jackass Donkey Party.
To be fair, since 2009, the federal minimum wage has been parked at $7.25 an hour—a number so outdated it feels like it should come with an S&H Green Stamp booklet and a Blockbuster membership application. Reasonable people can disagree about what the minimum wage should be and also agree that it’s currently absurd. They can also debate whether tripling it would lift workers up, automate them out of a job, or bankrupt the neighborhood diner. I’m not here to referee that argument. I’m here to laugh at the logic being employed here.
Because the funniest part of this push is the apparent belief that millions of Americans will immediately abandon their deeply held convictions for the carrot (again!) of a few more bucks an hour. (Not the actual delivery of a few more bucks an hour—the promise. From the same people who’ve been promising it for years, with the same solemn faces, on the same campaign trail, to the same voters who are still waiting.) That “watch us run on this failed idea again” is the magical policy unicorn that’s finally going to make a rancher in West Texas or a homeschooling mom in Tennessee say, “You know what? I was totally on board with secure borders, keeping biological males out of women’s sports, protecting parental rights, defending the Second Amendment, deporting illegal criminals, ending DEI mandates, and restoring energy independence... but twenty-five bucks an hour? Somebody get me a Democrat registration card and a pronoun pin.”
From a consultant’s perspective, it makes perfect sense: if voters are struggling, offer them relief. If they’re drifting, give them a reason to come back. And of course, self-interest does move election needles. Money talks. Throw enough money at me and I’ll probably at least listen to your PowerPoint. But the idea that morals and ideals can be bought with the promise of a fixed hourly rate suggests Democrats still don’t understand why many Republicans are Republicans in the first place.
“We have to accept into the coalition people that may have voted for Donald Trump,” Murphy explained on NBC News’ Meet the Press, adding that “[Democrats] have probably been too judgmental of some of these voters on the right because they don’t share our cultural and social views” (before scrambling to reassure triggered liberals that does not mean changing their views on gun control, climate change, and abortion—heavens no).
Translation: We still think you’re racist rednecks. We just need your votes.
It’s sort of like your ex-wife announcing she’s willing to take you back—as long as you agree she was right about everything, apologize to her mother, repaint the kitchen, convert to veganism, and admit her affair was technically your fault because you didn’t validate her enough. I’m good, sis.
Critical to the comedy here is the small matter of recent history. When Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House simultaneously, they tried to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour—not $25, just $15—and couldn’t get it done. Eight Democratic senators voted against their own party’s amendment. The wage stayed at $7.25. So the same gang that couldn’t clear a far lower bar when conditions were nearly perfect is now using $25 as a Trump voter recruitment tool. Why not throw in a Scandinavian snowball ring and an extra set of Ginsu knives, too?
There’s a word for what Murphy is describing, and it isn’t “coalition building.” It’s bribery. Come join us—not because we share your values, or your concerns, or your vision for the country, but because we’ll pay you more per hour than the other guys. It’s the Washington version of a struggling restaurant replacing the booths, the menus, and the flatware—but keeping the same lousy food.
That’s become the Democratic playbook. If voters aren’t buying what you’re selling, don’t rethink the recipe. Offer free dessert.
Free groceries. Student loan forgiveness. Universal childcare. Guaranteed basic income. Government grocery stores. Baby bonds. Paid family leave. Free four-year college. Triple the minimum wage! It’s political QVC. But wait... there’s more! Vote in the next fifteen minutes and we’ll throw in another entitlement absolutely free!*
ANNOUNCER [read at approximately 847 words per minute]: “Offer void where prohibited. Delivery not guaranteed and may require a constitutional amendment, unanimous Senate approval, unlimited taxpayer funding, and/or a functioning relationship with reality. Not valid after polls close. Batteries not included. Actual results may vary.”
Oddly enough, nobody ever campaigns on “We’re going to make life more affordable.” That’s hard. It’s much easier to promise everyone more money than it is to lower energy costs, cut regulations that drive up prices, or eliminate a few hundred billion dollars in waste, fraud, and government programs that exist solely to keep consultants employed. It would be like “solving” the obesity epidemic by buying everyone bigger pants.
The good news for Democrats is that the next stage is depression, and if anyone’s got the résumé for that one, it’s the party that spent four years mainlining Rachel Maddow highlights. The bad news is that after depression comes acceptance, and acceptance would require acknowledging that the voters they’re trying to buy might not actually be for sale.
At that point, we can expect a pivot right back to bargaining. I’m thinking they’ll float free internet, a federal puppy subsidy, and all-you-can-eat guacamole. What do you guys think? I know you’ll let me know in the comments.












I have a theory.
They say democrats don’t understand basic economics. I think they do.
I think their major failure isn’t math, but logic, as in they can’t draw lines.
You and I can see that the rising cost of energy (gasoline/diesel, or having to use solar and wind vs coal and natural gas) has a price effect on everything we buy. Dems can’t.
They can’t draw the line from cause to effect.
They can clearly see that paying Joe $50k/yr is better for Joe than paying Joe $22k/yr, but they can’t draw that line to the concept that if Joe represents the little guy, on whose back the economy turns, everything that Joe just paid $3 for, he’s now paying $10 for, completely negating his raise.
They can’t draw that line. They can’t logic just as hard as they can’t meme.
Jenna, you out did yourself with this post. A laugh in every sentence.