In the last presidential election, we saw a pattern of downplaying crucial issues to avoid accountability. Democrats debated whether “houseless” sounded more humane than “homeless,” while most Americans were just trying to keep a roof over their heads. 

On campus and across the nation, many of us seemed shocked and confused that then-Vice President Kamala Harris lost to now-President Donald Trump. However, the loss makes more sense when we analyze the disconnect between Democrats and voters.

As a Democrat, I love how my party emphasizes empathy and progress. But, in the past decade, it seems that Democrats have been prioritizing sensitivity and academic superiority over genuine connection with voters — and voters have noticed. While we may be winning campus debates, we are losing kitchen-table conversations.

Democrats’ obsession with perfect language rather than practical empathy is alienating voters and undermining their electoral chances. For example, Democrats are debating whether to call people addicted to drugs as “people struggling with addiction” or “people struggling with substance use disorder.” No matter what you call them, they are people who need understanding and affordable, accessible treatment, and that’s just not something the Democrats are addressing. 

In order to win the midterms in November, they must shift their priorities and start listening to the general public by including community members in their conversations and strategies. Democrats must put a representative range of voters on their campaign teams and actively listen to what community members want rather than what they think is right. Campaign leaders should keep themselves and their candidates informed on how the community speaks and use the information to craft authentic messages.

Diego Andrades, the assistant director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future, studies the intersection of communications and political strategy. Andrades emphasized a substantial disconnect between how voters speak and how Democratic leaders speak.  

“There are Democrats who are not using the language that everyday Americans are using, and when you don’t use that language, you’re just turning off people who need to support you, and when you turn them off, you’re not going to win,” Andrades said. “If you don’t win, you can’t actually support them.” 

This only further underscores the need to bridge the gap so Democrats can begin implementing the policy changes needed to serve the underrepresented in America.

In recent years, certain terms that aim to foster inclusion have become more mainstream and widely used in Democratic communications, such as “Latine” and “Latinx” in place of “Latino.” 

Although these terms serve a valid purpose of promoting gender inclusivity, they can feel imposed or unfamiliar to the very groups they aim to describe. According to a Pew Research study in 2024, only 4% of Latino adults say they have used the term Latinx to describe themselves, and 75% of Latinos who have heard the term say it should not be used to describe them.

We cannot discuss language and terminology without addressing the concept of “canceling.” Andrades said that Democrats often fear being “canceled” for using clumsy phrases or politically incorrect terminology, which leads to overly cautious, passive messaging. 

This conversation has become increasingly popular over the past few months, especially after Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear addressed it in his February interview on “The Daily Show.” In the interview, Beshear said, “You don’t change stigma by changing words, you change it by changing hearts.” 

When talking about sensitive issues such as homelessness and addiction, the terms we use don’t matter as much as the actions we take in listening and supporting the people suffering.

Most voters care about tangible election outcomes, such as the economy and security, and may feel dismissed or unseen when Democrats overanalyze phrasing instead of fighting harder to protect necessary social safety nets, make housing more affordable and reduce worker exploitation.

Andrades said, “One of the reasons that [Democrats] will use this language that de-personifies is so that they don’t have to take accountability for what they’re saying. It’s a really big contest in the passive voice versus the active voice. … They’re able to decentralize the issue from themselves.” 

Often, using new language isn’t to keep up with the times, but instead to avoid accountability and uncomfortable work on policy. Andrades also argued that academics speak one dialect, and voters speak another. While academic conversations and terminology have their place, especially on campus, Democrats need to go back to basics to reconnect with voters and regain trust in their authenticity.

As students, we don’t need to fully abandon academic or inclusive language in our campus conversations and writing. But we do need to practice empathy through direct engagement that leads us to act on those conversations. We need to remember that we live in a bit of a bubble when it comes to expecting correct or academic language in political conversation, and the world is much more complex and dynamic than we sometimes think.

Democrats should put not only academics on their teams but also community members, so they can strike a balance between inclusive language and language that resonates with everyday voters. At the same time, candidates must avoid being inauthentic and instead bring in community members affected by the political climate who are willing to say what is necessary to help Democrats snag the midterms and get back to business.