Sarah Longwell: Trump’s Failures Give Democrats a Once-in-a-Generation Opening | Bulwark on Sunday

The Bulwark · collected 2026-09-06 · by William Kristol commentary
Read the original at The Bulwark ↗

Summary

Sarah Longwell argues in her new book that the failures of Donald Trump's presidency provide Democrats with a rare opportunity to make significant gains. Longwell, who has conducted extensive voter focus groups, believes that Democrats can learn from Republican political infrastructure and create a broad pro-democracy coalition to take down Trumpism. The key to success, according to Longwell, is finding ways to manage internal disagreements within this coalition. In her book, "How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time", Longwell draws on years of research to outline a strategy for defeating Trumpism.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-07, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
4
claim-shaped sentences
Uncertain
25%
1 of 4 hedged
Leaning
withheld
no quote in the article backed the model's score
Publisher trust
not scored
Commentary is not rated for newsroom trust
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Narrative spread
1
articles carrying this framing
Analyzed 2026-09-07 · how these are computed

AI analysis (generated at analysis time, not now)

Story summary

Sarah Longwell, author of the book How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time, believes that Donald Trump's failures have created a rare opportunity for Democrats to make significant gains in the upcoming elections. According to her, this is a "once-in-a-generation opening" for Democrats, who can learn from Republican political infrastructure and use it to their advantage. Longwell argues that the changing media environment has shifted the balance of power in favor of Democrats, allowing them to capitalize on Trump's weaknesses. She suggests that a broad pro-democracy coalition can be formed to manage internal disagreements and develop a successful strategy against Trumpism.

Written for “Trump's Election Impact Assessed” on 2026-09-07, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The model judged this article politically coded and scored it +0.85, but every quote it verified points left, so the score is not published.
Written under an earlier scoring contract, which gave a paragraph rather than checkable quotes. Re-analysing this article replaces it.
Leaning score withheld for article 5949: score contradicts its own evidence · logged 2026-09-07

Story

📰 Trump's Election Impact Assessed
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event. This is the one the site leads with.

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Compared with similar articles

This article reads unscored and hedges 25% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
The Bulwark
⚖️ Leans left 🔴 8% hedged 6 of 76
“Article A discusses Donald Trump's coalition vibes and foreign-policy obsession, while Article B discusses Trump's failures and potential Democratic opportunities, with no mention of a specific event or occurrence”
The Dispatch
⚖️ Leans left 🔴 5% hedged 2 of 40 📰 publisher trust 96
“Article A discusses a podcast roundtable about Trump's role in the Republican Party and midterms, while Article B mentions an unrelated discussion of Longwell's book and Trump opposition”
Zeteo
⚖️ Leans strongly left 🔴 19% hedged 5 of 26
“Article A discusses two whistleblower reports exposing Trump's plans to restrict mail-in voting, while Article B mentions 'Trump's Failures' but does not mention any specific events or plans related to voting restrictions.”
US news | The Guardian
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 5% hedged 2 of 42 📰 publisher trust 96
“Article A discusses Abdul El-Sayed's response to being labeled a 'socialist' during his senate campaign in Michigan, while Article B is about Sarah Longwell's book and discussion on opposing Trump, with no mention of El-Sayed or the midterm elections”
US news | The Guardian
⚖️ Leans left 🔴 2% hedged 1 of 40 📰 publisher trust 96
“The two articles mention different topics: one is about the November elections in 2026, while the other discusses Sarah Longwell's book and her views on Trump's failures.”
The Bulwark
⚖️ Centre 🔴 0% hedged 0 of 8
“The articles cover different discussions or events related to Trump's administration and failures, but do not describe the same specific occurrence”
The Bulwark
⚖️ Centre 🔴 0% hedged 0 of 10
“The articles cover different topics, with one discussing Trump's failures and its implications for Democrats, and the other focusing on Kash Patel's video botching the name of the FBI, without mentioning any common event or context”
Noahpinion
⚖️ Leans strongly left 🔴 6% hedged 5 of 78
“Article A is an opinion piece about Donald Trump's failures, while Article B is an interview with Sarah Longwell about her book on opposing Trump, which does not describe the same specific happening”
TIME
⚖️ Leans left 🔴 15% hedged 5 of 34 📰 publisher trust 95
“The articles discuss unrelated topics: one about the state of democracy in the US and the other about a book discussion on opposing Trump”
www.thestar.com - RSS Results of type article
⚖️ Leans strongly left 🔴 19% hedged 10 of 53 📰 publisher trust 62
“Article A appears to be a general reflection on the 2024 election cycle, while Article B discusses a specific book by Sarah Longwell and its discussion of Trump's failures”

Publisher

The Bulwark · 68 article(s) · 0 correction(s) detected

Commentary. The three signals behind a trust score all measure a newsroom's record with its own reporting, so they are not computed for this source. How trust is scored.

No corrections detected for this publisher. That may mean careful reporting, or simply that nothing has been checked.

Who wrote this

William Kristol
3 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 They consider how the media environment has changed, what Democrats can learn from Republican political infrastructure, how a broad pro-democracy coalition can manage internal disagreements, and what a successful strategy against Trumpism could look like.
Also by William Kristol
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.

Topics

Democrats Republican

Subjects

Democrats NORP · 2× Sarah Longwell PERSON · 2× Trump PERSON · 2× Bill Kristol PERSON · 1× Longwell PERSON · 1× Republican NORP · 1×

Narrative

Bill Kristol and Sarah Longwell discuss Longwell’s new book, How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time, tracing the origins of The Bulwark and their efforts to oppose Trump while drawing lessons from years of voter focus groups.
framing: mixed · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-07
🔮 They consider how the media environment has changed, what Democrats can learn from Republican political infrastructure, how a broad pro-democracy coalition can manage internal disagreements, and what a successful strategy against Trumpism could look like.

Claims (4 extracted, 1 hedged)

Sarah Longwell: Trump’s Failures Give Democrats a Once-in-a-Generation Opening | Bulwark on Sunday asserted
Failures → give → Sunday
Bill Kristol and Sarah Longwell discuss Longwell’s new book, How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time, tracing the origins of The Bulwark and their efforts to oppose Trump while drawing lessons from years of voter focus groups. asserted
Kristol → discuss → groups
They consider how the media environment has changed, what Democrats can learn from Republican political infrastructure, how a broad pro-democracy coalition can manage internal disagreements, and what a successful strategy against Trumpism could look like. uncertain
strategy → consider → Trumpism
Help others find Bulwark on Sunday: hit that like 🤍 button and restack it. asserted
others → help → it
💬 Give feedback
🕘 History 🎫 Support