Blueprint Battle: Democrats Rush to Clone Conservative Project 2025

Paul Riverbank, 2/3/2026Democrats debut "Project 2029," rivaling GOP strategies amid fundraising woes and Midwest battleground pressure.

And now? The critique has taken a curious turn. Instead of dismissing the idea, Democrats are rolling out a near-mirror image of their own under the label “Project 2029.” That resemblance? Hardly accidental. The branding swings for the same dramatic effect—bold title, sweeping vision, a dense policy tome in the making.

This shift wasn’t always predictable. Last year, prominent Democratic figures often scoffed at the notion of gathering a coalition to hash out a singular, book-length governing agenda. Yet here we are: Project 2029 is not just copying the playbook, it’s scaling it up. Over 200 policy minds are already working furiously, hoping to shape what the next Democratic administration could look like and who might fill its ranks. Chad Maisel, who earned his stripes in the Biden White House, is among those steering the ship. “The same old playbook isn’t working,” Maisel admits—a frankness that feels rare these days. There’s a new ambition to be, as he puts it, “bigger and bolder than what people have been offered before.”

Still, beneath these high-minded efforts, doubts linger. Moderates privately fret: will the party finally edge toward the voters who drove recent midterm swings—a refocus, perhaps, on the bread-and-butter concerns of suburban and working-class Americans? Or, critics snark, is this just another round of progressive wish-list compilation? One caustic commentator mused, “If anyone believes that Democrats will make any meaningful shift toward the center, they’re on acid.” Harsh, but not an uncommon sentiment among analysts frustrated by what they see as a reluctance—among both parties, arguably—to confront tough campaign post-mortems.

Meanwhile, Republicans are charging into the next midterm cycle with their coffers clearly overweight. GOP fundraising surges are hard to ignore: the Republican National Committee closed the last calendar year with $172 million raised—nearly $100 million cash in hand. In contrast, the Democratic National Committee reported $145 million raised, but a glance at their bottom line reveals only $14 million on hand, and an uncomfortable $17 million in debt. The bragging from party leadership—on both sides, of course—has gotten more intense. House Speaker Mike Johnson is sounding especially bullish: “We’re going to have a war chest to run on,” he declared. His counterparts at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee counter, “Momentum is on our side”—but the spreadsheets suggest otherwise.

To be fair, Senate race funds are closer—though, again, GOP groups hold a slim but real lead. Taken in total, the fundraising advantage puts Republicans in about as strong a position heading into a cycle as they could hope for. Political veterans, in private, don’t try to spin it otherwise.

Zoom in on Michigan, and you get a sense of how these trends feel on the ground. The state is about as “swing” as they come, toggling between parties in recent presidential years. “Republicans have one of the enduring campaign themes on their side—time for a change,” observes Rusty Hills, a sharp former state GOP chair with a penchant for bluntness. At a recent forum, he didn’t mince words on the education front: “Reading is not a partisan issue,” he said, laser-focused on Michigan’s stubborn struggles with student literacy—one of the few issues almost everyone agrees deserves urgent attention.

For their part, Michigan Republicans are being warned by their own strategists to avoid the usual flare-ups—no chasing cultural red herrings, just stick to “jobs, schools, roads, and prices.” It’s a little old-school, but effective advice. Victory, Hills argues, “is there for the taking… Keep your eyes on the issues, and the votes will take care of themselves.” There’s a new twist this cycle, too: Mike Duggan, Detroit’s former mayor, is running as an independent. Some speculate he might siphon support from the Democratic base, but his crossover potential with Republicans appears limited—Duggan remains a known entity mainly in Detroit’s urban orbit.

So, as campaign season intensifies, both parties are betting big—one on a fresh progressive policy machine, the other on a swelling campaign bank account and time-tested campaign lines. It’s not just a contest of policy blueprints, but of bringing those visions down to the kitchen table, to the school board meeting, to the price tag at the grocery store. If winning elections were only about ideas, the next year would be easy. But as usual, it comes down to something far less predictable: which team can bridge the gap between plans in Washington, and the real lives of American families watching and waiting for results.

Anyone tracking the pulse of Washington these days might feel a sense of déjà vu. For months, Democratic leaders lambasted Project 2025—an ambitious conservative playbook crafted as a roadmap for a potential second Trump term. The dire warnings echoed across op-eds and cable panels: democracy, they insisted, was in peril.And now? The critique has taken a curious turn. Instead of dismissing the idea, Democrats are rolling out a near-mirror image of their own under the label “Project 2029.” That resemblance? Hardly accidental. The branding swings for the same dramatic effect—bold title, sweeping vision, a dense policy tome in the making.This shift wasn’t always predictable. Last year, prominent Democratic figures often scoffed at the notion of gathering a coalition to hash out a singular, book-length governing agenda. Yet here we are: Project 2029 is not just copying the playbook, it’s scaling it up. Over 200 policy minds are already working furiously, hoping to shape what the next Democratic administration could look like and who might fill its ranks. Chad Maisel, who earned his stripes in the Biden White House, is among those steering the ship. “The same old playbook isn’t working,” Maisel admits—a frankness that feels rare these days. There’s a new ambition to be, as he puts it, “bigger and bolder than what people have been offered before.”Still, beneath these high-minded efforts, doubts linger. Moderates privately fret: will the party finally edge toward the voters who drove recent midterm swings—a refocus, perhaps, on the bread-and-butter concerns of suburban and working-class Americans? Or, critics snark, is this just another round of progressive wish-list compilation? One caustic commentator mused, “If anyone believes that Democrats will make any meaningful shift toward the center, they’re on acid.” Harsh, but not an uncommon sentiment among analysts frustrated by what they see as a reluctance—among both parties, arguably—to confront tough campaign post-mortems.Meanwhile, Republicans are charging into the next midterm cycle with their coffers clearly overweight. GOP fundraising surges are hard to ignore: the Republican National Committee closed the last calendar year with $172 million raised—nearly $100 million cash in hand. In contrast, the Democratic National Committee reported $145 million raised, but a glance at their bottom line reveals only $14 million on hand, and an uncomfortable $17 million in debt. The bragging from party leadership—on both sides, of course—has gotten more intense. House Speaker Mike Johnson is sounding especially bullish: “We’re going to have a war chest to run on,” he declared. His counterparts at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee counter, “Momentum is on our side”—but the spreadsheets suggest otherwise.To be fair, Senate race funds are closer—though, again, GOP groups hold a slim but real lead. Taken in total, the fundraising advantage puts Republicans in about as strong a position heading into a cycle as they could hope for. Political veterans, in private, don’t try to spin it otherwise.Zoom in on Michigan, and you get a sense of how these trends feel on the ground. The state is about as “swing” as they come, toggling between parties in recent presidential years. “Republicans have one of the enduring campaign themes on their side—time for a change,” observes Rusty Hills, a sharp former state GOP chair with a penchant for bluntness. At a recent forum, he didn’t mince words on the education front: “Reading is not a partisan issue,” he said, laser-focused on Michigan’s stubborn struggles with student literacy—one of the few issues almost everyone agrees deserves urgent attention.For their part, Michigan Republicans are being warned by their own strategists to avoid the usual flare-ups—no chasing cultural red herrings, just stick to “jobs, schools, roads, and prices.” It’s a little old-school, but effective advice. Victory, Hills argues, “is there for the taking… Keep your eyes on the issues, and the votes will take care of themselves.” There’s a new twist this cycle, too: Mike Duggan, Detroit’s former mayor, is running as an independent. Some speculate he might siphon support from the Democratic base, but his crossover potential with Republicans appears limited—Duggan remains a known entity mainly in Detroit’s urban orbit.So, as campaign season intensifies, both parties are betting big—one on a fresh progressive policy machine, the other on a swelling campaign bank account and time-tested campaign lines. It’s not just a contest of policy blueprints, but of bringing those visions down to the kitchen table, to the school board meeting, to the price tag at the grocery store. If winning elections were only about ideas, the next year would be easy. But as usual, it comes down to something far less predictable: which team can bridge the gap between plans in Washington, and the real lives of American families watching and waiting for results.