Dems have many unserious people in their coalition. Too many are single issue interest group types who care more about their moral high ground than winning. It is hard to call MTG or Andy Biggs serious people, but they are dead serious about winning elections. They know when to fall in line and shut up when necessary.
On a recent chat session I responded to something that had been brought up with: "So we need a vision. Then beat it to death like the Republicans do." Whew. Was I scolded with "If the Dems did this, I would leave the party" to "we aren't like this." We are in a fight, and they don't know it. Very good article. Thanks, Reed. Take care.
While I have met some progressives who would rather be righteous than effective and do think that that people should fall in line because they are morally superior, I think that the number of disparate groups that make up the Democratic Party creates a problem for Democrats that Republicans don't have to deal with.
Way back in 2004 at the DNC, Colbert did a bit on the Daily Show in which is pulled a delegate to represent all the groups of the Democratic Party - different racial groups as well as issue activists. The final joke was, "hippie you are destroying the party". It wouldn't be as funny anymore, but the same could be done today.
I attended the first day of the DNC (as a guest, not a delegate) and they couldn't keep message discipline for one day because they also had to give speeches focused on other issues. Democrats need to be willing to say no. To say that your issue is not more important than the whole. And the activist groups need to be willing to force each other to focus on winning instead as well.
The issue of not saying no was the same as people around Biden being unwilling to tell him not to run for President as well as other leaders in the party not backing a primary challenge. Do you think if Pelosi and Obama called every Democratic Governor to say that they favored a primary challenge to Biden that it wouldn't have changed anything? Also no one tells Schumer to resign from leadership because he's too boring and too reliant on good faith efforts by Republican Senators. It's so frustrating.
My European contacts are asking: “Where are the Democrats? Why aren’t they doing anything?” The premise is questionable, but it reveals a worrying state of mind. Part of the Democrats’ perception problem is that media hang on Trump’s every utterance. But you are absolutely right that Dems also, on average, have a hard time accepting politics as bloodsport. And, in strategic terms, the perception of weakness poses risks akin to those of actual weakness. If a new US leadership someday goes back to the world, offering alliances, respect, and reliability, they don’t want everyone asking them” “Where the hell were you when Trump was doing X?” https://ericterzuolo.substack.com/p/europeans-asking-where-are-the-democrats?r=1g49a
I’m a lifelong Democrat and have voted for Dems in every election. I live in the bluest city of a deep blue state and feel right at home. I’ve been to my share of drag shows, trans bathrooms don’t bother me, and I hug trees. 😂 But I follow Reed Galen and the Lincoln Project crew religiously because unlike the Democratic leadership, these guys know how to fight! They know how politics really works (it’s not the machines, it’s how people feel) and they have done and will do whatever it takes to win. While I might not agree with these guys on every single issue, I’m here for the education - how to fight, how to stand up for what I believe in, and how to win.
Another thing the Democratic leadership needs to change is- they’re so afraid of even the possibility of offending their donors that their messaging ends up being this watered down mess that puts people to sleep. Not all Democrats, of course. The new crop of Democrats seems to be much better at saying what needs to be said. I wish they were in charge instead of the gerontocracy.
*****“How are you so good at messaging, and we’re so bad?” I’ve been asked this question dozens of times since we launched The Lincoln Project in late 2019. My answer is always the same, “Messaging is downstream of belief. Tell me what you believe and I’ll tell you your message.”
I had an epiphany thinking through this column. For years I believed Democrats couldn’t come up with a message because there are so many competing factions (which there are, and yes, creates a coherence dilemma.) My revelation led me to an even worse conclusion:
The reason Democratic messaging is so repellant to both swing voters and their own base is because its rooted an elite belief that they should be in charge simply because they’re smarter, better educated, and more enlightened.
They’re not, and voters keep telling them so.*****
.
Seems to me the key to MAGA success is its unrelenting resort to demagoguery and lies. These rancid tactics work.
I do not for a moment believe that Democrats ought to respond in kind. However I would find a piece like this one more convincing and useful were it to provide examples of messaging that failed and sketches of alternatives that would have succeeded.
It is not enough to say that the Harris campaign did not respond effectively to the “She’s for they/them” spot. Please spell out what an effective response would have looked like.
In connection with this, I would note my perception that the gang at The Liberal Patriot believes the proper response would have been something along the lines of:
*****Yes, our opponents' attacks on the transgender community and Democrats' defense of that community are absolutely well founded. We Democrats disavow our past villainy and beg forgiveness and support going forward.*****
The featured quip irritated me so much that I had to read the post. I’m sick of the elite bashing and will never apologize for enjoying education or civility - both of which have a bad rap to our national detriment.
Democrats have done a world of good (and I think Harris would have made a terrific president) but that was then and this is now.
We always seem to be in the position of responding because their position is always to attack. We assume that people are rational when they aren’t. The Harris campaign should have responded to those awful anti-trans ads that were shown during football games but she never should have been put in the position of swearing fealty at the behest of a Democratic special interest group to begin with. Do not make the mistake of thinking I’m anti trans. I could care less - the problem is that a small segment of society has been demeaned and very effectively weaponized.
Instead of Chuck Schumer waving his hands around bleating about avocados - why can’t we channel a moral fury and fight the righteous fight?
You make some excellent points. I'm sharing with my subscribers immediately.
Dems have many unserious people in their coalition. Too many are single issue interest group types who care more about their moral high ground than winning. It is hard to call MTG or Andy Biggs serious people, but they are dead serious about winning elections. They know when to fall in line and shut up when necessary.
On a recent chat session I responded to something that had been brought up with: "So we need a vision. Then beat it to death like the Republicans do." Whew. Was I scolded with "If the Dems did this, I would leave the party" to "we aren't like this." We are in a fight, and they don't know it. Very good article. Thanks, Reed. Take care.
You nailed it. Can we do this in time? Hope the hell so.
While I have met some progressives who would rather be righteous than effective and do think that that people should fall in line because they are morally superior, I think that the number of disparate groups that make up the Democratic Party creates a problem for Democrats that Republicans don't have to deal with.
Way back in 2004 at the DNC, Colbert did a bit on the Daily Show in which is pulled a delegate to represent all the groups of the Democratic Party - different racial groups as well as issue activists. The final joke was, "hippie you are destroying the party". It wouldn't be as funny anymore, but the same could be done today.
I attended the first day of the DNC (as a guest, not a delegate) and they couldn't keep message discipline for one day because they also had to give speeches focused on other issues. Democrats need to be willing to say no. To say that your issue is not more important than the whole. And the activist groups need to be willing to force each other to focus on winning instead as well.
The issue of not saying no was the same as people around Biden being unwilling to tell him not to run for President as well as other leaders in the party not backing a primary challenge. Do you think if Pelosi and Obama called every Democratic Governor to say that they favored a primary challenge to Biden that it wouldn't have changed anything? Also no one tells Schumer to resign from leadership because he's too boring and too reliant on good faith efforts by Republican Senators. It's so frustrating.
My European contacts are asking: “Where are the Democrats? Why aren’t they doing anything?” The premise is questionable, but it reveals a worrying state of mind. Part of the Democrats’ perception problem is that media hang on Trump’s every utterance. But you are absolutely right that Dems also, on average, have a hard time accepting politics as bloodsport. And, in strategic terms, the perception of weakness poses risks akin to those of actual weakness. If a new US leadership someday goes back to the world, offering alliances, respect, and reliability, they don’t want everyone asking them” “Where the hell were you when Trump was doing X?” https://ericterzuolo.substack.com/p/europeans-asking-where-are-the-democrats?r=1g49a
I’m a lifelong Democrat and have voted for Dems in every election. I live in the bluest city of a deep blue state and feel right at home. I’ve been to my share of drag shows, trans bathrooms don’t bother me, and I hug trees. 😂 But I follow Reed Galen and the Lincoln Project crew religiously because unlike the Democratic leadership, these guys know how to fight! They know how politics really works (it’s not the machines, it’s how people feel) and they have done and will do whatever it takes to win. While I might not agree with these guys on every single issue, I’m here for the education - how to fight, how to stand up for what I believe in, and how to win.
Another thing the Democratic leadership needs to change is- they’re so afraid of even the possibility of offending their donors that their messaging ends up being this watered down mess that puts people to sleep. Not all Democrats, of course. The new crop of Democrats seems to be much better at saying what needs to be said. I wish they were in charge instead of the gerontocracy.
The Party That Cannot Tell You What A Woman is, Mad Men Will Not Vote For Them. https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/the-party-that-cannot-tell-you-what
Reed Galen wrote:
*****“How are you so good at messaging, and we’re so bad?” I’ve been asked this question dozens of times since we launched The Lincoln Project in late 2019. My answer is always the same, “Messaging is downstream of belief. Tell me what you believe and I’ll tell you your message.”
I had an epiphany thinking through this column. For years I believed Democrats couldn’t come up with a message because there are so many competing factions (which there are, and yes, creates a coherence dilemma.) My revelation led me to an even worse conclusion:
The reason Democratic messaging is so repellant to both swing voters and their own base is because its rooted an elite belief that they should be in charge simply because they’re smarter, better educated, and more enlightened.
They’re not, and voters keep telling them so.*****
.
Seems to me the key to MAGA success is its unrelenting resort to demagoguery and lies. These rancid tactics work.
I do not for a moment believe that Democrats ought to respond in kind. However I would find a piece like this one more convincing and useful were it to provide examples of messaging that failed and sketches of alternatives that would have succeeded.
It is not enough to say that the Harris campaign did not respond effectively to the “She’s for they/them” spot. Please spell out what an effective response would have looked like.
In connection with this, I would note my perception that the gang at The Liberal Patriot believes the proper response would have been something along the lines of:
*****Yes, our opponents' attacks on the transgender community and Democrats' defense of that community are absolutely well founded. We Democrats disavow our past villainy and beg forgiveness and support going forward.*****
I am eager for others' thoughts on this!
“study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces"
How on earth is that sentence even possible? How can anyone decide that its important to improve communication, and then say so like that?
Exactamundo!
Funny how ex-Republicans are so critical of the Democrat Party. How about less criticism and more work with focus on what IS working for us?
The featured quip irritated me so much that I had to read the post. I’m sick of the elite bashing and will never apologize for enjoying education or civility - both of which have a bad rap to our national detriment.
Democrats have done a world of good (and I think Harris would have made a terrific president) but that was then and this is now.
We always seem to be in the position of responding because their position is always to attack. We assume that people are rational when they aren’t. The Harris campaign should have responded to those awful anti-trans ads that were shown during football games but she never should have been put in the position of swearing fealty at the behest of a Democratic special interest group to begin with. Do not make the mistake of thinking I’m anti trans. I could care less - the problem is that a small segment of society has been demeaned and very effectively weaponized.
Instead of Chuck Schumer waving his hands around bleating about avocados - why can’t we channel a moral fury and fight the righteous fight?