Perhaps left leaning podcasts could help by not regularly damning with faint praise Democratic accomplishments or Democratic candidates. PSA, especially the Tuesday pod, far too often looked down their noses at what Biden did or Harris’s campaign. Far too often, whatever they did was just not good enough for Jon, Jon, and, especially, Tommy.
I don’t want you guys to be the Fox News of the left, but, jeez, you sure didn’t help.
As someone who put in a lot of miles knocking doors and a lot of hours phone banking, I can attest that hearing a range of views about Biden and Dems in general really helped me talk to voters. If I only wanted cheerleading, I'd watch Lawrence O'Donnell. But I want to win elections, so I listen to PSA.
And by the way, a lot of that work was for a campaign that flipped a House seat from red to blue.
I thought Pod Save America's critiques were constructive. They illustrate how the Democrats are a broad coalition willing to engage in healthy internal debates rather than a cult that reflexively showers praise on dear leader.
We don’t need ‘dear leader’ type of praise, but the fairly constant drumbeat of ‘not good enough’ has the effect of depressing enthusiasm and turnout.
From the Afghanistan withdrawal to the many important, but not exactly sexy, economic proposals and bills passed, there was a drone of ‘not sufficient’ or ‘not sold the right way’, it was wearing and wearying.
What also didn’t help - the way in which the PSA crew’s default position was to cover for the legacy media. Our criticism of the legacy media folks was always denigrated and dismissed by Jon F.
I'm interested in an honest analysis of political events -- not propaganda. I also don't expect to always agree with a pundit's take.
If a president isn't doing well, wouldn't you expect that pundits would point out where his or her words and actions were "not sufficient"? In light of Biden's consistently weak approval ratings, there were plenty of things to critique. If anything, the Pod people could have been harder on Biden's decision to run for reelection.
My sense of Jon Favreau's views on the legacy media is that complaining about New York Times' headlines isn't all that helpful. I agree with him because, as Dan illustrates in the above article, the legacy media aren't as important in agenda setting as they used to be.
Again, do you imagine that any listener of PSA was subject to depressed enthusiasm and demotivated to turn out?
As for the legacy media, 90% of the factual knowledge any of us have about the last four years came from the legacy media. Unless you imagine that podcasters or MSNBC or influencers have fact-gathering reporters covering politicians.
You may not like the headline or editorial writers, you may not like the balance, and you may argue with the editorial slant. But once the legacy media goes the way of the dinosaur we are all going to be sitting around wondering what’s going on.
Trump’s criticism of the legacy media has been so successful that it has affected Dems almost to the same extent that it affected MAGA.
PSA is kind of strictly for political junkies, though. It kind of doesn’t matter what they say—remember when Lovett was on Survivor and none of the others recognized PSA as a podcast except one guy who said he thought he’d heard of it?
I don’t think progressive podcasts are the answer. One of the big lessons, that has been showing up in polling for a while, is that progressives (not their economic agenda, progressives themselves) are unpopular. Someone needs to find a way to escape the whole “woke/cancel culture” business by finding a way to disown the excesses and arrogance without abandoning the core values.
I agree that Pod Save America is more for political junkies, although it is more entertaining than the usual news program. Their editorial slant strikes me as primarily mainstream centrist-to-liberal Democrat, although programming has made some effort to include progressive voices such as Bernie Sanders and AOC.
I keep tabs on a number of media outlets whose mission seems to be to move the Democrats rightward, e.g., The Liberal Patriot and The Welcome Party. My perception is that they bend over backwards to find ways to marginalize the progressive wing of the party.
I suspect that such efforts do more to meet the needs of the vested interests that fund them than helps the Democratic party. If we distance ourselves too much from progressives, the main result may be to boost the chances of third-party candidates. Not a recipe for success in swing states.
Meanwhile, we can count on Republicans to find SOMETHING to demonize Democrats about -- and if necessary they will make it up. We need stronger media venues to push back against their propaganda.
We don't want mindless agreements, but everyone must read the room -- including Dems. I know, we know that we are just 'right!'
But if one side is pummeling any Dem thought, breath and wardrobe, it is NOT the time for endless media outlets to just pick at the same old details only about Dems.
Look around at where we are. As a team (?) how do we create a fair playing field? Criminals, felons, Soviet 'partners' occupy the core govt. for four years. Soviet news commenters are thrilled and reiterating everything Felon 47 said on the campaign trail (HE HEARD IT FROM THEM). But, you know, ... bad debate performance ...
Perhaps the 80th comment about Joe having a bad day does not promote DEM interests, OR the country's. Honestly, MSM, and several podcasters, Substack writers continue to beat this drum.
The assault on Joe's morally correct pardon of abused Hunter is another example.
How many pardons did what's his name make? Did you all REMIND the media and the world that that fact exists? Are pundits just trying to impress other pundits or themselves with their brilliant conversation skills? What are their goals? Who do they think they are helping? Are they succeeding (are they looking around)?
They are just bringing Felon 47 along to further confirm we are FLAWED! I hope everyone stuck in these loops faces that truth at some point in this century, maybe before it is too late.
Consider this? The Dems obediently agreed to the Felon's assessment about his OPPONENT, our kick-ass President, and nominee, three months before the election. Look at where it left us.
They drove him out, publicly!! Flogged Joe, and continue to this DAY! So that act confirmed to everyone in the country and the world that our OPPONENT Melon Felon, IS EVEN RIGHT ABOUT Joe.
Who are current media helping? Not the country. Not the Dems. Not the poor and disadvantaged ... ETC.
It's time to learn new ways of communicating. At what point will it be important enough to change.
I wouldn’t listen to a politics podcast that was just rah rah rah all the time. PSA surely will never be effective by being a pale imitation of Fox News.
Do you really believe that the occasional very constructive criticism by PSA actually hurt the democratic cause? That people listened and either didn’t vote or voted for Trump because of anything
they heard?
We lost the election for actual reasons. Seems like it would be helpful to have PSA point those reasons out while there still can be a course correction possible. If anything, PSA did not point out sharply enough the faults that put Trump back in the WH.
All due respect, but isn't a big part of the problem that the people who aren't being reached are well outside the PSA audience? I'm agnostic on the question of "how critical political junkies should be." Bottom line is that more voices outside this echo chamber need to be addressing the aspects of politics that matter to people who hate politics.
Israel is bloody because Arabs have started war each time, never Israel. It is not the current topic, but MSM is misinforming many people. Israel is a Democracy; Arabs, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Druids all school together, play on sports teams together, and fight in the IDF together, etc. It destroys the comfortable narrative that MSM sets up, but history tells the story.
Sorry to burst your bubble. The UN Chairperson is photographed driving weapons to Hamas as well. Lots of Arabs in these organizations. Last response. It's time that you expanded your understanding of the region and history of all conflicts with Arab attackers (they are always Arab attackers. Best of luck.
Okay, first of all, not even moderate Dems watch MSNBC. That’s how partisan it is perceived to be.
Second of all, part of trump’s media dominance was an own goal on the part of the rest of the world. I am a headline skimmer. I read the articles that interest me. I do not watch TV. 8 to 9 out of 10 headlines were about trump. Even on Crooked pods, almost all the conversation was about him. On any given day, there would be 4 headlines that talked about trump and zero that mentioned Harris. We gave aaalllll that to him on a silver platter.
Third, less repugnant GOPers dominate the Sunday news shows. Which softens the harsh messaging and makes them look normal.
Fourth, they stay on message. For 2 weeks, it was Mr. Potato Head and EVERYONE was on board. The next week it was a fabricated story about a trans athlete, then the dogs and cats, or whatever. The point is, somehow someone has created a communications plan that is cohesive and air tight and they deploy it with accuracy and focus. And all of them jump on board. Meanwhile, we’re still over here trying to plug all the holes in the dam.
Fifth, and this is maybe the most important thing. They spin the news their followers want to hear. They don’t report the news dispassionately and then hope it sinks in. They shake the salad dressing. We let the olive oil sit on the top and hope it somehow gets mixed in by accident.
There are 2 physics teachers in my kid’s grade. One stands at the front and lectures. The other teaches with experiments. Guess which teacher the kids want to have as their teacher. Obviously the hands on guy. Guess which teacher is probably giving her kids a more solid foundation in physics. The boring lecturer. We Dems are the boring lecturers. trump is the rollicking, rambunctious, exciting one. My point? It doesn’t matter what podcasts Dems get on. If their message is still staid and boring, it won’t appeal. The second Harris hired all the same old operatives who have been in the Dem party forever, everything got less fun.
We now have the opportunity to be the carnival. To be the fun parent. The physics teacher who teaches with hands on experiments.
The young kids I’ve talked to are disappointed with the Dem party. They feel like the old people once again missed the mark. But we old people are just going to shrug and ram another position paper down their throats bc it’s good for them. At some point, aren’t we going to have to realize that it’s not the media, it’s not the “tough environment”, it’s not the uneducated voters, none of that. It’s us.
Beth, I so agree. The analogy about the two teaching styles is perfect. If we just have normal liberal podcasts, only liberals will listen. Something has got to be interesting enough to catch some of the folks on the other side.
Some cogent points in your post. However, the medium to a large degree is still the message. If a candidate goes on Joe Rogan, the fact that they are on that platform gives them credibility with that audience. Sure, you've got to have something engaging and relevant to say once you're being interviewed, and not spout position papers, but as Dan was saying showing up in the right places is a lot of it, maybe 90 percent.
FUCK. YES. You go on and answer tough questions and the only thing that goes viral is a mistake or slip up. Then they bring in republicans to just spew bullshit so they can say they are fair to both sides and the clips go viral on YouTube as “Marco Rubio destroys Dana Bash” reinforcing their bullshit narrative when joe Rogan googles it on his show. The media is broken.
It’s completely bananas that they spent so much energy hammering Kamala for needing to share more policy specifics and do more interviews.
Thanks for this. It will be very important for Dems to figure out how to use media sources to inform younger and "low information" voters about what actually happens over the next four years. We need to effectively pierce their fox etc bubble that tells them daily that "everything is awesome!!" also the massive grifting that is already happening. I hope there is lots of thought going into that aspect. 🙏🏼❤️🇺🇸
Let’s not play catchup. We have been trying to play catchup since Richard Viguerie started kicking our asses with computerized direct mail in the 1970s.
Just about the time we catch up, some GOP wizard invents a new twist (invent Fox! Influence Zuckerberg with ad purchases and flood the Facebook zone! Buy Twitter and take it to the Dark Side! Employ the Twit Strategy by leveraging influencers!).
Is it possible for Dems to seize the day by listening to our own feral geniuses and creating / catching the next wave?
And it will take money. And some legacy media. Dan, do you realize how popular AM radio still is? There’s a house being built next door and all the tradespeople seem to listen to Spanish or English AM.
Vastly expand Crooked to encompass all sorts of podcasts, find a friendly billionaire to fund (but not control) a mix of radio and TV. Start recruiting at the various Political Schools (like Axelrod’s Institute of Politics). Dan, run for party chair.
We do need some rich folks to take create media sources. The current Maga billionaires didn't invest in media because they would get richer. They did it to change the country. And it's working. We need some really innovative thinking and lots of money for execution.
Honestly I recommend focusing on effective media strategy in VA and NJ, the only states holding gubernatorial elections next year. They are truly the next battle to test if our democracy will survive. Not only is there a desert of local media, there is real risk in NJ, where I live, that the governor’s race will swing to the GOP. Not for nothing our taxes are very high and NJ Transit (our train service into NYC) is an unbelievable disaster. Local races may not be sexy but they’re in many ways more important than federal elections.
I agree with your points but who decides? The right had Steve Bannon as the chief architect of their communication strategy and everyone fell in line. But who is driving the train on the left? I just don’t understand how “the Dems” come together?
More importantly, right-wing media was funded by billionaire donors. How do we find / encourage democracy loving billionaire donors to fund moderate and left-wing media? This unfortunately seems to be the crux of the problem.
Yes, I suggest we get our own populist oligarchs, because getting rid of the dreadful Citizens United decision isn’t going to happen in your lifetime. Why should we unilaterally disarm? So if any of the likes of Gates, Cuban, Hoffman, Powell-Job want to become the next Rupert Murdoch, our me down as a “yes.”
If we unilaterally disarm (money) while we wait for a Supreme Court to make the right decision on Citizens United, we will be approaching the next century.
I am supremely tired of listening to the “Oh, horrors!” crowd who hate money while having no alternatives.
This isn't my own observation - Kate Riga at Talking Points Memo wrote that "The content on the right is often not overtly political, but wraps ideology into more broadly 'cultural' fare" in making the case for the left to build out its own media machine - but it's freaking bang on and I want to expand on it. Like EVERYTHING on left-leaning channels/sites is politics, politics, politics, while on Breitbart's home page you find stories like "Disney Shelves Children’s Cartoon About Trans Athletes," "Harrison Ford Disembarks Private Jet in LA After Promoting Climate Change Activism," and so on.
Rather than go on at length about this I just want to mention that part of the strategy should be policing and amplifying the failings of WWE, UFC, crypto, and country music personalities the same way the MAGA media does with Hollywood and the MSM, no matter how petty or picayune.
I couldn't agree more. I believe the left's family argument should not be "how to make MSNBC or PSA better" but how to grow the field in which positive pro-left/anti-right messaging can grow and be received. That field needs to be distinctly NOT political media per se.
Dan, I really enjoyed your recent PSA interview with Sen. Jon Tesler. He had a lot of smart advice for Democrats, including thoughts on navigating the new media landscape. Highly recommended. He will be sorely missed in the Senate, I hope he will stay active in party politics.
The results of the last election underscored systemic weaknesses in Democratic communication strategies. Kamala Harris ran a campaign under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, and while mistakes were made, many of the challenges she faced were entrenched long before her candidacy. A confluence of factors—Biden’s approval ratings, economic disinformation, and the evolving media landscape—highlighted how Democrats have failed to adapt to a fundamentally changed communications environment.
We got problems!
-Traditional broadcast media predominantly reaches older audiences (55+), and trust in mainstream media has eroded, with less than 45% of voters relying on it as their primary news source.
-Right-wing networks, amplified by bots and loyal influencers, dominate the digital landscape with coordinated disinformation campaigns. These networks effectively foster trust and community among their audiences, spreading falsehoods that resonate with personal and cultural grievances.
-Democrats spent heavily on broadcast TV ads that did not reach disinformed voters or build meaningful connections. The fragmented nature of media consumption today requires a more integrated, adaptive approach.
- Democrats over rely on message alone. Effective messaging requires trusted messengers and channels. Without community trust, even the most compelling narratives fail to resonate. We need to treat voters as partners rather than targets.
- We need localized, ongoing engagement - Establish a "permanent campaign" mindset with consistent, community-centered communication.
I was hopeful when "influencers" were given a seat among the media at the Dem Convention. Please share some data if they in any way affected the voting this time around. Many influencers with large followings got there by sharing which toothpaste they like and may rarely weigh in on political topics, possibly with little depth of understanding or the ability to explain the consequences for the working class folks we hope to win back. How do we develop a significant left-leaning media system that shows up where these less-engaged folks will be and more importantly, be willing to listen to political ideas instead of pop-culture topics?
This! We shouldn't look to satisfy the PSA audience, but instead to create new audiences and reach among folks who think politics isn't part of their lives.
Thanks for writing about this problem so clearly. What now? How? I’m one of the Medicare legacy media consumers but completely 100% agree with this. The 2025 agenda is in motion so now the consequences need to be understood by voters in real time. I feel pretty helpless and I either have to be proactive and do something or ignore it it all. Otherwise I’ll go insane. (I can’t ignore it all even if it kills me).
Can we and our current leaders rise to the task of making this happen now? Maybe radio station or TV channel in certain states are up for sale? Make a list of donors now.
This is a great perspective for the 2024 election. My question is, when we try to take back the House and Senate in 2026 who will be our Joe Rogans or MELK boys? Nothing in this space stays the same for two years, how do we identify the trusted voices and sources in 2026?
As always, thank you so much for your thoughts. I was also thinking that we really need to hear from Dem presidents, hopefully we have one again, on podcasts on an ongoing basis. They should do weekly updates on the accomplishments on different podcasts. Like new “fireside chats”.
When will it dawn on the body politic that putting faith in political parties is as much a losing proposition as is putting faith in the media?
Trumpism is a cult. It originated with a fascist mob boss who recognized the distrust of the working class for both parties. He originally identified with the Democratic Party, could get no traction there, and set his sights in the Republican Party. His takeover was swift and decisive because, as a recent analysis published somewhere noted, the difference between the parties now is not one of economics but rather education. Dan’s post effectively supports that argument. And Trump knew of what he spoke when he said he loved the uneducated. As do his Cabinet nominees.
Can non-Republicans succeed by playing the same game that Republicans do? Perhaps, but that requires us giving in and accepting that the voters we need to reach are, indeed, uneducated sheep looking for a better shepherd.
Is that where we are?
Trump’s vote total remained pretty much what it was four years ago. I don’t hear the media talking about that, which doesn’t surprise me.
They love to talk about all the votes he picked up from traditionally Democratic groups but not the source of the essentially equal number of votes he had to lose to break even, which is what he did. That could be in part due to the inability of the average media figure to do basic math, of course.
Democrats lost for reasons that essentially have NOTHING to do with Trump outperforming 2020. Trump didn’t win this year so much as Democrats LOST.
No amount of newspeak messaging and media will alter the fact that most Democrats did not want Biden to run again SINCE THE DAY HE WAS ELECTED. Polls after the midterms said it again and again and again. Did the Democratic Party listen?
Does it cross anyone’s mind that some if not many of those millions of voters lost trust in the Democratic Party? That Republicans succeeded in getting them to believe that they have no voice within the party? That the party is corrupt to the core and cannot be trusted to reform from within? That voting doesn’t matter? That US democracy is already beyond hope?
My sense is this pretty much the strategy Europe’s autocrats.
And I see no reason to believe that the Democratic Party has the will to reform from within. All I hear so far is all we need to do is tweak the messaging strategy.
Running again was Biden’s decision, not the Party’s. There is not really a mechanism for taking the nomination away from the current president, whether popular or not. (See also: Carter, Jimmy). Biden running or not was not a party decision. It was his. Someone serious could have entered the primaries, but no one did.
I did not see a single ad from the GOP that wooed Democrats by pointing out that they have no voice in the party. Nor did any Democrats fail to vote because the party is “corrupt to the core”. Dems fired Biden and Harris for high prices and shitty border control. Or other reasons, but those are my guesses.
A Party can’t be corrupt. Members within can be corrupt. Are you really saying that Dem party officials are corrupt? Specifics?
Any group has at least a few corrupt individuals. But I don’t agree with your generalizations, especially without specifics. We’re the party who insisted corrupt officeholders be prosecuted.
Europe’s autocrats? Please name me an EU country run by autocrats?
The Party is NOT corrupt! The issue is group communications, targeted messaging from the top to the 'bottom' so we state level folks can focus on accessing voters where they live. It involves using technology in a smart way and we need to gain control of our messages.
Many years ago I read about Karl Rove sending operatives to Midwestern bowling alleys and other blue collar hangouts to learn about their likes and dislikes, their day to day concerns, their “language”. Rove fed this info to the right wing media machine and the rest is history. It was strategic and successful.
We need to identify today’s bowling alleys and spend time there, not just to observe, but to become one of them. It should be a paradigm shift in progressive communication.
Alex Wagner did some great work before the election where she visited union meetings and talked to folks who were working only because of Biden's infrastructure or chips act (i can't recall exactly), but they were still mostly non-media- consuming Trump voters. I'd like to see a ground game that takes the news to people rather than expecting them to go find it.
Perhaps left leaning podcasts could help by not regularly damning with faint praise Democratic accomplishments or Democratic candidates. PSA, especially the Tuesday pod, far too often looked down their noses at what Biden did or Harris’s campaign. Far too often, whatever they did was just not good enough for Jon, Jon, and, especially, Tommy.
I don’t want you guys to be the Fox News of the left, but, jeez, you sure didn’t help.
As someone who put in a lot of miles knocking doors and a lot of hours phone banking, I can attest that hearing a range of views about Biden and Dems in general really helped me talk to voters. If I only wanted cheerleading, I'd watch Lawrence O'Donnell. But I want to win elections, so I listen to PSA.
And by the way, a lot of that work was for a campaign that flipped a House seat from red to blue.
I thought Pod Save America's critiques were constructive. They illustrate how the Democrats are a broad coalition willing to engage in healthy internal debates rather than a cult that reflexively showers praise on dear leader.
We don’t need ‘dear leader’ type of praise, but the fairly constant drumbeat of ‘not good enough’ has the effect of depressing enthusiasm and turnout.
From the Afghanistan withdrawal to the many important, but not exactly sexy, economic proposals and bills passed, there was a drone of ‘not sufficient’ or ‘not sold the right way’, it was wearing and wearying.
What also didn’t help - the way in which the PSA crew’s default position was to cover for the legacy media. Our criticism of the legacy media folks was always denigrated and dismissed by Jon F.
I'm interested in an honest analysis of political events -- not propaganda. I also don't expect to always agree with a pundit's take.
If a president isn't doing well, wouldn't you expect that pundits would point out where his or her words and actions were "not sufficient"? In light of Biden's consistently weak approval ratings, there were plenty of things to critique. If anything, the Pod people could have been harder on Biden's decision to run for reelection.
My sense of Jon Favreau's views on the legacy media is that complaining about New York Times' headlines isn't all that helpful. I agree with him because, as Dan illustrates in the above article, the legacy media aren't as important in agenda setting as they used to be.
Again, do you imagine that any listener of PSA was subject to depressed enthusiasm and demotivated to turn out?
As for the legacy media, 90% of the factual knowledge any of us have about the last four years came from the legacy media. Unless you imagine that podcasters or MSNBC or influencers have fact-gathering reporters covering politicians.
You may not like the headline or editorial writers, you may not like the balance, and you may argue with the editorial slant. But once the legacy media goes the way of the dinosaur we are all going to be sitting around wondering what’s going on.
Trump’s criticism of the legacy media has been so successful that it has affected Dems almost to the same extent that it affected MAGA.
PSA is kind of strictly for political junkies, though. It kind of doesn’t matter what they say—remember when Lovett was on Survivor and none of the others recognized PSA as a podcast except one guy who said he thought he’d heard of it?
I don’t think progressive podcasts are the answer. One of the big lessons, that has been showing up in polling for a while, is that progressives (not their economic agenda, progressives themselves) are unpopular. Someone needs to find a way to escape the whole “woke/cancel culture” business by finding a way to disown the excesses and arrogance without abandoning the core values.
I agree that Pod Save America is more for political junkies, although it is more entertaining than the usual news program. Their editorial slant strikes me as primarily mainstream centrist-to-liberal Democrat, although programming has made some effort to include progressive voices such as Bernie Sanders and AOC.
I keep tabs on a number of media outlets whose mission seems to be to move the Democrats rightward, e.g., The Liberal Patriot and The Welcome Party. My perception is that they bend over backwards to find ways to marginalize the progressive wing of the party.
I suspect that such efforts do more to meet the needs of the vested interests that fund them than helps the Democratic party. If we distance ourselves too much from progressives, the main result may be to boost the chances of third-party candidates. Not a recipe for success in swing states.
Meanwhile, we can count on Republicans to find SOMETHING to demonize Democrats about -- and if necessary they will make it up. We need stronger media venues to push back against their propaganda.
I agree. As I have said before, I am a Democrat. I am tired of taking incoming fire from MAGA on the right and Progressives on the left.
We don't want mindless agreements, but everyone must read the room -- including Dems. I know, we know that we are just 'right!'
But if one side is pummeling any Dem thought, breath and wardrobe, it is NOT the time for endless media outlets to just pick at the same old details only about Dems.
Look around at where we are. As a team (?) how do we create a fair playing field? Criminals, felons, Soviet 'partners' occupy the core govt. for four years. Soviet news commenters are thrilled and reiterating everything Felon 47 said on the campaign trail (HE HEARD IT FROM THEM). But, you know, ... bad debate performance ...
Perhaps the 80th comment about Joe having a bad day does not promote DEM interests, OR the country's. Honestly, MSM, and several podcasters, Substack writers continue to beat this drum.
The assault on Joe's morally correct pardon of abused Hunter is another example.
How many pardons did what's his name make? Did you all REMIND the media and the world that that fact exists? Are pundits just trying to impress other pundits or themselves with their brilliant conversation skills? What are their goals? Who do they think they are helping? Are they succeeding (are they looking around)?
They are just bringing Felon 47 along to further confirm we are FLAWED! I hope everyone stuck in these loops faces that truth at some point in this century, maybe before it is too late.
Consider this? The Dems obediently agreed to the Felon's assessment about his OPPONENT, our kick-ass President, and nominee, three months before the election. Look at where it left us.
They drove him out, publicly!! Flogged Joe, and continue to this DAY! So that act confirmed to everyone in the country and the world that our OPPONENT Melon Felon, IS EVEN RIGHT ABOUT Joe.
Who are current media helping? Not the country. Not the Dems. Not the poor and disadvantaged ... ETC.
It's time to learn new ways of communicating. At what point will it be important enough to change.
Read the room!
I wouldn’t listen to a politics podcast that was just rah rah rah all the time. PSA surely will never be effective by being a pale imitation of Fox News.
Do you really believe that the occasional very constructive criticism by PSA actually hurt the democratic cause? That people listened and either didn’t vote or voted for Trump because of anything
they heard?
We lost the election for actual reasons. Seems like it would be helpful to have PSA point those reasons out while there still can be a course correction possible. If anything, PSA did not point out sharply enough the faults that put Trump back in the WH.
All due respect, but isn't a big part of the problem that the people who aren't being reached are well outside the PSA audience? I'm agnostic on the question of "how critical political junkies should be." Bottom line is that more voices outside this echo chamber need to be addressing the aspects of politics that matter to people who hate politics.
Absolutely!
Second. Be objective but constructive.
If you are looking to blame the messenger, the messengers you should be upset with are Biden and Harris.
I disagree. Isn't it just the thing they would say? With bare 1.4x points between them? Surely it was nothing they did!?!
Hamas is killing children.
Israel is bloody because Arabs have started war each time, never Israel. It is not the current topic, but MSM is misinforming many people. Israel is a Democracy; Arabs, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Druids all school together, play on sports teams together, and fight in the IDF together, etc. It destroys the comfortable narrative that MSM sets up, but history tells the story.
Sorry to burst your bubble. The UN Chairperson is photographed driving weapons to Hamas as well. Lots of Arabs in these organizations. Last response. It's time that you expanded your understanding of the region and history of all conflicts with Arab attackers (they are always Arab attackers. Best of luck.
Okay, first of all, not even moderate Dems watch MSNBC. That’s how partisan it is perceived to be.
Second of all, part of trump’s media dominance was an own goal on the part of the rest of the world. I am a headline skimmer. I read the articles that interest me. I do not watch TV. 8 to 9 out of 10 headlines were about trump. Even on Crooked pods, almost all the conversation was about him. On any given day, there would be 4 headlines that talked about trump and zero that mentioned Harris. We gave aaalllll that to him on a silver platter.
Third, less repugnant GOPers dominate the Sunday news shows. Which softens the harsh messaging and makes them look normal.
Fourth, they stay on message. For 2 weeks, it was Mr. Potato Head and EVERYONE was on board. The next week it was a fabricated story about a trans athlete, then the dogs and cats, or whatever. The point is, somehow someone has created a communications plan that is cohesive and air tight and they deploy it with accuracy and focus. And all of them jump on board. Meanwhile, we’re still over here trying to plug all the holes in the dam.
Fifth, and this is maybe the most important thing. They spin the news their followers want to hear. They don’t report the news dispassionately and then hope it sinks in. They shake the salad dressing. We let the olive oil sit on the top and hope it somehow gets mixed in by accident.
There are 2 physics teachers in my kid’s grade. One stands at the front and lectures. The other teaches with experiments. Guess which teacher the kids want to have as their teacher. Obviously the hands on guy. Guess which teacher is probably giving her kids a more solid foundation in physics. The boring lecturer. We Dems are the boring lecturers. trump is the rollicking, rambunctious, exciting one. My point? It doesn’t matter what podcasts Dems get on. If their message is still staid and boring, it won’t appeal. The second Harris hired all the same old operatives who have been in the Dem party forever, everything got less fun.
We now have the opportunity to be the carnival. To be the fun parent. The physics teacher who teaches with hands on experiments.
The young kids I’ve talked to are disappointed with the Dem party. They feel like the old people once again missed the mark. But we old people are just going to shrug and ram another position paper down their throats bc it’s good for them. At some point, aren’t we going to have to realize that it’s not the media, it’s not the “tough environment”, it’s not the uneducated voters, none of that. It’s us.
Beth, I so agree. The analogy about the two teaching styles is perfect. If we just have normal liberal podcasts, only liberals will listen. Something has got to be interesting enough to catch some of the folks on the other side.
Did we give it to him, or did our CORPORATE MEDIA?
We certainly helped them along, gleefully.
Yes.
Some cogent points in your post. However, the medium to a large degree is still the message. If a candidate goes on Joe Rogan, the fact that they are on that platform gives them credibility with that audience. Sure, you've got to have something engaging and relevant to say once you're being interviewed, and not spout position papers, but as Dan was saying showing up in the right places is a lot of it, maybe 90 percent.
FUCK. YES. You go on and answer tough questions and the only thing that goes viral is a mistake or slip up. Then they bring in republicans to just spew bullshit so they can say they are fair to both sides and the clips go viral on YouTube as “Marco Rubio destroys Dana Bash” reinforcing their bullshit narrative when joe Rogan googles it on his show. The media is broken.
It’s completely bananas that they spent so much energy hammering Kamala for needing to share more policy specifics and do more interviews.
And Felon never does it at all!
Thanks for this. It will be very important for Dems to figure out how to use media sources to inform younger and "low information" voters about what actually happens over the next four years. We need to effectively pierce their fox etc bubble that tells them daily that "everything is awesome!!" also the massive grifting that is already happening. I hope there is lots of thought going into that aspect. 🙏🏼❤️🇺🇸
Let’s not play catchup. We have been trying to play catchup since Richard Viguerie started kicking our asses with computerized direct mail in the 1970s.
Just about the time we catch up, some GOP wizard invents a new twist (invent Fox! Influence Zuckerberg with ad purchases and flood the Facebook zone! Buy Twitter and take it to the Dark Side! Employ the Twit Strategy by leveraging influencers!).
Is it possible for Dems to seize the day by listening to our own feral geniuses and creating / catching the next wave?
And it will take money. And some legacy media. Dan, do you realize how popular AM radio still is? There’s a house being built next door and all the tradespeople seem to listen to Spanish or English AM.
Vastly expand Crooked to encompass all sorts of podcasts, find a friendly billionaire to fund (but not control) a mix of radio and TV. Start recruiting at the various Political Schools (like Axelrod’s Institute of Politics). Dan, run for party chair.
I agree, Dan for party chair!
We do need some rich folks to take create media sources. The current Maga billionaires didn't invest in media because they would get richer. They did it to change the country. And it's working. We need some really innovative thinking and lots of money for execution.
Honestly I recommend focusing on effective media strategy in VA and NJ, the only states holding gubernatorial elections next year. They are truly the next battle to test if our democracy will survive. Not only is there a desert of local media, there is real risk in NJ, where I live, that the governor’s race will swing to the GOP. Not for nothing our taxes are very high and NJ Transit (our train service into NYC) is an unbelievable disaster. Local races may not be sexy but they’re in many ways more important than federal elections.
Great idea!!!!!!!! Yes, we need to see this all as ongoing all the time
All 50 states!
I agree with your points but who decides? The right had Steve Bannon as the chief architect of their communication strategy and everyone fell in line. But who is driving the train on the left? I just don’t understand how “the Dems” come together?
More importantly, right-wing media was funded by billionaire donors. How do we find / encourage democracy loving billionaire donors to fund moderate and left-wing media? This unfortunately seems to be the crux of the problem.
Huh? “Democracy-loving billionaires” is an oxymoron.
Would you suggest we stop trying to get rid of Citizens United and get with the oligarchy program of the right?
Please tell me you’re being sarcastic.
Yes, I suggest we get our own populist oligarchs, because getting rid of the dreadful Citizens United decision isn’t going to happen in your lifetime. Why should we unilaterally disarm? So if any of the likes of Gates, Cuban, Hoffman, Powell-Job want to become the next Rupert Murdoch, our me down as a “yes.”
If we unilaterally disarm (money) while we wait for a Supreme Court to make the right decision on Citizens United, we will be approaching the next century.
I am supremely tired of listening to the “Oh, horrors!” crowd who hate money while having no alternatives.
They are out there. We have to offer ideas. Will loyal party members choose to listen to new ideas, new people? If not now, when?
We need information genius ... Pete Buttigieg!
Was Barack Obama a “known voice” in 2003?
This isn't my own observation - Kate Riga at Talking Points Memo wrote that "The content on the right is often not overtly political, but wraps ideology into more broadly 'cultural' fare" in making the case for the left to build out its own media machine - but it's freaking bang on and I want to expand on it. Like EVERYTHING on left-leaning channels/sites is politics, politics, politics, while on Breitbart's home page you find stories like "Disney Shelves Children’s Cartoon About Trans Athletes," "Harrison Ford Disembarks Private Jet in LA After Promoting Climate Change Activism," and so on.
Rather than go on at length about this I just want to mention that part of the strategy should be policing and amplifying the failings of WWE, UFC, crypto, and country music personalities the same way the MAGA media does with Hollywood and the MSM, no matter how petty or picayune.
I couldn't agree more. I believe the left's family argument should not be "how to make MSNBC or PSA better" but how to grow the field in which positive pro-left/anti-right messaging can grow and be received. That field needs to be distinctly NOT political media per se.
Or how about political while we live in these shark infested waters?
Dan, I really enjoyed your recent PSA interview with Sen. Jon Tesler. He had a lot of smart advice for Democrats, including thoughts on navigating the new media landscape. Highly recommended. He will be sorely missed in the Senate, I hope he will stay active in party politics.
The results of the last election underscored systemic weaknesses in Democratic communication strategies. Kamala Harris ran a campaign under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, and while mistakes were made, many of the challenges she faced were entrenched long before her candidacy. A confluence of factors—Biden’s approval ratings, economic disinformation, and the evolving media landscape—highlighted how Democrats have failed to adapt to a fundamentally changed communications environment.
We got problems!
-Traditional broadcast media predominantly reaches older audiences (55+), and trust in mainstream media has eroded, with less than 45% of voters relying on it as their primary news source.
-Right-wing networks, amplified by bots and loyal influencers, dominate the digital landscape with coordinated disinformation campaigns. These networks effectively foster trust and community among their audiences, spreading falsehoods that resonate with personal and cultural grievances.
-Democrats spent heavily on broadcast TV ads that did not reach disinformed voters or build meaningful connections. The fragmented nature of media consumption today requires a more integrated, adaptive approach.
- Democrats over rely on message alone. Effective messaging requires trusted messengers and channels. Without community trust, even the most compelling narratives fail to resonate. We need to treat voters as partners rather than targets.
- We need localized, ongoing engagement - Establish a "permanent campaign" mindset with consistent, community-centered communication.
Let's talk!
I was hopeful when "influencers" were given a seat among the media at the Dem Convention. Please share some data if they in any way affected the voting this time around. Many influencers with large followings got there by sharing which toothpaste they like and may rarely weigh in on political topics, possibly with little depth of understanding or the ability to explain the consequences for the working class folks we hope to win back. How do we develop a significant left-leaning media system that shows up where these less-engaged folks will be and more importantly, be willing to listen to political ideas instead of pop-culture topics?
This! We shouldn't look to satisfy the PSA audience, but instead to create new audiences and reach among folks who think politics isn't part of their lives.
Thanks for writing about this problem so clearly. What now? How? I’m one of the Medicare legacy media consumers but completely 100% agree with this. The 2025 agenda is in motion so now the consequences need to be understood by voters in real time. I feel pretty helpless and I either have to be proactive and do something or ignore it it all. Otherwise I’ll go insane. (I can’t ignore it all even if it kills me).
Can we and our current leaders rise to the task of making this happen now? Maybe radio station or TV channel in certain states are up for sale? Make a list of donors now.
This is a great perspective for the 2024 election. My question is, when we try to take back the House and Senate in 2026 who will be our Joe Rogans or MELK boys? Nothing in this space stays the same for two years, how do we identify the trusted voices and sources in 2026?
As always, thank you so much for your thoughts. I was also thinking that we really need to hear from Dem presidents, hopefully we have one again, on podcasts on an ongoing basis. They should do weekly updates on the accomplishments on different podcasts. Like new “fireside chats”.
When will it dawn on the body politic that putting faith in political parties is as much a losing proposition as is putting faith in the media?
Trumpism is a cult. It originated with a fascist mob boss who recognized the distrust of the working class for both parties. He originally identified with the Democratic Party, could get no traction there, and set his sights in the Republican Party. His takeover was swift and decisive because, as a recent analysis published somewhere noted, the difference between the parties now is not one of economics but rather education. Dan’s post effectively supports that argument. And Trump knew of what he spoke when he said he loved the uneducated. As do his Cabinet nominees.
Can non-Republicans succeed by playing the same game that Republicans do? Perhaps, but that requires us giving in and accepting that the voters we need to reach are, indeed, uneducated sheep looking for a better shepherd.
Is that where we are?
Trump’s vote total remained pretty much what it was four years ago. I don’t hear the media talking about that, which doesn’t surprise me.
They love to talk about all the votes he picked up from traditionally Democratic groups but not the source of the essentially equal number of votes he had to lose to break even, which is what he did. That could be in part due to the inability of the average media figure to do basic math, of course.
Democrats lost for reasons that essentially have NOTHING to do with Trump outperforming 2020. Trump didn’t win this year so much as Democrats LOST.
No amount of newspeak messaging and media will alter the fact that most Democrats did not want Biden to run again SINCE THE DAY HE WAS ELECTED. Polls after the midterms said it again and again and again. Did the Democratic Party listen?
Does it cross anyone’s mind that some if not many of those millions of voters lost trust in the Democratic Party? That Republicans succeeded in getting them to believe that they have no voice within the party? That the party is corrupt to the core and cannot be trusted to reform from within? That voting doesn’t matter? That US democracy is already beyond hope?
My sense is this pretty much the strategy Europe’s autocrats.
And I see no reason to believe that the Democratic Party has the will to reform from within. All I hear so far is all we need to do is tweak the messaging strategy.
Bullshit.
Running again was Biden’s decision, not the Party’s. There is not really a mechanism for taking the nomination away from the current president, whether popular or not. (See also: Carter, Jimmy). Biden running or not was not a party decision. It was his. Someone serious could have entered the primaries, but no one did.
I did not see a single ad from the GOP that wooed Democrats by pointing out that they have no voice in the party. Nor did any Democrats fail to vote because the party is “corrupt to the core”. Dems fired Biden and Harris for high prices and shitty border control. Or other reasons, but those are my guesses.
A Party can’t be corrupt. Members within can be corrupt. Are you really saying that Dem party officials are corrupt? Specifics?
Any group has at least a few corrupt individuals. But I don’t agree with your generalizations, especially without specifics. We’re the party who insisted corrupt officeholders be prosecuted.
Europe’s autocrats? Please name me an EU country run by autocrats?
The Party is NOT corrupt! The issue is group communications, targeted messaging from the top to the 'bottom' so we state level folks can focus on accessing voters where they live. It involves using technology in a smart way and we need to gain control of our messages.
Yes. I kind of think Democracy works this way for a reason. Clooney and Pelosi had no right to thwart the will of the voters.
Perhaps we could all think of ourselves on a team and work towards our common goals?
Many years ago I read about Karl Rove sending operatives to Midwestern bowling alleys and other blue collar hangouts to learn about their likes and dislikes, their day to day concerns, their “language”. Rove fed this info to the right wing media machine and the rest is history. It was strategic and successful.
We need to identify today’s bowling alleys and spend time there, not just to observe, but to become one of them. It should be a paradigm shift in progressive communication.
Great essay, Dan. You’re on the right track.
Alex Wagner did some great work before the election where she visited union meetings and talked to folks who were working only because of Biden's infrastructure or chips act (i can't recall exactly), but they were still mostly non-media- consuming Trump voters. I'd like to see a ground game that takes the news to people rather than expecting them to go find it.