Maybe we can start by not kneecapping elected Democrats every time they don't do things exactly the way we want them to. I get it, some of our folks are terrible at messaging, so ignore the ones who are bad at it and lift up those who are good at it. Instead, though, we often drive even more negativity towards Democrats by constantly shredding them for not being perfect on all things.
Celebrate the gifted communicators like Mamdani, AOC, Pete, Pritzker, and a few of the more talented Senators, and ignore the rest. Yes, again, I get it, Schumer is bad at communicating anything - so don't give him more oxygen by racing to social media to describe in agonizing detail about how badly he screwed the pooch. Celebrate when he doesn't puke on his own shoes, but don't add to the churn of negativity.
We have agency - let's start by focusing on those who are doing a great job, and by not making the perfect the enemy of the good.
If Dems can’t break through telling people that the GOP wants to kill them, maybe a corruption discussion would work? Like trump banking that tariff money in the Treasury so that he can spend it like a Mafia Kingpin? Americans don’t like property theft, after all…
Hi Dan, I find myself becoming increasingly nervous (shocking) about Dems not being able to message what should be an easy thing to tell people. I know we might not feel the true pain of the bill until after midterms but the Democrats have failed so many times to break thru and the representatives that can get eaten by their own (Zohrhan Mamdani, AOC, Bernie) it's so upsetting and I'm starting to resign myself to the hellscape that the US is becoming and getting ready to send my child in a basket across the sea. Anyway...
Dan, if I had my way you'd be locked into a cell and make you do nothing but produce these newsletters.
I am a professional data person, in industry not politics, and as I have become more engaged in politics I get discouraged by all the opinion/takes and un-supported speculations. Your newsletters are like water in the desert for me.
You nailed it Dan. Democrats are still fighting the wrong war. The GOP is cutting Medicaid, stealing from working people to pay billionaires, and half the country hasn’t even heard about it because we’re too busy begging the New York Times to write better headlines. Stop playing patty-cake with “traditional” media. Get in the mud, flood social and local spaces with brutal, simple, emotional truth. If we don’t wake up and actually fight where the fight is, we deserve to lose. We must make our message and the stakes clear: “They are cutting Medicaid to give billionaires tax cuts” is a powerful message that almost everyone understands and dislikes.
The leadership of the Party must change. Schumer and Jeffries are both exceedingly ineffective messengers. Schumer still has a flip phone and is proud of it! And now we have Dems actively working to undermine Mamdani’s candidacy. A development that will be broadcast far and wide in young progressive circles, thus alienating the very people who are the future of our Party. And did I mention how far too many Dem Reps and Senators are treating Trump term 2 as something to be tolerated rather than vociferously opposed with my own Senator Chris Murphy a notable exception. The Dems are complicit in the Big Stinking Turd of a Bill being passed. They engaged far too late to be effective in their opposition. It seems the only thing the Dems are good at it is flooding my phone with urgent requests for more money
But aren’t there plenty of other characteristics we need to bring into our judgement? After all, Pelosi was at best a middling messenger—it simply wasn’t her strong suit. But she was maybe the best House Speaker in history, intelligent, hyper-focused, both disciplined and able to corral others. She also knew exactly where each vote was, and how to persuade reluctant members into helping pass legislation. The same was true of many Senate majority leaders.
Sorry, doesn't matter what new systems are launched, they must be something that reaches the right people in places most of us have never even been or at least never tried sharing political ideas! Not more media, more door knocking, more being in places where the "right" voters congregate, both virtually but also at local events (not Dem events, community events) and local gatherings places like street fairs, parks, hiking and biking locations, and whatever fits the culture and communities we want to reach.
A change like this will require the time, attention and energy of senior elected officials party leaders, and candidates. Without that, it will fail.
It can’t be a five year plan. It has to be a this year plan, with an orientation of continuous improvement
Politicians need to be tough in quitting their old-style media consultants, because their orientation is to continue to get rich selling ad packages to local and national TV and get hefty kickbacks.
Some suggested steps:
1. Invest in Influencer Partnerships: Collaborate with content creators who already have credibility with key demographics—especially younger, less politically engaged voters.
2. Create Short, Emotionally Resonant Content: Use platforms like TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts to produce quick videos that tell personal stories, explain policy impacts, and highlight Republican extremism—especially in areas like health care, wages, and rights.
3. Speak Native Internet Language: Avoid political jargon. Use memes, trends, and humor to make content more digestible and shareable without dumbing it down.
4. Decentralize the Message: Encourage grassroots and local organizers to become digital messengers. Authentic, community-rooted voices are more persuasive than polished national ads.
5. Repurpose Traditional Media: When Democrats appear on traditional outlets, cut the best 15–30 second moments and push them out on social platforms with captions and context.
6. Fund and Elevate Progressive Media Creators: Help build a sustainable left-leaning media ecosystem by promoting and financially supporting creators on Substack, YouTube, podcasts, and other platforms.
7. Quit obsessing over how to rid the party of dinosaurs. They get rid of themselves by not adapting to change. The more we improve the media environment, the faster their lack of adaptive skills will doom them.
This moment in media disruption is strikingly similar to earlier seismic shifts—like the rise of radio in the 1930s and television in the 1950s—each of which transformed political communication and rewarded those who adapted early.
FDR’s Fireside Chats were a masterclass in leveraging radio. While many politicians still relied on newspapers or speeches, Roosevelt understood radio’s intimacy. By speaking directly to the American people in plain, reassuring language, he bypassed gatekeepers and built a powerful emotional connection.
JFK’s embrace of television in the 1960 campaign mirrored that adaptation. His poise and charisma on-screen contrasted sharply with Nixon’s discomfort, especially in their televised debates, which swayed public perception and arguably helped JFK win.
Today’s transition to a social-first, algorithm-driven media landscape is no less consequential. Like past transitions, it favors immediacy, relatability, and visual storytelling. Just as previous generations had to master new formats, modern campaigns must now build digital fluency—not just to keep up, but to survive politically.
Those who fail to adapt will increasingly find themselves talking to each other, while their opponents speak directly to the voters.
There will be political media consultants who can’t make such a transition, but that’s okay. Replace them. More worrisome are the politicians and senior party officials who can’t manage to quarterback this transition.
Dan is right, but he's been saying the same thing for 8 years and Democratic leadership hasn't listened at all. They should have been combating Sinclair a decade ago and fighting disinformation on Spanish speaking media. But I would bet the majority of Dem leadership is more concerned with stopping Zohran Mamdani than fighting Republicans. We won't win the midterms with this lot in charge and with Schumer and Gillibrand picking "safe centrist veterans" for critical Senate seats who inspire nobody. I have no faith in these people.
Dan, I am your classic highly engaged, politically obsessed news consumer. I DO subscribe to many (10-12) Substack and podcast alternative media content producers (like yourself and PSA - but also Adam Kissinger, Amy Siskind, HCR, Gavin, Sam Harris, etc). But isn’t that also an echo chamber for progressive news?
By the way, I’ve begun identifying as a Liberal. Progressive is a tainted word and is a place holder for AOC. I’ve got nothing against AOC, but she is as polarizing as Nancy was.
I am also not an unqualified admirer of AOC. While there is much to admire—her intelligence, her quickness, her communications ability, she seems to have political instincts that can only survive in her solid blue D+19 (even in a Trump year). She can rabble-rouse, but can she help Dems win a majority?
Steve Bannon’s War Room was like MSNBC for MAGA voters. House Republicans would get off the floor and race over to Bannon’s bunker to talk (spread lies and misinformation), but still he created a distribution system for all things Trump. The War Room is a circus and I find all their information platforms nauseating however it was Rush Limbaugh who created the ecosystem that became the model for rightwing talk, that evolved into podcasts, IG, TikTok, etc. I think Rush was a danger to democracy but he knew how to entertain while he spread his noxious garbage. We democrats are serious about our news but in this era we need to find ways to bring the news, the facts, the truth in ways that are entertaining. I hate having to sacrifice serious journalism to circus journalism but this is where we are. Do you ever notice how when Trump is losing his messengers sound like they’re winning?
I won’t say whom but we have some messengers (politicians and hosts) who always present like victims. It’s a bad look.
This morning on a local radio station, they were doing one of those "answer 5 questions/compete against the DJ" bits. The first question they asked the woman on the street was "name the three branches of government". She couldn't name even one. The DJ got 2 correct (Judicial, Executive...and her 3rd guess was Organizational or something equally stupid). We are completely and totally screwed because of what Dan is saying above, but also because our education system is so unbelievably bad, or at least, people are so unbelievable dumb that they can't remember what they learned in a high school Government class.
I know that requiring people to pass any kind of test before allowing them to vote is antithetical to our American way, but I'm starting to believe that we should require any person who wants to vote to pass a basic civics/government test. Maybe it's the one they give to people who want to become citizens. But people who can't even name the three branches of government sure as hell shouldn't be picking the people who work in it and make the laws that affect everyone.
I think that might take a constitutional amendment. It would also be illegal as to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which, among other things, outlawed literacy tests.
The basic premise of the Constitution is that the right to vote is unfettered. And of course we have made that right available to a far broader population.
Wouldn’t it be nice if parents and various interest groups concentrated more on enriching education—adding to what is taught—instead of banning books and making certain ideas taboo in our schools?
Yeah, I understand the difficulties and the reasons behind why this will never happen. But...it really does emphasize that the fundamental problem is ignorance. People have no idea what they are voting for and just go in and pull the lever for "R" or "D" and then we all have to live with the outcome. That is simply not sustainable. You can't have a functioning democracy when the people are ignorant of 1) how it even works and 2) what their vote means. Isn't that why the Founding Fathers set up a Republic instead of a true Democracy? They understood that the masses couldn't be expected to understand the complexities and nuances of running a country, so they vote for representatives who do (in theory) have that knowledge? And yet we ended up with Marjorie Taylor Greene. Good plan - too bad it didn't hold.
If we can't all agree that knowing basics about our government (such as being able to name the 3 branches and what senators and representatives do) should be the least voters can do - and that not knowing that stuff is ignorance regardless of party - then we are doomed. It's not about judging policy and ideology as ignorant or not, it's about agreeing that responsible citizenship means knowing the basics.
While I understand your motives the challenge for us is to do a better job educating people. But the history of one group disenfranchising another—no matter how noble the reason—is pretty grim in this country’s history.
So spot-on, as Dan has been for ages, pointing to the attention gap, and the new poll just draws a thicker underline beneath it. Here to recommend, as one example of progressive social-first media, V Spehar's Under the Desk News, which is TikTok-forward but also consumable on Instagram and Substack. UTDN was today named a TIME 100 Creator--and if readers of this NL could use a glimpse into what the creator economy, the attention economy, is all about, I also highly suggest you check out this list. Very illuminating. https://time.com/collections/time100-creators-2025/7299181/under-the-desk-news/
I’d venture to say that ground game is going to be absolutely key in the midterms, as it was in the 2018 cycle. Dan’s findings dovetail nicely with my own years of experience knocking doors in (and ultimately flipping) California’s 27th district: most infrequent or independent voters have no idea what’s happening politically, but they’re open to learning about it from a friendly face on their doorstep — and once they know, they commit to voting for Democrats.
If you live in a current or potential Senate battleground state, and/or anywhere near a swingable House district, please seriously consider volunteering to canvass. Personally I can’t wait to start speaking with voters in CA40 and helping to send Young Kim packing.
I think the nationwide actions by groups like Indivisible,
50501, and the Activate networks are one way of bypassing traditional media to reach the people who haven’t been paying attention. Seeing people in your community standing up is a hard message to ignore.
Maybe we can start by not kneecapping elected Democrats every time they don't do things exactly the way we want them to. I get it, some of our folks are terrible at messaging, so ignore the ones who are bad at it and lift up those who are good at it. Instead, though, we often drive even more negativity towards Democrats by constantly shredding them for not being perfect on all things.
Celebrate the gifted communicators like Mamdani, AOC, Pete, Pritzker, and a few of the more talented Senators, and ignore the rest. Yes, again, I get it, Schumer is bad at communicating anything - so don't give him more oxygen by racing to social media to describe in agonizing detail about how badly he screwed the pooch. Celebrate when he doesn't puke on his own shoes, but don't add to the churn of negativity.
We have agency - let's start by focusing on those who are doing a great job, and by not making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Amen.
Agree wholeheartedly
If Dems can’t break through telling people that the GOP wants to kill them, maybe a corruption discussion would work? Like trump banking that tariff money in the Treasury so that he can spend it like a Mafia Kingpin? Americans don’t like property theft, after all…
Hi Dan, I find myself becoming increasingly nervous (shocking) about Dems not being able to message what should be an easy thing to tell people. I know we might not feel the true pain of the bill until after midterms but the Democrats have failed so many times to break thru and the representatives that can get eaten by their own (Zohrhan Mamdani, AOC, Bernie) it's so upsetting and I'm starting to resign myself to the hellscape that the US is becoming and getting ready to send my child in a basket across the sea. Anyway...
Dan, if I had my way you'd be locked into a cell and make you do nothing but produce these newsletters.
I am a professional data person, in industry not politics, and as I have become more engaged in politics I get discouraged by all the opinion/takes and un-supported speculations. Your newsletters are like water in the desert for me.
Long story short - Thanks and keep it up.
You nailed it Dan. Democrats are still fighting the wrong war. The GOP is cutting Medicaid, stealing from working people to pay billionaires, and half the country hasn’t even heard about it because we’re too busy begging the New York Times to write better headlines. Stop playing patty-cake with “traditional” media. Get in the mud, flood social and local spaces with brutal, simple, emotional truth. If we don’t wake up and actually fight where the fight is, we deserve to lose. We must make our message and the stakes clear: “They are cutting Medicaid to give billionaires tax cuts” is a powerful message that almost everyone understands and dislikes.
The leadership of the Party must change. Schumer and Jeffries are both exceedingly ineffective messengers. Schumer still has a flip phone and is proud of it! And now we have Dems actively working to undermine Mamdani’s candidacy. A development that will be broadcast far and wide in young progressive circles, thus alienating the very people who are the future of our Party. And did I mention how far too many Dem Reps and Senators are treating Trump term 2 as something to be tolerated rather than vociferously opposed with my own Senator Chris Murphy a notable exception. The Dems are complicit in the Big Stinking Turd of a Bill being passed. They engaged far too late to be effective in their opposition. It seems the only thing the Dems are good at it is flooding my phone with urgent requests for more money
But aren’t there plenty of other characteristics we need to bring into our judgement? After all, Pelosi was at best a middling messenger—it simply wasn’t her strong suit. But she was maybe the best House Speaker in history, intelligent, hyper-focused, both disciplined and able to corral others. She also knew exactly where each vote was, and how to persuade reluctant members into helping pass legislation. The same was true of many Senate majority leaders.
Democrats.com just launched a new progressive video hub designed to battle the daily onslaught of rightwing propaganda and lies with the truth.
Every day, our community finds, upvotes, and shares the best videos from a new generation of passionate creators.
We hope you'll join us!
Sorry, doesn't matter what new systems are launched, they must be something that reaches the right people in places most of us have never even been or at least never tried sharing political ideas! Not more media, more door knocking, more being in places where the "right" voters congregate, both virtually but also at local events (not Dem events, community events) and local gatherings places like street fairs, parks, hiking and biking locations, and whatever fits the culture and communities we want to reach.
This sounds like exactly the type of grass roots messaging we need.
Messaging in this new media world is not an exact science, so let’s add all sorts of sources and voices.
“Passionate creators” is exactly what we need, in my opinion.
A change like this will require the time, attention and energy of senior elected officials party leaders, and candidates. Without that, it will fail.
It can’t be a five year plan. It has to be a this year plan, with an orientation of continuous improvement
Politicians need to be tough in quitting their old-style media consultants, because their orientation is to continue to get rich selling ad packages to local and national TV and get hefty kickbacks.
Some suggested steps:
1. Invest in Influencer Partnerships: Collaborate with content creators who already have credibility with key demographics—especially younger, less politically engaged voters.
2. Create Short, Emotionally Resonant Content: Use platforms like TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts to produce quick videos that tell personal stories, explain policy impacts, and highlight Republican extremism—especially in areas like health care, wages, and rights.
3. Speak Native Internet Language: Avoid political jargon. Use memes, trends, and humor to make content more digestible and shareable without dumbing it down.
4. Decentralize the Message: Encourage grassroots and local organizers to become digital messengers. Authentic, community-rooted voices are more persuasive than polished national ads.
5. Repurpose Traditional Media: When Democrats appear on traditional outlets, cut the best 15–30 second moments and push them out on social platforms with captions and context.
6. Fund and Elevate Progressive Media Creators: Help build a sustainable left-leaning media ecosystem by promoting and financially supporting creators on Substack, YouTube, podcasts, and other platforms.
7. Quit obsessing over how to rid the party of dinosaurs. They get rid of themselves by not adapting to change. The more we improve the media environment, the faster their lack of adaptive skills will doom them.
This moment in media disruption is strikingly similar to earlier seismic shifts—like the rise of radio in the 1930s and television in the 1950s—each of which transformed political communication and rewarded those who adapted early.
FDR’s Fireside Chats were a masterclass in leveraging radio. While many politicians still relied on newspapers or speeches, Roosevelt understood radio’s intimacy. By speaking directly to the American people in plain, reassuring language, he bypassed gatekeepers and built a powerful emotional connection.
JFK’s embrace of television in the 1960 campaign mirrored that adaptation. His poise and charisma on-screen contrasted sharply with Nixon’s discomfort, especially in their televised debates, which swayed public perception and arguably helped JFK win.
Today’s transition to a social-first, algorithm-driven media landscape is no less consequential. Like past transitions, it favors immediacy, relatability, and visual storytelling. Just as previous generations had to master new formats, modern campaigns must now build digital fluency—not just to keep up, but to survive politically.
Those who fail to adapt will increasingly find themselves talking to each other, while their opponents speak directly to the voters.
There will be political media consultants who can’t make such a transition, but that’s okay. Replace them. More worrisome are the politicians and senior party officials who can’t manage to quarterback this transition.
Fantastic insight!
Dan is right, but he's been saying the same thing for 8 years and Democratic leadership hasn't listened at all. They should have been combating Sinclair a decade ago and fighting disinformation on Spanish speaking media. But I would bet the majority of Dem leadership is more concerned with stopping Zohran Mamdani than fighting Republicans. We won't win the midterms with this lot in charge and with Schumer and Gillibrand picking "safe centrist veterans" for critical Senate seats who inspire nobody. I have no faith in these people.
Dan, I am your classic highly engaged, politically obsessed news consumer. I DO subscribe to many (10-12) Substack and podcast alternative media content producers (like yourself and PSA - but also Adam Kissinger, Amy Siskind, HCR, Gavin, Sam Harris, etc). But isn’t that also an echo chamber for progressive news?
By the way, I’ve begun identifying as a Liberal. Progressive is a tainted word and is a place holder for AOC. I’ve got nothing against AOC, but she is as polarizing as Nancy was.
I am also not an unqualified admirer of AOC. While there is much to admire—her intelligence, her quickness, her communications ability, she seems to have political instincts that can only survive in her solid blue D+19 (even in a Trump year). She can rabble-rouse, but can she help Dems win a majority?
Steve Bannon’s War Room was like MSNBC for MAGA voters. House Republicans would get off the floor and race over to Bannon’s bunker to talk (spread lies and misinformation), but still he created a distribution system for all things Trump. The War Room is a circus and I find all their information platforms nauseating however it was Rush Limbaugh who created the ecosystem that became the model for rightwing talk, that evolved into podcasts, IG, TikTok, etc. I think Rush was a danger to democracy but he knew how to entertain while he spread his noxious garbage. We democrats are serious about our news but in this era we need to find ways to bring the news, the facts, the truth in ways that are entertaining. I hate having to sacrifice serious journalism to circus journalism but this is where we are. Do you ever notice how when Trump is losing his messengers sound like they’re winning?
I won’t say whom but we have some messengers (politicians and hosts) who always present like victims. It’s a bad look.
This morning on a local radio station, they were doing one of those "answer 5 questions/compete against the DJ" bits. The first question they asked the woman on the street was "name the three branches of government". She couldn't name even one. The DJ got 2 correct (Judicial, Executive...and her 3rd guess was Organizational or something equally stupid). We are completely and totally screwed because of what Dan is saying above, but also because our education system is so unbelievably bad, or at least, people are so unbelievable dumb that they can't remember what they learned in a high school Government class.
I know that requiring people to pass any kind of test before allowing them to vote is antithetical to our American way, but I'm starting to believe that we should require any person who wants to vote to pass a basic civics/government test. Maybe it's the one they give to people who want to become citizens. But people who can't even name the three branches of government sure as hell shouldn't be picking the people who work in it and make the laws that affect everyone.
I think that might take a constitutional amendment. It would also be illegal as to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which, among other things, outlawed literacy tests.
The basic premise of the Constitution is that the right to vote is unfettered. And of course we have made that right available to a far broader population.
Wouldn’t it be nice if parents and various interest groups concentrated more on enriching education—adding to what is taught—instead of banning books and making certain ideas taboo in our schools?
Yeah, I understand the difficulties and the reasons behind why this will never happen. But...it really does emphasize that the fundamental problem is ignorance. People have no idea what they are voting for and just go in and pull the lever for "R" or "D" and then we all have to live with the outcome. That is simply not sustainable. You can't have a functioning democracy when the people are ignorant of 1) how it even works and 2) what their vote means. Isn't that why the Founding Fathers set up a Republic instead of a true Democracy? They understood that the masses couldn't be expected to understand the complexities and nuances of running a country, so they vote for representatives who do (in theory) have that knowledge? And yet we ended up with Marjorie Taylor Greene. Good plan - too bad it didn't hold.
A plan like that, though, makes you vulnerable to another group deciding you and I are ignorant and challenging our right to vote.
If we can't all agree that knowing basics about our government (such as being able to name the 3 branches and what senators and representatives do) should be the least voters can do - and that not knowing that stuff is ignorance regardless of party - then we are doomed. It's not about judging policy and ideology as ignorant or not, it's about agreeing that responsible citizenship means knowing the basics.
While I understand your motives the challenge for us is to do a better job educating people. But the history of one group disenfranchising another—no matter how noble the reason—is pretty grim in this country’s history.
So spot-on, as Dan has been for ages, pointing to the attention gap, and the new poll just draws a thicker underline beneath it. Here to recommend, as one example of progressive social-first media, V Spehar's Under the Desk News, which is TikTok-forward but also consumable on Instagram and Substack. UTDN was today named a TIME 100 Creator--and if readers of this NL could use a glimpse into what the creator economy, the attention economy, is all about, I also highly suggest you check out this list. Very illuminating. https://time.com/collections/time100-creators-2025/7299181/under-the-desk-news/
And support the Meidas Touch Network.
I’d venture to say that ground game is going to be absolutely key in the midterms, as it was in the 2018 cycle. Dan’s findings dovetail nicely with my own years of experience knocking doors in (and ultimately flipping) California’s 27th district: most infrequent or independent voters have no idea what’s happening politically, but they’re open to learning about it from a friendly face on their doorstep — and once they know, they commit to voting for Democrats.
If you live in a current or potential Senate battleground state, and/or anywhere near a swingable House district, please seriously consider volunteering to canvass. Personally I can’t wait to start speaking with voters in CA40 and helping to send Young Kim packing.
I wrote about how Democrats can have a social first strategy and not just have digital as an afterthought:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thenewdealsghost/p/democracy-depends-on-tik-tok?r=6rdx2&utm_medium=ios
I think the nationwide actions by groups like Indivisible,
50501, and the Activate networks are one way of bypassing traditional media to reach the people who haven’t been paying attention. Seeing people in your community standing up is a hard message to ignore.