It’s nice to have the actual numbers but i feel like we already knew the trends here. My concern is when we say “democrats need to do….”, who exactly are we talking about? On the republican side, you can name 3 or 4 people that craft the message that every politician follows (Bannon, Kirk, etc.) Who is that for democrats? We just spent months talking about the existential crisis that Trump represents and now post election, we’re just following the same normal schedule. The DNC will elect its new chair in February. Why wait so long? If ever there was time for war room strategy/ thinking it’s now. The lack of a cohesive message and delivery behind Trump’s nominees is infuriating. We just continue to waste valuable time.
I agree. SOMEONE high up on the Democratic side should be putting out a message-of-the-day that the rest of us can echo. That message should be skewering, fact-based and contribute to a powerful, unflattering image of Trump and the Republicans--corrupt, greedy, unpatriotic billionaires, untethered to reality--that we need to hammer into the American psyche.
The D Party has so many super communicators- who are rarely heard. Likely presidential candidates could start doing messaging now, and be known quantities when primaries are here. Mayor Pete, Gretchen Whitmer, just to name 2.
Excellent point! There is a vacuum now, at what seems like an important moment to craft a presence in the new reality. Message: Look at Democrats dither. No wonder they lost.
The losing party always dithers for a while. It’s a part of recovery, I guess. But right now, who is the leader of the Dem party? And let’s think through the message. And to Dan’s point, how do we get it out effectively?
So first, even mentioning CNN and MSNBC as options for news access shows a fundamental misunderstanding of those of us here in the cheap seats. Second, please stop with the darn polls. Yes, we make fun of trump because he relies on feelings instead of data but that is EXACTLY why he won. Because so do most Americans. We can tell them facts and cite statistics and prove our theories but all most people care about is how it FEELS to them. So, here are my suggestions that no one will take:
1. Dems need to have as many conversations with reality tv directors, writers, and producers as they can. Like seriously, after a debate, don’t wait to poll people. Have them text 29473 to vote for who won. trump won in part because he’s the one who spiked everyone’s adrenaline and cortisol. The person we all remember most from Survivor is Richard (sorry Jon) and there is a reason for that.
2. A serial podcast that looks at all the true crimes of all trump’s associates.
3. More roadside billboards for Dem candidates. Driving in the US felt like and assault for those of us who lean left bc in most places, the ONLY signs we saw were for trump
4. Dems need to figure out how to show up on right leaning media and not get their asses kicked. Which probably means being okay with being thought of as an asshole. The right relies on the rest of us following the rules of civility so they don’t have to
5. Dems don’t need more populist policies. Their policies are as populist as they can be. They just need to talk about them as populists. And actually act like populists. Lofty rhetoric is not populist. Treatises and polls and quantitative data are not populist. It’s not the message, it’s the delivery
I agree that the MAGA voices are better than a lot of Dems at effectively speaking. If I hear one more Dem talk about “regular order” or “the norms of democracy” I think I’ll scream.
But I disagree about polling. The Trump campaign had one of the top pollsters in the country, no doubt telling them where to spend financial and candidate resources, and how effective it was.
Well said, Beth. Absolutely agree with all of your points, particularly engaging the reality TV crew. I would also reiterate and underscore Susan Wagner's comment about looking forward, not just looking back. Democrats are expert at running retreads of past successful elections, not running the current (or future) one.
Feelings! Right! It was about the vibes all the way. And when the media were screaming that Harris was NOT doing enough hard interviews and sharing her policies enough--that was just so much hooey. She did all she could on the platforms she made it to--but in fact--people kept saying they didn't know her, because, given where they consume the news, they truly didn't know her. I am becoming sick of hearing how it was "not about identity politics" or that we make a mistake focusing on identity politics. It was all about identity politics. That is all Trump is--identity politics--all the time And the "undecided voters" were voting on vibes from the get go--and getting their "news" from streaming services and pod casts. You are right--we need to get the message delivery down better so they can hear us.
So much needs to change it is overwhelming. This is a huge part of what I rely on crooked media folks to help think through. We are all wounded and I get it takes time, also for the crooked folks.
These results support the assessment that Americans in general are self obsessed and uninformed. They are focused on their own concerns and not really interested in issues that they perceive, correctly or not as not impacting their daily lives. They will not change their position until the catastrophe of the Trump administration causes prices to rise, chaos in the streets and the job market to collapse- which it will. And it will still take some time for this broad swath of our citizenry to wake up to reality. And it is now apparent that Kamala agreed to meet with Joe Rogan, but he declined.
Your first sentence says it all. But instead of self-obsessed, how about substituting “obsessed with making sure their families have a chance to survive and maybe even thrive in an economy tilting away from them over 40 years”? And instead of uninformed, how about “part of the 80% of Americans who have no interest in politics”?
These are mostly people who work very hard for a living and deserve respect regardless of how people who like politics think of their approach to civic life.
Many of them sense the exact critique Dems have of them. And it’s why—if they think of Dems at all—they think of them as tongue-clucking know-it-alls.
It’s also our job to attract their votes. And I am trying to think of the last time someone successfully wooed my vote by making me realize I was self-obsessed and uninformed.
If you were right, I would agree that people who are worried just about paying their bills and surviving have a legitimate position here’s. But let’s not forget, more than 50% of Americans didn’t even bother to vote and many of those who voted for the Republicans voted on single issues, which is not a really productive way to look at the needs of all Americans. Whether it’s too much taxes, too little taxes, too much support for Palestinians or too much support for Israel, too many immigrants or not enough workers to meet the labor needs of industry, too many electric cars or too many gas cars, we all have to remember this is a very complex interconnected world and voting one issue misses the big picture. The only way to be a responsible citizen is too be honestly informed, think critically and remember it is WE the people, not ME the people.
Well, I’m not the country’s Civics teacher and neither are you. Regardless of your approval, a lot of voters are single issue, or a perplexing mix of issues, and sometimes vote out of frustration. Some don vote (a few year ago, Pew studied the effect of compulsory voting. The outcome was very negative for Democratic issues and candidates, so there is that).
It’s the Dems responsibility to win voters to our side not lecture them as to proper citizenship.
Here is my confusion/frustration. Everything you capture here could have been ascertained beforehand by Democratic pollsters. If not to the level of precision, certainly the trend towards alternative news sources. For instance, the simple question of where do you get your news from could have been asked and answered early on in the campaign and monitored throughout. Why is it that the Democratic pollster community wasn't asking those and other such questions? Perhaps they were, but were they sharing the information? Were they stymied by those who make money by buying mainstream TV advertising? How much time and moneywas wasted by not grasping this fact. If the Trump team k ew it, shame on us if we didn't instinctively know it as well. It's kind of like, Should we have known this info? ( Yes). Who should have asked for it to be polled? ( All levels of the Democratic apparatus). I can only understand the fact that so much post election analysis contains areas that could have been polled for earlier on ( and yet many of these experts are continually relied upon) as the choke hold of those who do not want to do things differently in the Democratic Party. For me, and maybe others who can articulate this better than myself, too many pollsters are revealing too many predictors, that could have been asked about before and during the campaign. I would like to hear why some of the questions they are focused on now were not focused on before. What should we be thinking about as a need to know as we go forward, not as look back info.
The presence of influencer media people at the DNC suggests this was actually understood in advance, but they were still treated as a kids' table and the commitment wasn't there. Old-school, traditional folks (too many of whom make money on media buying) likely influence this inordinately.
I understand that after any project - win or lose - it's important to evaluate to see what could have been done better. But with respect to communicating to voters, Republicans are always innovating and seeing around corners, while Dems are scrambling behind. Meanwhile, Dan has been talking about the rapidly diversifying media landscape, the limited reach of legacy media, and the need to use non-traditional sources of content for a long time. This was all knowable to Dem campaigns, but apparently they didn't take it seriously enough.
Not only that, but everyone seems to have to me-invent messaging from the ground up. Every time and every campaign.
For heaven’s sake if it’s this important, why isn’t there a messaging knowledge base that tells us by demographic, who is listening/ viewing what source? Build such a knowledge base and keep it updated.
I had the same thoughts. Hence--for me, it was a question of having enough time. We had the candidate, the polcies and the money. The one thing we did not have is time. And we started out with a deficit: Joe Biden was unpopular and unelectable.
Both of your questions deserve a why? who? Who should have asked for the polling? Why wasn't it asked for? If it was done and revealed what it read deals now, who rejected the advice? Why was it rejected? Who are we trusting to do the thinking now? Are they forward thinkers? Are they open to advice from
Dan, I agree 100% that we need to improve our message delivery abilities--and I would go further in that we need to build and fund a progressive voices infrastructure.
However, I'm gonna need more specifics on what you mean by "populist policies" from our side. Biden and then Harris had very specific policies aimed at empowering the working classes--in fact, Biden actually implemented them during his term. The problem, again, is that not enough people knew about them (message delivery failure) or simply didn't care to seek out this information. If, however, you do believe that our policies need to be more "populist" in nature, do you have specific examples we should be advocating for?
Like I see the other selections in podcasts from Crooked Media and under the ones categorized as "Entertainment and Culture," there's still a shit ton of political/political-adjacent content in the titles/descriptions of the episodes. If the pods that Trump went on were apolitical(ish) and generalized bro culture bullshitting for audiences that were, are, and will remain self-isolated from regular news media of all stripes then maybe the imperative should be to start replicating that point of ingress for low-info voters rather than ruminate about it here.
Seriously, just go hire a video game podcaster, market the hell out of it, get a ton of listeners, have them say nothing about politics for the next 20 months, and then bring on a Dem candidate in a key race to talk about their love of Assassin's Creed or whatever. Do the same with sports, cars, crypto, and so on and so forth. You guys have the resources and know-how.
You've just described the rise of Hasan Piker, who started out on Twitch playing and reviewing video games. Now he is a rising political progressive voice that demands attention--Cambridge Union and a one-on-one interview with Lovett to autopsy the Harris loss.
More Hasan Pikers would be a good place for Democrats to start.
Well, there are millions who do find him listenable, and we want their votes. Those listeners can be as apolitical as any, but we learned from the Trump campaign approach that they are winnable.
I'm a 66-year-old retired teacher. I find a way to skim through the posturing to get to the meat of his point on YouTube. It's worth the effort. The stuff that appeals to younger audiences is not designed to appeal to us. We're generations apart. His points are important, trenchant, and valid.
Well, you can keep telling yourself that as Democrats continue to lose elections. What ideas are "activist messages"? This one should have been a no-brainer, but it wasn't. We're hemorrhaging voters, and kitchen-table issues spoken in plain terms in language voters relate to is the first place to start. Fire with fire.
But you're not the target voter! The millions who DO listen to him are, and they don't find him to be a turn-off. This is exactly the kind of thinking that ensures we never break through to that demographic. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's reality. I couldn't stand to listen to Joe Rogan for 5 min., but I'm not the voter who's up for grabs!
He has ~1.5 million subscribers on YouTube alone. Granted not all watch, but the numbers in total would top 2 million if all his platforms are combined. In any event, the ones who do listen/watch are the ones we need to vote for Democrats.
You are right, in my opinion. We just went through an administration that was pulled left. Some of the ideas are good, but the unmanaged border and dumping trillions of dollars into an economy where goods and services availability is constrained by a pandemic and thus hyperfuel inflation probably cost us the election.
"My guy"? WTF? You and those who think like you who refuse to understand the message must change in order for Democrats to win another election are why we are in this mess. Thanks.
What the hell are you babbling about? Oh, how I wish there was an "ignore" function on this site because you'd be the first. Deranged rant combined with gibberish with a fetish about Piker. Get a grip. Sorry I gave you another chance. Never again.
Not entirely sure what this rant is about, but your hostility and insults are unwarranted. I'm not sure what your "WTF does that even mean" means, either, but it's pretty clear I should take my personal info off my profile. I'm a retired public school teacher (high school) and a former elected Dem party official because in Massachusetts, party leadership is elected on the ballot for local elections.
As for the rest of this mess, I'm a retired English teacher ("political science projects"? uh, no) who has never talked about my students, female students, any students working in groups. I don't know what your problem is, but it ain't mine.
Hasan Piker lives in a Gen Z world where voters we need live. That's all I'm saying. He's not a fool, but you may well be.
Maybe, but there's also the potential to over-expand into realms where one company simply doesn't have an adequate feel for its target audience. Another alternative could be that Crooked Media makes it a priority to be supportive of promising startups, perhaps to the degree of sharing technical expertise and/or facilities.
There may also be a need for a small-scale, pro-democracy media association. I saw that last year when there was an exodus from Substack. Everyone had to do their own research on options for alternative vendors -- with mixed results. An association could offer a repository of basic information as well as important networking opportunities.
Another angle worth exploring is the decline of local newspapers -- and the rise of so-called "pink-slime" fake websites that are mostly operated by right-wing propagandists. A 50-state strategy at the DNC could have limited effectiveness in the absence of building media capacity in vast swaths of the country.
Agreed 100 percent whoever they hire for these other interests would have to be up-and-coming but also known quantities with some existing audience share.
As for your other points, I'm a blogger myself - launched a Political Wire clone in 2020 (URL in my name), kept the newsfeed format but dropped the copypasta model. Cranked out 20 to 30 posts a day preelection, dropped the volume dramatically to take a breather and spend time thinking hard about the forward path.
One thing I think I've done probably better than other sites on my tier is to be natural with aggregating non-political stories: Bison attacks at Yellowstone, a new Hooters opening up in the famous The Villages retirement community in Florida, a porn site address accidentally printed on the packaging for a Barbie doll, Hormel marketing new Cinnamon Toast Crunch-flavored bacon, so on and so forth. Like it's expected and welcomed by my readers to see that as a respite in between the shitshow of American politics.
Which is to say yes, I would freaking love that association of which you speak and I think now's the time to build. The now unavoidable clarity that we can't rely on the MSM ever again is liberating, not terrifying. I'm going to do what I can in the near and middle term to capitalize and expand, but I need to connect with others in the same frame of mind.
I live in Indiana. It has long been my opinion that more needs to be done with BILLBOARDS. Everyone drives. No one has to find your channel to read your message.
We absolutely need to figure out a way to solve the issue of marketing and communicating Democratic branding, policy and governance to the majority of Americans in a way that reflects the actual reality of what Dems do to help most Americans. I don't pretend to know what all the solutions are but I'd bet it probably starts with sending our most talented (telegenic) folks over to places where persuadable voters are (like Rogan but that doesn't mean going to The Daily Caller) when the opportunity presents. AOC/Jasmine Crockett/Pete immediately come to mind.
I think it's also sometimes thinking about the most effective messenger for some of those spaces/demos. Perhaps it's a bit too trope-ish but as a "semi enlightened dude-bro" (my term!) I've been thinking about how someone like a Dave Bautista neutralizes much of the bravado and masculine cliches that exist in Rogan-esque spaces. If you saw his Kimmel skit pre-election, you know what I'm getting at.
This is not to say that messengers who don't fit into that tidy little box should avoid those spaces (in fact I think it's essential that they do NOT avoid so as to change perception among consumers of those media spaces) but I do think we should ask the questions, "How do we communicate Dem policy/governance to people we haven't been reaching and who are some of the most effective groups of messengers we can utilize in those spaces?" It's not either/or when it comes to the specific messengers, it's and.
Big picture, we need to solve the problems of the mediums AND the messengers. And we need to start doing it fast.
(I posted a version of this comment on Liz Plank's (excellent) substack and thought it was worth sharing here given the topic of Dan's post)
Democrats need to stop showing up with nothing but talking points. Long form conversations require storytelling skills and a deep understanding of the people they are talking to (not at.) The Harris campaign didn’t seem to trust their candidate in that regard. Anyway, they should stop dicking around and get out there now. We don’t need an autopsy or prolonged debate. Get the fuck out there now.
Hi Carole, I’d like to see/hear people on podcasts that have a broader appeal than political junkie poss. Maybe Armchair Expert, or Smartless - I don’t know. There’s a bazillion outlets out there that aren’t cable news where they could have authentic conversations for more than 5 minutes of being on message. These are intelligent, interesting people - Jamie Raskin comes to mind - who are capable of sharing their lives a bit as well as explaining why they are fighting for civil liberties, human rights, etc. we lost an election with a relentlessly on message team. Maybe time to loosen up and be real people.
Isn’t another big issue I haven’t seen discussed is that we don’t/don’t have a charismatic leader or really any kind of leader to command the media, regardless of platform. We don’t need someone toxic like Trump but if we had someone who would have taken him and all his lies, misinfo, dumb narratives and woke liberal caricatures on - and the delivery/arguments were compelling - the news would have covered it and so would have the podcast hosts. They wanted someone besides Biden to take Trump on.
I like Biden and obviously he can govern very well (the old-school way) but he was the opposite of a public leader and one of the worst communicators. When we needed both desperately to slay MAGA. I know why he couldn’t go on podcasts - when he did The Breakfast Club back in 2020 when he was stronger it was a total disaster. The commenters still reference it to this day. And it doesn’t sound like he motivated or led an army of surrogates to go everywhere all the time with a cohesive, down-to-earth, easy to understand message. Bad messengers, bad message. No leadership.
I watched a lot of the former liberal comedian podcasters because they used to be funny until a year ago when I couldn’t take the Biden bashing anymore. Obama, Pete and quite a few of our best governors and senators could have won them over. Obama on Rogan would have been amazing. I’m tired of the Rogan talk too but the truth is a lot of the other influential comedian podcasts take their cues from him. And they all loved and respected Obama.
I imagine Obama was m.i.a. because of his loyalty to Biden. Seemed like a lot of people stepped gingerly around Biden’s ego/chip on his shoulder. At a very very high cost to us all.
Bottom line and obviously Dan and team know this but Dems didn’t engage with people on a regular basis anywhere! the last 4 years. You can’t wait until 3 months before an election. Vivek and all those goobers (Tommy!) have been on the podcast circuit for years. And they sound normal on them which has been awful to see. And of course podcast hosts don’t push back or challenge them.
Another huge problem I see is politics as entertainment. Political talk used to be relegated to the news and morning shows and I guess talk radio. But with podcasts and Trump politics as entertainment and content are everywhere. On sports podcasts especially as well. Stephen A drives me nuts. The disdain for Biden & Dems is pervasive and is everywhere, every day. Without a leader and being able to point out things that should be so EASY with the five million billionaires and crazy clowns Trump is choosing and all the hypocrisy he embodies - I don’t know how we’re going to remedy this. They spent 4 years building relationships and trust (based on lies and toxicity of course) and we just spoke TO ourselves and left an enormous vacuum that MAGA easily and gleefully filled. UGH
Lastly, I so badly would like to know how Dem leadership just learned podcasts were important. And that there was a huge gender gap. It’s been obvious for so long and seems like it only became a topic July forward. That is nuts and demoralizing to an extent I can’t even describe. For them to be that out of touch. Even if someone just looked at the numbers but also just from an intuitive standpoint. We have such smart people on our side. Maybe that’s our problem. Everyone is in their heads and overthinking and not connecting to people’s emotions. Even though we should know that’s the only way to reach people. If history hasn’t shown that hasn’t Trump? It’s awful but he does speak to people’s emotions. The bad ones but we could do the same in a positive way. Just like we need a positive disruptor.
I just hope the new DNC chair puts together an amazing centralized comms team that includes never-Trumpers, non-strategists and normal people. A diverse group with few “insiders.” Innovative, intuitive. Who are steps ahead instead of miles and miles behind.
Great comment. My first thought is Andy Borowitz. Obviously he isn't a politician but he's hilarious. But on another note, where *are* the leaders and why are they missing in action? When I was a kid in the sixties we had so many. Is the problem money in politics or something else? It seems like no one has any courage anymore.
I totally agree - we have had so many in the past. My feeling is we still do but either they’re not feeling confident or supported in stepping up or maybe even being blocked by Dem elders (ai hate word establishment but might be accurate here). I do think there’s a group of Dems are very stuck to the old way of doing politics and also very loyal to a fault to their peers. But again that loyalty is causing A LOT of harm.
You could be right on both fronts. I have no inside knowledge so I can't tell. Obviously something is different. Is it possible that people have just become more conservative or is it that people who can lead aren't interested in politics? Or are they just losing elections? Maybe gerrymandering has something to do with it.
I watched a video podcast featuring Sarah Longwell and JVL from the Bulwark (also listen to PSA!) and they played sound bytes from focus group subjects that turned my stomach. The amount of lies and BS and just wrong stuff they spewed was un-freakin'-believable. Things like how Kamala never got elected for any of her positions but was appointed (!?!?!?!) and that she had no policies. It wasn't stuff they thought about Trump, it was the lack of information and flat out falsities that they believed about Kamala. I'm not an expert so I don't have the answers, but this is the problem.
Kamala was a great candidate, and I truly believe nothing the Dems could have done or no-one they could have run would have made a difference in this election. People are simply too stupid (yes, stupid) to understand how the world and our government works and that the POTUS isn't a magician who can make their lives perfect. JVL put it a good way - these people (swing voters and Biden-to-Trump voters) are simply unserious people. And I don't know that any amount of good messaging / properly placed messaging could make a difference when we live amidst such willfull ignorance.
So the method of Dems reaching voters was wrong because many of the swing and low info voters are only hearing streaming or social media or podcasts. But what is the MESSAGE that Repub's gave that effectively gave told the working class to support them....when the R's do nothing for, or work against, the working class?
It was the massive disinformation campaign. A lot of trump voters probably aren't aware that Fox News just outright lies about a lot of things. Also, mainstream media failed to portray trump as the rapist criminal wannabe dictator that he is so they thought the options were even? Ugh. It disgusts me that Dems are just accepting blame for their messaging when they are the only party that does anything legislatively for the American people. Maybe it's time to point that out more often. We will work for Americans because we are the only ones working for Americans. Maybe try explaining that identity politics are separate from legislation because we know that but they clearly don't! Americans are politically illiterate and trump spoke their language. It's time we dumb it down for America and win so we can fix our broken education system.
I agree that Democrats legislate with the very best intentions for everyone in the country. But I also think that we fail to get credit for it because our messaging is a mess. And that’s our responsibility too. This sentence from your post: “Maybe it's time to point that out more often”. You are correct, and you just zeroed in on our need to message.
They played on people's base instincts and used fear of the other – trans people, a Black woman – to get them to turn from any D message and to bring all confirmation bias to the R message. That was uncountered.
Good question but I imagine it was things Trump said like “I am the one that saved Obamacare” and that he will do a plan that is better and cheaper. So countering the misinformation with accurate information is vital in the flow that reaches younger voters.
Great question. Was it the hate, or the racism? Was it the misogny, or the goofy stupidity of Trump. Or maybe it was the slick and repellent voice of the JD the Hillbilly?
As a podcast listener and someone who volunteered almost full time for democrats this election and the other 8 elections that happened this year in harris county...... GOP PACS spent like 40million to get judges elected. They had a campaign that included podcast ads (I heard several on ANA MARIE COXs' podcast even) and mailers that came every day for a month...i.e. indiscriminantly targeting everyone. these ads and mailers said that democratic judges are soft on crime and they had various different women say that their daughter or sister was killed because a democrat let a criminal go free to murder again. MEANWHILE, there are civil judges and criminal judges and more on the ballot. Republicans didn't even run criminal judge opponents for most of those seats in Harris county, but they DID run CIVIL judges. Civil judges are where you would go if you needed monetary compensation for something that a person or business did wrong. when you are in the voting booth the judge just says the number 33rd, 180th etc etc. it's hard to know. and even if it said civil vs. criminal people don't know the difference. There is an Eat the Rich vibe out there right now, but we had a void in that messaging where it could help set the tone. This GOP PAC campaign was very effective. Even with the inevitable down ballot roll off, more people voted for republican judges than for trump or cruz. I think all of our Appellate judges lost. Plus, this tactic plays into the disingenuous narrative that democrats don't support law enforcement writ large up and down the ticket. in your talk with the harris team and the steve schale talk, they both said that it's a mistake to funnel all the money through one place. this is an example of big money coming from a different issue PAC. "stop houston murders" looked like a grassroots thing, but it is total astroturf paid for by billionaires. and our judge pac had like 2-4million vs. 40mill for their GOP judge pac. The DEM graphics looked like they were done in google slides, the GOP looked more professional and had clear messaging. They have the benefit of telling an easy lie that is harder to explain the truth. and side note: if Harris county had turn out levels above the rest of the state, we'd flip texas. but all of texas has been left for dead, but our gangrene is traveling to the heart if it is ignored. This kind of chipping away on local issues has up ballot affects and has affects outside of the state (see TX resident Joe Rogan).
I like your comment, Flora, but I can't stop thinking about blaming Democrats for letting murderers go free to commit more crimes when Trump is talking about pardoning the J6 defendants. Talk about hypocrisy.
From what I understand, Trump’s appearances on those podcasts weren’t heavy on policy or politics. He was Trump the celebrity gadfly. If he’d presented the kind of outrageous red meat he threw out at his rallies, we’d have been hearing clips in our own media bubbles. Anybody here hear much about those podcasts, aside from Rogan’s? If he had actually said anything concrete about policy, he’d have lost the audience of those apolitical podcasts and wouldn’t have been welcome on many more. He was going after (and apparently reaching) an audience that actively AVOIDS politics.
We can start encouraging our Dem candidates to do more of that, but what will we be asking them to do, specifically? It’s a tough sell to tell a candidate to go talk for hours about themselves without actually talking honestly about what they would do in office. Trump could do that all day. He’s done it for years. His party is happy to let him do that. Would we be ok with a Democrat not taking an opportunity to discuss policy? (Rhetorical question, haha.)
This is an interesting observation, Bethany. I've heard that some people vote for the person they'd most like to have a beer with. Presumably the beer drinkers don't go on and on about themselves but talk about topics of mutual interest. In other words, we need to humanize our candidates so they're relatable.
I think our candidates are usually human! But we ask them (as a party, and often as activists for a particular cause) to be wonkier than the general public wants. I thought Kamala came across as warm and relatable in her interactions with voters. But whenever she did an interview, she was criticized for not giving enough policy details. As if those are what move swing voters!
Maybe stop using words like vituperative. Americans are uneducated and politically illiterate. It's like you aren't even trying to reach them with your substack letter.
Of course he’s not reaching them with a Substack newsletter—these things are read by people with college degrees, people who fancy themselves “thought leaders.” This is not the place to dumb it down.
What it should be is the place to start facing the fact that we are not “the establishment,” because the way things are going, there is no “establishment.” I hope I never see anyone again say that mainstream media “legitimized” Trump—they have no such power, and we need to face up to that fact. We don’t get to decide what’s proper, and the sooner we realize that the sooner we may be able to figure out how to communicate with the American people.
Also, we are ignoring the massive disinformation campaign they ran. Does it really matter that trump appeared on every dude bro podcasts if he was just straight up lied to the American people? Focus on pointing out his promises vs his actions for the next four years and trump voters will quickly realize they messed up. Then we can try to sway them back over to reality. And for the last time, jfc, Americans are undereducated so stop using big words and speak simply. Dare I say kinda like trump but without the damn lies.
This. All the back and forth about HOW to reach these voters, like they are sitting around waiting to be reached. It’s excruciating to read people bicker back and forth about polling or messaging or policies. The folks at the top of the bell curve of intelligence didn’t vote based on facts, info or evidence. They voted based on convenient lies, meant to keep Trump out of jail. Democrats shouldn’t be lying to their electorates like the Republicans do, that’s not the way to win elections, that’s how we attract MORE dictator-like leaders to government.
It’s nice to have the actual numbers but i feel like we already knew the trends here. My concern is when we say “democrats need to do….”, who exactly are we talking about? On the republican side, you can name 3 or 4 people that craft the message that every politician follows (Bannon, Kirk, etc.) Who is that for democrats? We just spent months talking about the existential crisis that Trump represents and now post election, we’re just following the same normal schedule. The DNC will elect its new chair in February. Why wait so long? If ever there was time for war room strategy/ thinking it’s now. The lack of a cohesive message and delivery behind Trump’s nominees is infuriating. We just continue to waste valuable time.
I agree. SOMEONE high up on the Democratic side should be putting out a message-of-the-day that the rest of us can echo. That message should be skewering, fact-based and contribute to a powerful, unflattering image of Trump and the Republicans--corrupt, greedy, unpatriotic billionaires, untethered to reality--that we need to hammer into the American psyche.
The D Party has so many super communicators- who are rarely heard. Likely presidential candidates could start doing messaging now, and be known quantities when primaries are here. Mayor Pete, Gretchen Whitmer, just to name 2.
AOC too
Excellent point! There is a vacuum now, at what seems like an important moment to craft a presence in the new reality. Message: Look at Democrats dither. No wonder they lost.
The losing party always dithers for a while. It’s a part of recovery, I guess. But right now, who is the leader of the Dem party? And let’s think through the message. And to Dan’s point, how do we get it out effectively?
All that takes a little time.
So first, even mentioning CNN and MSNBC as options for news access shows a fundamental misunderstanding of those of us here in the cheap seats. Second, please stop with the darn polls. Yes, we make fun of trump because he relies on feelings instead of data but that is EXACTLY why he won. Because so do most Americans. We can tell them facts and cite statistics and prove our theories but all most people care about is how it FEELS to them. So, here are my suggestions that no one will take:
1. Dems need to have as many conversations with reality tv directors, writers, and producers as they can. Like seriously, after a debate, don’t wait to poll people. Have them text 29473 to vote for who won. trump won in part because he’s the one who spiked everyone’s adrenaline and cortisol. The person we all remember most from Survivor is Richard (sorry Jon) and there is a reason for that.
2. A serial podcast that looks at all the true crimes of all trump’s associates.
3. More roadside billboards for Dem candidates. Driving in the US felt like and assault for those of us who lean left bc in most places, the ONLY signs we saw were for trump
4. Dems need to figure out how to show up on right leaning media and not get their asses kicked. Which probably means being okay with being thought of as an asshole. The right relies on the rest of us following the rules of civility so they don’t have to
5. Dems don’t need more populist policies. Their policies are as populist as they can be. They just need to talk about them as populists. And actually act like populists. Lofty rhetoric is not populist. Treatises and polls and quantitative data are not populist. It’s not the message, it’s the delivery
I agree that the MAGA voices are better than a lot of Dems at effectively speaking. If I hear one more Dem talk about “regular order” or “the norms of democracy” I think I’ll scream.
But I disagree about polling. The Trump campaign had one of the top pollsters in the country, no doubt telling them where to spend financial and candidate resources, and how effective it was.
Well said, Beth. Absolutely agree with all of your points, particularly engaging the reality TV crew. I would also reiterate and underscore Susan Wagner's comment about looking forward, not just looking back. Democrats are expert at running retreads of past successful elections, not running the current (or future) one.
Feelings! Right! It was about the vibes all the way. And when the media were screaming that Harris was NOT doing enough hard interviews and sharing her policies enough--that was just so much hooey. She did all she could on the platforms she made it to--but in fact--people kept saying they didn't know her, because, given where they consume the news, they truly didn't know her. I am becoming sick of hearing how it was "not about identity politics" or that we make a mistake focusing on identity politics. It was all about identity politics. That is all Trump is--identity politics--all the time And the "undecided voters" were voting on vibes from the get go--and getting their "news" from streaming services and pod casts. You are right--we need to get the message delivery down better so they can hear us.
So much needs to change it is overwhelming. This is a huge part of what I rely on crooked media folks to help think through. We are all wounded and I get it takes time, also for the crooked folks.
These results support the assessment that Americans in general are self obsessed and uninformed. They are focused on their own concerns and not really interested in issues that they perceive, correctly or not as not impacting their daily lives. They will not change their position until the catastrophe of the Trump administration causes prices to rise, chaos in the streets and the job market to collapse- which it will. And it will still take some time for this broad swath of our citizenry to wake up to reality. And it is now apparent that Kamala agreed to meet with Joe Rogan, but he declined.
Your first sentence says it all. But instead of self-obsessed, how about substituting “obsessed with making sure their families have a chance to survive and maybe even thrive in an economy tilting away from them over 40 years”? And instead of uninformed, how about “part of the 80% of Americans who have no interest in politics”?
These are mostly people who work very hard for a living and deserve respect regardless of how people who like politics think of their approach to civic life.
Many of them sense the exact critique Dems have of them. And it’s why—if they think of Dems at all—they think of them as tongue-clucking know-it-alls.
It’s also our job to attract their votes. And I am trying to think of the last time someone successfully wooed my vote by making me realize I was self-obsessed and uninformed.
Just sayin’.
Tom,
If you were right, I would agree that people who are worried just about paying their bills and surviving have a legitimate position here’s. But let’s not forget, more than 50% of Americans didn’t even bother to vote and many of those who voted for the Republicans voted on single issues, which is not a really productive way to look at the needs of all Americans. Whether it’s too much taxes, too little taxes, too much support for Palestinians or too much support for Israel, too many immigrants or not enough workers to meet the labor needs of industry, too many electric cars or too many gas cars, we all have to remember this is a very complex interconnected world and voting one issue misses the big picture. The only way to be a responsible citizen is too be honestly informed, think critically and remember it is WE the people, not ME the people.
Well, I’m not the country’s Civics teacher and neither are you. Regardless of your approval, a lot of voters are single issue, or a perplexing mix of issues, and sometimes vote out of frustration. Some don vote (a few year ago, Pew studied the effect of compulsory voting. The outcome was very negative for Democratic issues and candidates, so there is that).
It’s the Dems responsibility to win voters to our side not lecture them as to proper citizenship.
Here is my confusion/frustration. Everything you capture here could have been ascertained beforehand by Democratic pollsters. If not to the level of precision, certainly the trend towards alternative news sources. For instance, the simple question of where do you get your news from could have been asked and answered early on in the campaign and monitored throughout. Why is it that the Democratic pollster community wasn't asking those and other such questions? Perhaps they were, but were they sharing the information? Were they stymied by those who make money by buying mainstream TV advertising? How much time and moneywas wasted by not grasping this fact. If the Trump team k ew it, shame on us if we didn't instinctively know it as well. It's kind of like, Should we have known this info? ( Yes). Who should have asked for it to be polled? ( All levels of the Democratic apparatus). I can only understand the fact that so much post election analysis contains areas that could have been polled for earlier on ( and yet many of these experts are continually relied upon) as the choke hold of those who do not want to do things differently in the Democratic Party. For me, and maybe others who can articulate this better than myself, too many pollsters are revealing too many predictors, that could have been asked about before and during the campaign. I would like to hear why some of the questions they are focused on now were not focused on before. What should we be thinking about as a need to know as we go forward, not as look back info.
The presence of influencer media people at the DNC suggests this was actually understood in advance, but they were still treated as a kids' table and the commitment wasn't there. Old-school, traditional folks (too many of whom make money on media buying) likely influence this inordinately.
I get the kids table reference. The unpaid true grassroots community, didn't even have its own
seat at any table.
I laughed when I read your previous post because it was exactly what I was thinking. Excellent thoughts and words.
Ugh, exactly.
I understand that after any project - win or lose - it's important to evaluate to see what could have been done better. But with respect to communicating to voters, Republicans are always innovating and seeing around corners, while Dems are scrambling behind. Meanwhile, Dan has been talking about the rapidly diversifying media landscape, the limited reach of legacy media, and the need to use non-traditional sources of content for a long time. This was all knowable to Dem campaigns, but apparently they didn't take it seriously enough.
Not only that, but everyone seems to have to me-invent messaging from the ground up. Every time and every campaign.
For heaven’s sake if it’s this important, why isn’t there a messaging knowledge base that tells us by demographic, who is listening/ viewing what source? Build such a knowledge base and keep it updated.
I had the same thoughts. Hence--for me, it was a question of having enough time. We had the candidate, the polcies and the money. The one thing we did not have is time. And we started out with a deficit: Joe Biden was unpopular and unelectable.
Right, Susan—the Trump crew knew all this from polling and considered our approach dumb. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/05/us/politics/trump-streaming-ads-strategy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.gU4.Ou9C.YgEnPFD9mQxT&smid=bs-share. We either failed to do the polling or failed to act on it. Not good.
Both of your questions deserve a why? who? Who should have asked for the polling? Why wasn't it asked for? If it was done and revealed what it read deals now, who rejected the advice? Why was it rejected? Who are we trusting to do the thinking now? Are they forward thinkers? Are they open to advice from
others?
Dan, I agree 100% that we need to improve our message delivery abilities--and I would go further in that we need to build and fund a progressive voices infrastructure.
However, I'm gonna need more specifics on what you mean by "populist policies" from our side. Biden and then Harris had very specific policies aimed at empowering the working classes--in fact, Biden actually implemented them during his term. The problem, again, is that not enough people knew about them (message delivery failure) or simply didn't care to seek out this information. If, however, you do believe that our policies need to be more "populist" in nature, do you have specific examples we should be advocating for?
My question also.
These are great questions.
Maybe you guys are part of this exact problem?
Like I see the other selections in podcasts from Crooked Media and under the ones categorized as "Entertainment and Culture," there's still a shit ton of political/political-adjacent content in the titles/descriptions of the episodes. If the pods that Trump went on were apolitical(ish) and generalized bro culture bullshitting for audiences that were, are, and will remain self-isolated from regular news media of all stripes then maybe the imperative should be to start replicating that point of ingress for low-info voters rather than ruminate about it here.
Seriously, just go hire a video game podcaster, market the hell out of it, get a ton of listeners, have them say nothing about politics for the next 20 months, and then bring on a Dem candidate in a key race to talk about their love of Assassin's Creed or whatever. Do the same with sports, cars, crypto, and so on and so forth. You guys have the resources and know-how.
You've just described the rise of Hasan Piker, who started out on Twitch playing and reviewing video games. Now he is a rising political progressive voice that demands attention--Cambridge Union and a one-on-one interview with Lovett to autopsy the Harris loss.
More Hasan Pikers would be a good place for Democrats to start.
Yeah tried listening to that guy after and his pod was totally unlistenable
Well, there are millions who do find him listenable, and we want their votes. Those listeners can be as apolitical as any, but we learned from the Trump campaign approach that they are winnable.
Not disagreeing just saying the pod was really stupid
I'm a 66-year-old retired teacher. I find a way to skim through the posturing to get to the meat of his point on YouTube. It's worth the effort. The stuff that appeals to younger audiences is not designed to appeal to us. We're generations apart. His points are important, trenchant, and valid.
Thought he was good on psa but couldn’t get past 10 mins of his pod
Unlistenable because his ideas are activist messages for the unelectable.
Well, you can keep telling yourself that as Democrats continue to lose elections. What ideas are "activist messages"? This one should have been a no-brainer, but it wasn't. We're hemorrhaging voters, and kitchen-table issues spoken in plain terms in language voters relate to is the first place to start. Fire with fire.
The podcast with Hasan piker is the one I turned off. I don’t think the swing voters and new Trump voters would find him appealing
But you're not the target voter! The millions who DO listen to him are, and they don't find him to be a turn-off. This is exactly the kind of thinking that ensures we never break through to that demographic. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's reality. I couldn't stand to listen to Joe Rogan for 5 min., but I'm not the voter who's up for grabs!
Millions? No.
He has ~1.5 million subscribers on YouTube alone. Granted not all watch, but the numbers in total would top 2 million if all his platforms are combined. In any event, the ones who do listen/watch are the ones we need to vote for Democrats.
Hope you listen to his interview with Lina Khan today, or maybe Lina Khan's ideas are too "activist"?
You are right, in my opinion. We just went through an administration that was pulled left. Some of the ideas are good, but the unmanaged border and dumping trillions of dollars into an economy where goods and services availability is constrained by a pandemic and thus hyperfuel inflation probably cost us the election.
"My guy"? WTF? You and those who think like you who refuse to understand the message must change in order for Democrats to win another election are why we are in this mess. Thanks.
What the hell are you babbling about? Oh, how I wish there was an "ignore" function on this site because you'd be the first. Deranged rant combined with gibberish with a fetish about Piker. Get a grip. Sorry I gave you another chance. Never again.
Not entirely sure what this rant is about, but your hostility and insults are unwarranted. I'm not sure what your "WTF does that even mean" means, either, but it's pretty clear I should take my personal info off my profile. I'm a retired public school teacher (high school) and a former elected Dem party official because in Massachusetts, party leadership is elected on the ballot for local elections.
As for the rest of this mess, I'm a retired English teacher ("political science projects"? uh, no) who has never talked about my students, female students, any students working in groups. I don't know what your problem is, but it ain't mine.
Hasan Piker lives in a Gen Z world where voters we need live. That's all I'm saying. He's not a fool, but you may well be.
Maybe, but there's also the potential to over-expand into realms where one company simply doesn't have an adequate feel for its target audience. Another alternative could be that Crooked Media makes it a priority to be supportive of promising startups, perhaps to the degree of sharing technical expertise and/or facilities.
There may also be a need for a small-scale, pro-democracy media association. I saw that last year when there was an exodus from Substack. Everyone had to do their own research on options for alternative vendors -- with mixed results. An association could offer a repository of basic information as well as important networking opportunities.
Another angle worth exploring is the decline of local newspapers -- and the rise of so-called "pink-slime" fake websites that are mostly operated by right-wing propagandists. A 50-state strategy at the DNC could have limited effectiveness in the absence of building media capacity in vast swaths of the country.
Agreed 100 percent whoever they hire for these other interests would have to be up-and-coming but also known quantities with some existing audience share.
As for your other points, I'm a blogger myself - launched a Political Wire clone in 2020 (URL in my name), kept the newsfeed format but dropped the copypasta model. Cranked out 20 to 30 posts a day preelection, dropped the volume dramatically to take a breather and spend time thinking hard about the forward path.
One thing I think I've done probably better than other sites on my tier is to be natural with aggregating non-political stories: Bison attacks at Yellowstone, a new Hooters opening up in the famous The Villages retirement community in Florida, a porn site address accidentally printed on the packaging for a Barbie doll, Hormel marketing new Cinnamon Toast Crunch-flavored bacon, so on and so forth. Like it's expected and welcomed by my readers to see that as a respite in between the shitshow of American politics.
Which is to say yes, I would freaking love that association of which you speak and I think now's the time to build. The now unavoidable clarity that we can't rely on the MSM ever again is liberating, not terrifying. I'm going to do what I can in the near and middle term to capitalize and expand, but I need to connect with others in the same frame of mind.
I don't know about that?
I live in Indiana. It has long been my opinion that more needs to be done with BILLBOARDS. Everyone drives. No one has to find your channel to read your message.
LINDA! I just said this EXACT SAME THING!
We absolutely need to figure out a way to solve the issue of marketing and communicating Democratic branding, policy and governance to the majority of Americans in a way that reflects the actual reality of what Dems do to help most Americans. I don't pretend to know what all the solutions are but I'd bet it probably starts with sending our most talented (telegenic) folks over to places where persuadable voters are (like Rogan but that doesn't mean going to The Daily Caller) when the opportunity presents. AOC/Jasmine Crockett/Pete immediately come to mind.
I think it's also sometimes thinking about the most effective messenger for some of those spaces/demos. Perhaps it's a bit too trope-ish but as a "semi enlightened dude-bro" (my term!) I've been thinking about how someone like a Dave Bautista neutralizes much of the bravado and masculine cliches that exist in Rogan-esque spaces. If you saw his Kimmel skit pre-election, you know what I'm getting at.
This is not to say that messengers who don't fit into that tidy little box should avoid those spaces (in fact I think it's essential that they do NOT avoid so as to change perception among consumers of those media spaces) but I do think we should ask the questions, "How do we communicate Dem policy/governance to people we haven't been reaching and who are some of the most effective groups of messengers we can utilize in those spaces?" It's not either/or when it comes to the specific messengers, it's and.
Big picture, we need to solve the problems of the mediums AND the messengers. And we need to start doing it fast.
(I posted a version of this comment on Liz Plank's (excellent) substack and thought it was worth sharing here given the topic of Dan's post)
Yes--right now I see AOC as easily the most effective communicator beside Pete Buttiegieg in our Party.
Democrats need to stop showing up with nothing but talking points. Long form conversations require storytelling skills and a deep understanding of the people they are talking to (not at.) The Harris campaign didn’t seem to trust their candidate in that regard. Anyway, they should stop dicking around and get out there now. We don’t need an autopsy or prolonged debate. Get the fuck out there now.
So Beth. Get out exactly where? And get out with exactly what message?
Hi Carole, I’d like to see/hear people on podcasts that have a broader appeal than political junkie poss. Maybe Armchair Expert, or Smartless - I don’t know. There’s a bazillion outlets out there that aren’t cable news where they could have authentic conversations for more than 5 minutes of being on message. These are intelligent, interesting people - Jamie Raskin comes to mind - who are capable of sharing their lives a bit as well as explaining why they are fighting for civil liberties, human rights, etc. we lost an election with a relentlessly on message team. Maybe time to loosen up and be real people.
Isn’t another big issue I haven’t seen discussed is that we don’t/don’t have a charismatic leader or really any kind of leader to command the media, regardless of platform. We don’t need someone toxic like Trump but if we had someone who would have taken him and all his lies, misinfo, dumb narratives and woke liberal caricatures on - and the delivery/arguments were compelling - the news would have covered it and so would have the podcast hosts. They wanted someone besides Biden to take Trump on.
I like Biden and obviously he can govern very well (the old-school way) but he was the opposite of a public leader and one of the worst communicators. When we needed both desperately to slay MAGA. I know why he couldn’t go on podcasts - when he did The Breakfast Club back in 2020 when he was stronger it was a total disaster. The commenters still reference it to this day. And it doesn’t sound like he motivated or led an army of surrogates to go everywhere all the time with a cohesive, down-to-earth, easy to understand message. Bad messengers, bad message. No leadership.
I watched a lot of the former liberal comedian podcasters because they used to be funny until a year ago when I couldn’t take the Biden bashing anymore. Obama, Pete and quite a few of our best governors and senators could have won them over. Obama on Rogan would have been amazing. I’m tired of the Rogan talk too but the truth is a lot of the other influential comedian podcasts take their cues from him. And they all loved and respected Obama.
I imagine Obama was m.i.a. because of his loyalty to Biden. Seemed like a lot of people stepped gingerly around Biden’s ego/chip on his shoulder. At a very very high cost to us all.
Bottom line and obviously Dan and team know this but Dems didn’t engage with people on a regular basis anywhere! the last 4 years. You can’t wait until 3 months before an election. Vivek and all those goobers (Tommy!) have been on the podcast circuit for years. And they sound normal on them which has been awful to see. And of course podcast hosts don’t push back or challenge them.
Another huge problem I see is politics as entertainment. Political talk used to be relegated to the news and morning shows and I guess talk radio. But with podcasts and Trump politics as entertainment and content are everywhere. On sports podcasts especially as well. Stephen A drives me nuts. The disdain for Biden & Dems is pervasive and is everywhere, every day. Without a leader and being able to point out things that should be so EASY with the five million billionaires and crazy clowns Trump is choosing and all the hypocrisy he embodies - I don’t know how we’re going to remedy this. They spent 4 years building relationships and trust (based on lies and toxicity of course) and we just spoke TO ourselves and left an enormous vacuum that MAGA easily and gleefully filled. UGH
Lastly, I so badly would like to know how Dem leadership just learned podcasts were important. And that there was a huge gender gap. It’s been obvious for so long and seems like it only became a topic July forward. That is nuts and demoralizing to an extent I can’t even describe. For them to be that out of touch. Even if someone just looked at the numbers but also just from an intuitive standpoint. We have such smart people on our side. Maybe that’s our problem. Everyone is in their heads and overthinking and not connecting to people’s emotions. Even though we should know that’s the only way to reach people. If history hasn’t shown that hasn’t Trump? It’s awful but he does speak to people’s emotions. The bad ones but we could do the same in a positive way. Just like we need a positive disruptor.
I just hope the new DNC chair puts together an amazing centralized comms team that includes never-Trumpers, non-strategists and normal people. A diverse group with few “insiders.” Innovative, intuitive. Who are steps ahead instead of miles and miles behind.
Wow, great comment.
Thank you so much for reading my long, long rant! I just had to get it out :)
Great comment. My first thought is Andy Borowitz. Obviously he isn't a politician but he's hilarious. But on another note, where *are* the leaders and why are they missing in action? When I was a kid in the sixties we had so many. Is the problem money in politics or something else? It seems like no one has any courage anymore.
Thank you and also for reading! 😅
I totally agree - we have had so many in the past. My feeling is we still do but either they’re not feeling confident or supported in stepping up or maybe even being blocked by Dem elders (ai hate word establishment but might be accurate here). I do think there’s a group of Dems are very stuck to the old way of doing politics and also very loyal to a fault to their peers. But again that loyalty is causing A LOT of harm.
You could be right on both fronts. I have no inside knowledge so I can't tell. Obviously something is different. Is it possible that people have just become more conservative or is it that people who can lead aren't interested in politics? Or are they just losing elections? Maybe gerrymandering has something to do with it.
I watched a video podcast featuring Sarah Longwell and JVL from the Bulwark (also listen to PSA!) and they played sound bytes from focus group subjects that turned my stomach. The amount of lies and BS and just wrong stuff they spewed was un-freakin'-believable. Things like how Kamala never got elected for any of her positions but was appointed (!?!?!?!) and that she had no policies. It wasn't stuff they thought about Trump, it was the lack of information and flat out falsities that they believed about Kamala. I'm not an expert so I don't have the answers, but this is the problem.
Kamala was a great candidate, and I truly believe nothing the Dems could have done or no-one they could have run would have made a difference in this election. People are simply too stupid (yes, stupid) to understand how the world and our government works and that the POTUS isn't a magician who can make their lives perfect. JVL put it a good way - these people (swing voters and Biden-to-Trump voters) are simply unserious people. And I don't know that any amount of good messaging / properly placed messaging could make a difference when we live amidst such willfull ignorance.
I had the same reaction to that podcast and it also made me nauseous to boot.
Those are really hard to watch and hear.
Propaganda works.
So the method of Dems reaching voters was wrong because many of the swing and low info voters are only hearing streaming or social media or podcasts. But what is the MESSAGE that Repub's gave that effectively gave told the working class to support them....when the R's do nothing for, or work against, the working class?
It was the massive disinformation campaign. A lot of trump voters probably aren't aware that Fox News just outright lies about a lot of things. Also, mainstream media failed to portray trump as the rapist criminal wannabe dictator that he is so they thought the options were even? Ugh. It disgusts me that Dems are just accepting blame for their messaging when they are the only party that does anything legislatively for the American people. Maybe it's time to point that out more often. We will work for Americans because we are the only ones working for Americans. Maybe try explaining that identity politics are separate from legislation because we know that but they clearly don't! Americans are politically illiterate and trump spoke their language. It's time we dumb it down for America and win so we can fix our broken education system.
I agree that Democrats legislate with the very best intentions for everyone in the country. But I also think that we fail to get credit for it because our messaging is a mess. And that’s our responsibility too. This sentence from your post: “Maybe it's time to point that out more often”. You are correct, and you just zeroed in on our need to message.
They played on people's base instincts and used fear of the other – trans people, a Black woman – to get them to turn from any D message and to bring all confirmation bias to the R message. That was uncountered.
Good question but I imagine it was things Trump said like “I am the one that saved Obamacare” and that he will do a plan that is better and cheaper. So countering the misinformation with accurate information is vital in the flow that reaches younger voters.
Countering a firehose of lies is almost impossible. Then there is no time for positive message. But it must be addressed. Somehow.
Great question. Was it the hate, or the racism? Was it the misogny, or the goofy stupidity of Trump. Or maybe it was the slick and repellent voice of the JD the Hillbilly?
I think it was racism and belittling of women.
I think you are absolutely right.
As a podcast listener and someone who volunteered almost full time for democrats this election and the other 8 elections that happened this year in harris county...... GOP PACS spent like 40million to get judges elected. They had a campaign that included podcast ads (I heard several on ANA MARIE COXs' podcast even) and mailers that came every day for a month...i.e. indiscriminantly targeting everyone. these ads and mailers said that democratic judges are soft on crime and they had various different women say that their daughter or sister was killed because a democrat let a criminal go free to murder again. MEANWHILE, there are civil judges and criminal judges and more on the ballot. Republicans didn't even run criminal judge opponents for most of those seats in Harris county, but they DID run CIVIL judges. Civil judges are where you would go if you needed monetary compensation for something that a person or business did wrong. when you are in the voting booth the judge just says the number 33rd, 180th etc etc. it's hard to know. and even if it said civil vs. criminal people don't know the difference. There is an Eat the Rich vibe out there right now, but we had a void in that messaging where it could help set the tone. This GOP PAC campaign was very effective. Even with the inevitable down ballot roll off, more people voted for republican judges than for trump or cruz. I think all of our Appellate judges lost. Plus, this tactic plays into the disingenuous narrative that democrats don't support law enforcement writ large up and down the ticket. in your talk with the harris team and the steve schale talk, they both said that it's a mistake to funnel all the money through one place. this is an example of big money coming from a different issue PAC. "stop houston murders" looked like a grassroots thing, but it is total astroturf paid for by billionaires. and our judge pac had like 2-4million vs. 40mill for their GOP judge pac. The DEM graphics looked like they were done in google slides, the GOP looked more professional and had clear messaging. They have the benefit of telling an easy lie that is harder to explain the truth. and side note: if Harris county had turn out levels above the rest of the state, we'd flip texas. but all of texas has been left for dead, but our gangrene is traveling to the heart if it is ignored. This kind of chipping away on local issues has up ballot affects and has affects outside of the state (see TX resident Joe Rogan).
I like your comment, Flora, but I can't stop thinking about blaming Democrats for letting murderers go free to commit more crimes when Trump is talking about pardoning the J6 defendants. Talk about hypocrisy.
From what I understand, Trump’s appearances on those podcasts weren’t heavy on policy or politics. He was Trump the celebrity gadfly. If he’d presented the kind of outrageous red meat he threw out at his rallies, we’d have been hearing clips in our own media bubbles. Anybody here hear much about those podcasts, aside from Rogan’s? If he had actually said anything concrete about policy, he’d have lost the audience of those apolitical podcasts and wouldn’t have been welcome on many more. He was going after (and apparently reaching) an audience that actively AVOIDS politics.
We can start encouraging our Dem candidates to do more of that, but what will we be asking them to do, specifically? It’s a tough sell to tell a candidate to go talk for hours about themselves without actually talking honestly about what they would do in office. Trump could do that all day. He’s done it for years. His party is happy to let him do that. Would we be ok with a Democrat not taking an opportunity to discuss policy? (Rhetorical question, haha.)
This is an interesting observation, Bethany. I've heard that some people vote for the person they'd most like to have a beer with. Presumably the beer drinkers don't go on and on about themselves but talk about topics of mutual interest. In other words, we need to humanize our candidates so they're relatable.
I think our candidates are usually human! But we ask them (as a party, and often as activists for a particular cause) to be wonkier than the general public wants. I thought Kamala came across as warm and relatable in her interactions with voters. But whenever she did an interview, she was criticized for not giving enough policy details. As if those are what move swing voters!
The commentariat put her in a no-win position.
Maybe stop using words like vituperative. Americans are uneducated and politically illiterate. It's like you aren't even trying to reach them with your substack letter.
Of course he’s not reaching them with a Substack newsletter—these things are read by people with college degrees, people who fancy themselves “thought leaders.” This is not the place to dumb it down.
What it should be is the place to start facing the fact that we are not “the establishment,” because the way things are going, there is no “establishment.” I hope I never see anyone again say that mainstream media “legitimized” Trump—they have no such power, and we need to face up to that fact. We don’t get to decide what’s proper, and the sooner we realize that the sooner we may be able to figure out how to communicate with the American people.
Also, we are ignoring the massive disinformation campaign they ran. Does it really matter that trump appeared on every dude bro podcasts if he was just straight up lied to the American people? Focus on pointing out his promises vs his actions for the next four years and trump voters will quickly realize they messed up. Then we can try to sway them back over to reality. And for the last time, jfc, Americans are undereducated so stop using big words and speak simply. Dare I say kinda like trump but without the damn lies.
This. All the back and forth about HOW to reach these voters, like they are sitting around waiting to be reached. It’s excruciating to read people bicker back and forth about polling or messaging or policies. The folks at the top of the bell curve of intelligence didn’t vote based on facts, info or evidence. They voted based on convenient lies, meant to keep Trump out of jail. Democrats shouldn’t be lying to their electorates like the Republicans do, that’s not the way to win elections, that’s how we attract MORE dictator-like leaders to government.