Want to be back in power? First quit adopting the narrative of the Right. Democrats were not to blame for Trump. The voters were. Next you don’t “reach those voters” through “messaging”. They are the problem. So you present a clear alternative that isn’t “trump lite” or “compassionate trumpism”. Its FuckTrumpism. And focus on the money. The rest of the stuff will take care of itself. And you need fighters not infighters. Need some teeth in our dogs. Not more policy wonks.
It's a good point that the non-registered voters likely opted out of civic participation for a reason - just registering them, even if they're of a particular demographic that used to be favorable to Dems, doesn't necessarily help the Dem candidate, unless maybe that candidate also uses the opportunity to listen to their concerns and win them over.
My guess is the Republicans have an overall advantage at getting their message across in the social media space that reaches the masses, including the low-educated voters - if basically they tilt common sense in their favor. I'm not sure how well outside observers would be able to measure for this bias if they don't have access to the social media platforms' internal data.
Even if someone is predisposed to vote Dem by virtue of life experience, if their info about the state of the world is poisoned against Dems from the start, and they don't have the means or resources to see thru that, then they won't necessarily vote for a Dem. (The fact things got tilted this far against Dems is partially their fault I think - partly due to pragmatic compromise of values to get partial wins that led to kludgeocracy - but I can't see that part as clearly).
Also I wonder if the blue collar voters that used to vote Dem are now tilted in favor of MAGA - I think someone like AOC also would appeal to them, since she comes from a blue collar background and is unafraid to speak to them directly. Also she has effective communication skills on social media platforms. A populist agenda is easier to be heard for blue collar voters I think.
Trump by his ineptitude leaves an opening for Dems to be heard but I don't think they would win against the larger Trump movement unless they can make a positive case that counters it - just highlighting the negative aspects of Trump wouldn't be enough in the long run - it might help to win temporarily but risks suffering a worse backlash later.
If my guesses are not too far off, and admitting that I don't know what the world will look like in 2028 for the presidential elections where low-info voter turnout is a factor, I could see a Dem candidate having a chance to win if they can run on people power. I think they'd need to:
1) identity-fuse with the lower and middle class blue collar voters (who historically had voted Dem), form a closer bond with them than Trump, to show they viscerally feel their pain and won't take no for an answer, and are willing to use power to change the system as needed to bring relief - just saying they will fight for them is maybe not enough anymore, even touting accomplishments made on their behalf is probably not enough unless it's communicated at least as forcefully and persistently as Trump transmits his lies - otherwise the message may not get past the info spin environment to reach their ears.
2) show the non-Trump Republicans and Independents they are not crazy and not feckless - appeal to the Conservative principles found in the Constitution and to fiscally Conservative principles. This part would ordinarily be next to impossible but Trump has set the bar so low in this area that hopefully it's doable.
3) show the Dem base voters how they will hold Trump accountable for all the ways he's lied and acted with impunity against the Constitution, and promise that they'll restore the presidential office to a high set of moral standards again - to appeal to fundamental values of truth, honesty, integrity, character, justice, community, family - we have to make it so there's a price paid for those who gain power by lying and just pretending to care about those values - to impose a heavy social cost on that - I just don't think it's sustainable to fight lies constantly otherwise, we'll never get anywhere as a country.
1) Not taking no for an answer to change institutions as needed, and being committed to action enough to overcome bad faith opposition yet 2) showing you will respect the purpose of our institutions and will be fiscally responsible, all while 3) being focused on the past to heal the damage done by Trump to unify the American people rather than giving him a pass to focus on the future immediately - the combined constraints are so narrow this all might seem contradictory. But it's not fully contradictory - there could be a way to thread the needle.
Some things I'd look for in a candidate - if they can get the people to have faith and trust in them to do what is right, even MAGA people; if they have a strong sense of justice and fairness, and humility. If they are open-minded and innovative - ideally they could borrow from the good parts of Trump's communication strategy but replace the lying with truth-telling. Then also it'd be good if they have capacity to act with authority - not in a destructive way like Trump, but in a creative way, that fulfills the spirit of the institutions but is not limited by the status quo. They'd basically need to be like a living Constitution - someone who understands it deep in their bones and lives by its principles as second nature. I don't know if any perfect candidate hits all these marks but if I see they hold the right values then I might trust they could form a team that covers the bases, or at least points us in a more hopeful direction as a country.
Reading the early comments I can't help but see that "Bowling Alone" has finally wrecked our body politic. You can't run a democracy without the demos.
Here’s the simple formula to win. Run a demographically favorable candidate in a purple state who takes an aggressive dominant, tough approach campaigning. That means light on policy and heavy on polemics. That means someone that can punch. Here’s an example: Gavin Newsom.
Jasmine Crockett is very talented and she is very good in front of the camera and she is excellent at this kind of pugilistic performance that goes viral and gets people excited. The problem, is that she’s running against culture in Texas. A black woman running for statewide office will likely bring out the black vote. (I say likely because it didn’t happen with Kamala Harris.) but just as the Democrats are motivated to go out and vote against Trump, Texas conservatives objecting to the idea of a black senator will likely come out in equal or greater number. Please recall that one of the theories as to the rise of Trump was the reaction to Barack Obama’s presidency.
Maybe this will change over the next 20 years in Texas as the demographics shift but until Texas starts looking more like Virginia, this candidacy won’t fly. I wish it weren’t true.
On the other side, Ms Crockett is needed in the House of Representatives representing the Democrats with her gifted oratory skills. She’s a huge asset to the party and the nation.
In this age of data-profiling and micto-targeting, I think the intra-party arguments about hidden base voters vs. converting fence-sitters when used on a statewide level (e.g. Texas sized state) are mostly stupid. They seem mostly a high-level fudging that covers over more complicated questions about (1) candidate "style" and (2) progressive vs centrist candidate positioning.
Re. Texas, I think a moderate like Talarico luring fence sitters is more suited in general in red states than Crockett pumping up the base. So I'd prefer he get the party nod for the higher office run because I see him as having a better chance. Converting disaffected Republicans is a good major strategy with a Talarico, with lesser local opportunities at pumping up the base. (Wish Crockett would choose another office to run for).
On the other hand, Crockett has the better name recognition, and is better at nationalizing the anti-Trump anger, so this may be the one year she is just as suited (or better?) than Talarico to take advantage of anti-Trump fervor, even in Texas, So if Dems choose her, I think they have their reasons. The base-pumping approach would be major effort in a Crockett campaign, with smaller efforts at persuasion (talk to the enemy--they may relish the attention)
There is also geographical considerations for both: both would pump us the base in big cities, while being more open-minded "All Americans" in rural areas. But Talarico might have better appeal to the rural areas, I'd assume.
Getting REGISTERED nonvoters is one thing but getting UNREGISTERED nonvoters to 1.) register and 2.) follow through and voting for the preferred candidate, is entirely different kettle of fish.
“Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence." Oscar Wilde once said. It is the same with politics.
Registered nonvoters probably once had hope but have been let down by politicians of both parties who have long overpromised and then underdelivered because democracy is built for compromise and some promises just can't be kept. What does get delivered ends up being nothing they wanted or cared about.
I think those who don't register may actually believe the status quo is just fine. In a sense they are voting by not voting. Also there is the real possibility that many unregistered nonvoters are not competent enough to be allowed to vote in the first place and their self-deselection is an overall positive.
I think this is the motive behind Republican efforts to suppress the vote--- but they have given themselves the power to decide who is and isn't competent rather than letting the voters deselect themselves.
So… they don’t understand what connected Donald Trump to voters…
And? …..What did?
It wasn’t conservative values. And “moving to the center” means absolutely nothing. The “center” is where nothing happens, at all. THAT’S the problem. People care about things. They’re not ambivalent about their lives, they just recognize that politics and politicians ARE ambivalent about their lives or, at best, ineffective at making a difference.
THAT’S what DJT’s appeal has been and remains to be (in spite of the fact that he’s proven that he’s more than ambivalent, he’d eat his most ardent supporter for breakfast if they dared to defy him).
This isn’t a contest between conservatives and progressives, it’s a popularity contest. It’s a MARKETING issue.
Who has the greatest brand of all time? As much as I absolutely abhor the guy… it’s obviously Trump. He perfected the art of “outrage clicks” before there was such a thing. In a world dominated by “influencers” he reigns supreme. The constant barrage of outrageous truth social posts and executive orders and lawsuits and persecutions and the steady, unrelenting defiance of norms, laws, and common decency. It’s click bait on steroids.
People will vote if they believe that their “click” has agency, that it will actually make a difference and effect a change. And, as we’ve learned from Obama and Trump, ANY change at all will suffice - based on hope or based on grievance, doesn’t matter - the people are desperate for change AND for a sense of agency.
They’re going to vote for the influencer that makes them believe change is possible, and that their input matters.
Obviously, this only applies to voters who are not permanently party aligned. The party aligned are so enmeshed in party loyalty they’ve lost sight of their country, and their fellow countrymen. Nothing gets through to those voters so thoroughly immersed in their own priors and biases.
The reason people who don’t usually vote will tend to vote Republican is because they are the party of outrage, of anger, of contempt. And people who are frustrated find common cause with this messaging, but only because they’ve lost faith in hope.
Democratic candidates who have, and effectively message, real faith in a hope for a better future will do well. Like Obama, like Mamdani.
We are in the social media age. Influence is the name of the game. The old political playbooks need to be tossed.
Great, great post. I'd add that as far as "...people are desperate for change AND for a sense of agency"; yes, and, people are desperate for a sense of community and belonging, which then leads to change and agency. That's what Mamadani promised, how he campaigned, and is delivering. Republicans for a long, long time have gone into communities - a lot of time in ways liberals find abhorrent - and established long term connections at the ground level in communities, and in state and local government. This is what Turning Point does, and it's exactly what the Clinton, Carville, and (to some extent re: Rahm Emmanuel) Obama era politics abandoned in favor of top down, command/control politics aimed at people like themselves. In other words, we got ours. Screw the dirty proles, we don't need them.
"And “moving to the center” means absolutely nothing. The “center” is where nothing happens, at all."
The irony is that a functioning center is the only place where anything can happen in a democracy because compromise alone can make things happen.
But now we have a bipartisan gridlock in which neither side will or can compromise. Honestly, I don't think there is a way to compromise with fascists. This coming election isn't about policy it is about raw power. I agree that most of this is a battle of marketing but I don't know how one markets power over policy.
In politics, power is everything. In elections, policy is nothing. To think that human beings are actually 'policy driven' in something as emotional, tribal, familial, personal, and cultural as politics is a fatal delusion. It's NEVER about policy. We need to repeat this until it's engraved in our brains. Read any of the research over the past 40 years on how the human brain actually works, starting with "Descartes' Error." It will change how you think about how and why humans think what they think, feel what they feel, and do what they do. Hot tip: free will is an illusion, a just-so story.
It's not that "policy" in and of itself is meaningless. Of course it natters. But it's a distant last place in how humans actually behave in something as charged as elections. Republicans get this, because they're marketers. Democrats generally don't. This doesn't mean going straight to the gutter; it just means understanding how people actually work, NOT how we want or wish to believe they work. We ignore it at our peril.
I’m seeing Facebook advertising that indicates the Democrats are pursuing the same strategy nationally. Big mistake, you have every Democratic and anti-MAGA voter available, the mission now is to give voters a REASON to vote FOR you.
I am one of the too few people that don't understand Donald trump's appeal. He is and always have been repulsive to me. Many publications allude to this but don't adequately describe the allure. So how about someone at the bulwark dedicate an entire newsletter to the traits that trump demonstrates the have mass appeal to voters.
Repulsive-behaving to me too, but I think JVL Sarah and Time and other Buwark writers/commentators capture his "popular" allure all the time (1) Showman/Ringmaster--i.e. more Oprah than Kamala, more WWE than Olympics (2) Successful "Businessman" (ha ha)--more Mark Cuban than Mike Bloomberg (3) Attack dog/sh-tposter--more Gavin Newsom than Chuck Schumer (4) "Honest" guy (ha ha, again), says what he thinks, not a politician--Bernie Sanders rather than Hilary Clinton. (5) Good-old boy/Anti-woke---Bill Clinton rather than Kamala or Hilary. (6) Narcissist, but not "elitist"--Bill Clinton/Barack Obama rather than Mitt Romney.
I don't think Democrats will find a candidate with this combination of traits (Democrats these days don't do Populism), but at least one or two wouldn't hurt.
If this premise is true, then national political behaviors are doubly bemusing, because Republicans have been acting for decades as if increasing voter registration and access hurts them.
Texas is red and rural. Talarico is the only dem that might have a chance at the senate seat. He seems to be willing to work at persuading some percentage of Trump voters to vote for him, rather than saying we just need to turn out more voters. The typically low turnout primaries determine the candidate and ultimately the general election result. I wish Crockett wasn’t in the primary race. If she wins the primary, we can go ahead and start saying Senator Paxton and that’s a terrible thing for Texas and the country.
It would be good of folks not to confuse low propensity with low information. It is more than just conceivable that a voter has all the information they need, and yet find that neither of the two major candidates, nor their party platforms, are suitable. That said, I am with Carville on this one, and Andy Beshear in today's WSJ.
There are a lot of mis-drawn conclusions in this article, many of which have been identified by previous commenters. First, the following: "Democrats have become the party of educated elites. And increasingly they’re harmed, not helped, by high-turnout elections." In fact, Trump has conned his less-educated voting base, which he admits he prefers, into believing that anyone with any kind of higher education or expertise is an"elite snob", sneering at "ordinary Americans". That doesn't make it true. That just means Trump is a successful liar. The Democrats do have to learn to better tune their message to meat and potatoes issues, but their failure to do so is not because they are elitists. Kamala Harris did a fantastic job on pitching freedom to choose to women voters, and a lousy job of pitching her ideas for better housing, education, health care and jobs. But that's not because she is an elitist. She just stayed too anti Trump and too focused on one issue. And the fact is that Harris lost because at least 7 million who voted for Biden in 2016 didn't bother to show up to vote for her in 2020, which demonstrates pretty clearly that Democrats are in fact harmed by LOW-turnout. Why do you think Trump is trying so hard to make it difficult for people to vote?
Second: Democrats are "still holding on to a belief that they’re just one well-funded voter-registration drive away from flipping states across South." No, they do believe in getting their voters out to the polls, as does the GOP, but what Democrats really believe is that for blue collar workers, they have a message than will convince those people to vote for a party that will help them, not for a party led by a lying con man who will do nothing for them. Jasmine Crockett was actually saying that when she stated, “They tell us that Texas is red. They are lying. We’re not. The reality is that most Texans don’t get out to vote.” She intends to talk to Texans about how she will help them improve their lives and be treated with dignity and respect, not just lie to them as Trump, and Ted Cruz, and Greg Abbott have done and are doing. That message, IN ADDITION TO getting voters to the polls, could gain her the win.
The quotations in the article, and the conclusions drawn, were too simplistic and/or incorrect, in my view. The actuality is more complex.
As a Democrat, this sounds extremely familiar. Pleas for contributions were usually justified by the promise of increasing voter turnout. I always wondered about why they never gave the reason of publicizing issues and changing peoples' minds about them. Still I gave, usually to no avail.
I finally realized that the people in control of the Party was relying on a strategy of "we are the lesser of two evils (the Republicans in fact were and are the greater evil), and therefore we deserve your vote, despite our stupid tactics". That strategy reached its Waterloo, when Democrats allowed an old, unpopular man to run again without serious opposition, and without any serious defense of the positive achievements of the years during which he was President.
So I am tired about being a member of the politically stupid Democratic Party. I will selectively contribute strategically to individual candidates, but no way will I let the Democratic Party get my phone number.
Want to be back in power? First quit adopting the narrative of the Right. Democrats were not to blame for Trump. The voters were. Next you don’t “reach those voters” through “messaging”. They are the problem. So you present a clear alternative that isn’t “trump lite” or “compassionate trumpism”. Its FuckTrumpism. And focus on the money. The rest of the stuff will take care of itself. And you need fighters not infighters. Need some teeth in our dogs. Not more policy wonks.
It's a good point that the non-registered voters likely opted out of civic participation for a reason - just registering them, even if they're of a particular demographic that used to be favorable to Dems, doesn't necessarily help the Dem candidate, unless maybe that candidate also uses the opportunity to listen to their concerns and win them over.
My guess is the Republicans have an overall advantage at getting their message across in the social media space that reaches the masses, including the low-educated voters - if basically they tilt common sense in their favor. I'm not sure how well outside observers would be able to measure for this bias if they don't have access to the social media platforms' internal data.
Even if someone is predisposed to vote Dem by virtue of life experience, if their info about the state of the world is poisoned against Dems from the start, and they don't have the means or resources to see thru that, then they won't necessarily vote for a Dem. (The fact things got tilted this far against Dems is partially their fault I think - partly due to pragmatic compromise of values to get partial wins that led to kludgeocracy - but I can't see that part as clearly).
Also I wonder if the blue collar voters that used to vote Dem are now tilted in favor of MAGA - I think someone like AOC also would appeal to them, since she comes from a blue collar background and is unafraid to speak to them directly. Also she has effective communication skills on social media platforms. A populist agenda is easier to be heard for blue collar voters I think.
Trump by his ineptitude leaves an opening for Dems to be heard but I don't think they would win against the larger Trump movement unless they can make a positive case that counters it - just highlighting the negative aspects of Trump wouldn't be enough in the long run - it might help to win temporarily but risks suffering a worse backlash later.
If my guesses are not too far off, and admitting that I don't know what the world will look like in 2028 for the presidential elections where low-info voter turnout is a factor, I could see a Dem candidate having a chance to win if they can run on people power. I think they'd need to:
1) identity-fuse with the lower and middle class blue collar voters (who historically had voted Dem), form a closer bond with them than Trump, to show they viscerally feel their pain and won't take no for an answer, and are willing to use power to change the system as needed to bring relief - just saying they will fight for them is maybe not enough anymore, even touting accomplishments made on their behalf is probably not enough unless it's communicated at least as forcefully and persistently as Trump transmits his lies - otherwise the message may not get past the info spin environment to reach their ears.
2) show the non-Trump Republicans and Independents they are not crazy and not feckless - appeal to the Conservative principles found in the Constitution and to fiscally Conservative principles. This part would ordinarily be next to impossible but Trump has set the bar so low in this area that hopefully it's doable.
3) show the Dem base voters how they will hold Trump accountable for all the ways he's lied and acted with impunity against the Constitution, and promise that they'll restore the presidential office to a high set of moral standards again - to appeal to fundamental values of truth, honesty, integrity, character, justice, community, family - we have to make it so there's a price paid for those who gain power by lying and just pretending to care about those values - to impose a heavy social cost on that - I just don't think it's sustainable to fight lies constantly otherwise, we'll never get anywhere as a country.
1) Not taking no for an answer to change institutions as needed, and being committed to action enough to overcome bad faith opposition yet 2) showing you will respect the purpose of our institutions and will be fiscally responsible, all while 3) being focused on the past to heal the damage done by Trump to unify the American people rather than giving him a pass to focus on the future immediately - the combined constraints are so narrow this all might seem contradictory. But it's not fully contradictory - there could be a way to thread the needle.
Some things I'd look for in a candidate - if they can get the people to have faith and trust in them to do what is right, even MAGA people; if they have a strong sense of justice and fairness, and humility. If they are open-minded and innovative - ideally they could borrow from the good parts of Trump's communication strategy but replace the lying with truth-telling. Then also it'd be good if they have capacity to act with authority - not in a destructive way like Trump, but in a creative way, that fulfills the spirit of the institutions but is not limited by the status quo. They'd basically need to be like a living Constitution - someone who understands it deep in their bones and lives by its principles as second nature. I don't know if any perfect candidate hits all these marks but if I see they hold the right values then I might trust they could form a team that covers the bases, or at least points us in a more hopeful direction as a country.
Pandering to deplorables is simply never going to be a winning strategy in the long run.
Reading the early comments I can't help but see that "Bowling Alone" has finally wrecked our body politic. You can't run a democracy without the demos.
Here’s the simple formula to win. Run a demographically favorable candidate in a purple state who takes an aggressive dominant, tough approach campaigning. That means light on policy and heavy on polemics. That means someone that can punch. Here’s an example: Gavin Newsom.
Jasmine Crockett is very talented and she is very good in front of the camera and she is excellent at this kind of pugilistic performance that goes viral and gets people excited. The problem, is that she’s running against culture in Texas. A black woman running for statewide office will likely bring out the black vote. (I say likely because it didn’t happen with Kamala Harris.) but just as the Democrats are motivated to go out and vote against Trump, Texas conservatives objecting to the idea of a black senator will likely come out in equal or greater number. Please recall that one of the theories as to the rise of Trump was the reaction to Barack Obama’s presidency.
Maybe this will change over the next 20 years in Texas as the demographics shift but until Texas starts looking more like Virginia, this candidacy won’t fly. I wish it weren’t true.
On the other side, Ms Crockett is needed in the House of Representatives representing the Democrats with her gifted oratory skills. She’s a huge asset to the party and the nation.
In this age of data-profiling and micto-targeting, I think the intra-party arguments about hidden base voters vs. converting fence-sitters when used on a statewide level (e.g. Texas sized state) are mostly stupid. They seem mostly a high-level fudging that covers over more complicated questions about (1) candidate "style" and (2) progressive vs centrist candidate positioning.
Re. Texas, I think a moderate like Talarico luring fence sitters is more suited in general in red states than Crockett pumping up the base. So I'd prefer he get the party nod for the higher office run because I see him as having a better chance. Converting disaffected Republicans is a good major strategy with a Talarico, with lesser local opportunities at pumping up the base. (Wish Crockett would choose another office to run for).
On the other hand, Crockett has the better name recognition, and is better at nationalizing the anti-Trump anger, so this may be the one year she is just as suited (or better?) than Talarico to take advantage of anti-Trump fervor, even in Texas, So if Dems choose her, I think they have their reasons. The base-pumping approach would be major effort in a Crockett campaign, with smaller efforts at persuasion (talk to the enemy--they may relish the attention)
There is also geographical considerations for both: both would pump us the base in big cities, while being more open-minded "All Americans" in rural areas. But Talarico might have better appeal to the rural areas, I'd assume.
Getting REGISTERED nonvoters is one thing but getting UNREGISTERED nonvoters to 1.) register and 2.) follow through and voting for the preferred candidate, is entirely different kettle of fish.
“Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence." Oscar Wilde once said. It is the same with politics.
Registered nonvoters probably once had hope but have been let down by politicians of both parties who have long overpromised and then underdelivered because democracy is built for compromise and some promises just can't be kept. What does get delivered ends up being nothing they wanted or cared about.
I think those who don't register may actually believe the status quo is just fine. In a sense they are voting by not voting. Also there is the real possibility that many unregistered nonvoters are not competent enough to be allowed to vote in the first place and their self-deselection is an overall positive.
I think this is the motive behind Republican efforts to suppress the vote--- but they have given themselves the power to decide who is and isn't competent rather than letting the voters deselect themselves.
So… they don’t understand what connected Donald Trump to voters…
And? …..What did?
It wasn’t conservative values. And “moving to the center” means absolutely nothing. The “center” is where nothing happens, at all. THAT’S the problem. People care about things. They’re not ambivalent about their lives, they just recognize that politics and politicians ARE ambivalent about their lives or, at best, ineffective at making a difference.
THAT’S what DJT’s appeal has been and remains to be (in spite of the fact that he’s proven that he’s more than ambivalent, he’d eat his most ardent supporter for breakfast if they dared to defy him).
This isn’t a contest between conservatives and progressives, it’s a popularity contest. It’s a MARKETING issue.
Who has the greatest brand of all time? As much as I absolutely abhor the guy… it’s obviously Trump. He perfected the art of “outrage clicks” before there was such a thing. In a world dominated by “influencers” he reigns supreme. The constant barrage of outrageous truth social posts and executive orders and lawsuits and persecutions and the steady, unrelenting defiance of norms, laws, and common decency. It’s click bait on steroids.
People will vote if they believe that their “click” has agency, that it will actually make a difference and effect a change. And, as we’ve learned from Obama and Trump, ANY change at all will suffice - based on hope or based on grievance, doesn’t matter - the people are desperate for change AND for a sense of agency.
They’re going to vote for the influencer that makes them believe change is possible, and that their input matters.
Obviously, this only applies to voters who are not permanently party aligned. The party aligned are so enmeshed in party loyalty they’ve lost sight of their country, and their fellow countrymen. Nothing gets through to those voters so thoroughly immersed in their own priors and biases.
The reason people who don’t usually vote will tend to vote Republican is because they are the party of outrage, of anger, of contempt. And people who are frustrated find common cause with this messaging, but only because they’ve lost faith in hope.
Democratic candidates who have, and effectively message, real faith in a hope for a better future will do well. Like Obama, like Mamdani.
We are in the social media age. Influence is the name of the game. The old political playbooks need to be tossed.
Great, great post. I'd add that as far as "...people are desperate for change AND for a sense of agency"; yes, and, people are desperate for a sense of community and belonging, which then leads to change and agency. That's what Mamadani promised, how he campaigned, and is delivering. Republicans for a long, long time have gone into communities - a lot of time in ways liberals find abhorrent - and established long term connections at the ground level in communities, and in state and local government. This is what Turning Point does, and it's exactly what the Clinton, Carville, and (to some extent re: Rahm Emmanuel) Obama era politics abandoned in favor of top down, command/control politics aimed at people like themselves. In other words, we got ours. Screw the dirty proles, we don't need them.
We've seen how well this worked out, haven't we?
"And “moving to the center” means absolutely nothing. The “center” is where nothing happens, at all."
The irony is that a functioning center is the only place where anything can happen in a democracy because compromise alone can make things happen.
But now we have a bipartisan gridlock in which neither side will or can compromise. Honestly, I don't think there is a way to compromise with fascists. This coming election isn't about policy it is about raw power. I agree that most of this is a battle of marketing but I don't know how one markets power over policy.
In politics, power is everything. In elections, policy is nothing. To think that human beings are actually 'policy driven' in something as emotional, tribal, familial, personal, and cultural as politics is a fatal delusion. It's NEVER about policy. We need to repeat this until it's engraved in our brains. Read any of the research over the past 40 years on how the human brain actually works, starting with "Descartes' Error." It will change how you think about how and why humans think what they think, feel what they feel, and do what they do. Hot tip: free will is an illusion, a just-so story.
It's not that "policy" in and of itself is meaningless. Of course it natters. But it's a distant last place in how humans actually behave in something as charged as elections. Republicans get this, because they're marketers. Democrats generally don't. This doesn't mean going straight to the gutter; it just means understanding how people actually work, NOT how we want or wish to believe they work. We ignore it at our peril.
I’m seeing Facebook advertising that indicates the Democrats are pursuing the same strategy nationally. Big mistake, you have every Democratic and anti-MAGA voter available, the mission now is to give voters a REASON to vote FOR you.
This is how The Bulwark subtly endorses Talarico
I am one of the too few people that don't understand Donald trump's appeal. He is and always have been repulsive to me. Many publications allude to this but don't adequately describe the allure. So how about someone at the bulwark dedicate an entire newsletter to the traits that trump demonstrates the have mass appeal to voters.
Repulsive-behaving to me too, but I think JVL Sarah and Time and other Buwark writers/commentators capture his "popular" allure all the time (1) Showman/Ringmaster--i.e. more Oprah than Kamala, more WWE than Olympics (2) Successful "Businessman" (ha ha)--more Mark Cuban than Mike Bloomberg (3) Attack dog/sh-tposter--more Gavin Newsom than Chuck Schumer (4) "Honest" guy (ha ha, again), says what he thinks, not a politician--Bernie Sanders rather than Hilary Clinton. (5) Good-old boy/Anti-woke---Bill Clinton rather than Kamala or Hilary. (6) Narcissist, but not "elitist"--Bill Clinton/Barack Obama rather than Mitt Romney.
I don't think Democrats will find a candidate with this combination of traits (Democrats these days don't do Populism), but at least one or two wouldn't hurt.
If this premise is true, then national political behaviors are doubly bemusing, because Republicans have been acting for decades as if increasing voter registration and access hurts them.
Texas is red and rural. Talarico is the only dem that might have a chance at the senate seat. He seems to be willing to work at persuading some percentage of Trump voters to vote for him, rather than saying we just need to turn out more voters. The typically low turnout primaries determine the candidate and ultimately the general election result. I wish Crockett wasn’t in the primary race. If she wins the primary, we can go ahead and start saying Senator Paxton and that’s a terrible thing for Texas and the country.
It would be good of folks not to confuse low propensity with low information. It is more than just conceivable that a voter has all the information they need, and yet find that neither of the two major candidates, nor their party platforms, are suitable. That said, I am with Carville on this one, and Andy Beshear in today's WSJ.
The Venn diagram isn't complete, but theres a lot of overlap.
There are a lot of mis-drawn conclusions in this article, many of which have been identified by previous commenters. First, the following: "Democrats have become the party of educated elites. And increasingly they’re harmed, not helped, by high-turnout elections." In fact, Trump has conned his less-educated voting base, which he admits he prefers, into believing that anyone with any kind of higher education or expertise is an"elite snob", sneering at "ordinary Americans". That doesn't make it true. That just means Trump is a successful liar. The Democrats do have to learn to better tune their message to meat and potatoes issues, but their failure to do so is not because they are elitists. Kamala Harris did a fantastic job on pitching freedom to choose to women voters, and a lousy job of pitching her ideas for better housing, education, health care and jobs. But that's not because she is an elitist. She just stayed too anti Trump and too focused on one issue. And the fact is that Harris lost because at least 7 million who voted for Biden in 2016 didn't bother to show up to vote for her in 2020, which demonstrates pretty clearly that Democrats are in fact harmed by LOW-turnout. Why do you think Trump is trying so hard to make it difficult for people to vote?
Second: Democrats are "still holding on to a belief that they’re just one well-funded voter-registration drive away from flipping states across South." No, they do believe in getting their voters out to the polls, as does the GOP, but what Democrats really believe is that for blue collar workers, they have a message than will convince those people to vote for a party that will help them, not for a party led by a lying con man who will do nothing for them. Jasmine Crockett was actually saying that when she stated, “They tell us that Texas is red. They are lying. We’re not. The reality is that most Texans don’t get out to vote.” She intends to talk to Texans about how she will help them improve their lives and be treated with dignity and respect, not just lie to them as Trump, and Ted Cruz, and Greg Abbott have done and are doing. That message, IN ADDITION TO getting voters to the polls, could gain her the win.
The quotations in the article, and the conclusions drawn, were too simplistic and/or incorrect, in my view. The actuality is more complex.
As a Democrat, this sounds extremely familiar. Pleas for contributions were usually justified by the promise of increasing voter turnout. I always wondered about why they never gave the reason of publicizing issues and changing peoples' minds about them. Still I gave, usually to no avail.
I finally realized that the people in control of the Party was relying on a strategy of "we are the lesser of two evils (the Republicans in fact were and are the greater evil), and therefore we deserve your vote, despite our stupid tactics". That strategy reached its Waterloo, when Democrats allowed an old, unpopular man to run again without serious opposition, and without any serious defense of the positive achievements of the years during which he was President.
So I am tired about being a member of the politically stupid Democratic Party. I will selectively contribute strategically to individual candidates, but no way will I let the Democratic Party get my phone number.