"They worried that too many candidates were being deemed electable based on their ability to go viral, with no guarantee that the clicks and views would translate into general election votes."
That seems a worrying statement on a few levels:
1) Ability to go viral is a very shallow metric, it hopefully is not their primary focus? I just saw the Tim Miller interview with the guy who wrote Supercommunicators - that conversation proposed helpful guidance on electability I think - if the Dem has an ability to connect with their audience, to first empathize on issues the voters care about, then I think it gives a better guarantee this would translate into some votes in a general election.
2) It plays into the concern that whoever is advising the Dems about social media is too disconnected from regular people still - or has a vested interest in not connecting with regular people.
I think the focus on social media fluency is necessary not for the ability to go viral but rather for the politician's message to be heard clearly and directly by the people - if not social media then how else will they get their message to the voters? Virality seems just like an extra skill that can help. Really what it boils down to is imposing an authenticity filter I think - the public has gotten used to this after COVID and possibly prefers it over the old communication style, even if it feels more chaotic and informal. Otherwise I think Joe Biden and Kamala would have had an easier time in the 2024 election.
One other thing is I don't like how the one guy supposedly running as a populist would, as he dropped out of the race, knife the other Dem candidate in the back over electability concerns. It's a sign the Dems don't know what their core unifying value is - they're still maybe searching for what works.
The Republicans have a unifying principle which is loyalty to Trump. Everyone on their side who jockeys for power, however chaotically, still agrees on that.
For Dems to unify, opposition to Trump is a start. It means the unifying value exists and lies somewhere on the opposite side of what Trump stands for. Unfortunately that doesn't narrow it down by much - essentially all of the historic American values have been abandoned by Trump by now.
The Dems could use someone like a party leader to articulate what their core value is - maybe someone who is a good organizer can help? I think the Dems used to be the party of the working class and of the minorities, those without power in society - they have let circumstances and the Republicans drive a wedge between them and this base though so now are adrift. Biden really did attempt to correct that and re-connect with the working class I believe - it would be interesting to know if they ever got that message or if something blocked it. Perhaps in this situation, to have a base again would require the people to first organize, mobilize and lead, and the leaders to follow.
Thanks for the great article about Sage. Found another article that seems to support the concerns that wahls cannot understand the other side. A repub site is already “branding” wahls as a “radical”; repubs would not have been able to do this with Sage, in this monk’s very humble opinion.🙏
The Democratic party is a normal political party. Which means, there are clashes between the donor class, the base, the pundit class, and the politicians. Still, this time around they've been dealt a straight flush and there's no excuse for not going all in, especially when the opponent has queen high. A winning message is not hard to find. Do not worry about solid Republican constituencies you will never get. You don't need them.
Run on Epstein.
Run on the gutting of health care research.
Run on affordability - but be serious, and make it clear that this is the result of wealth extraction and hoarding by plutocrats and oligarchs.
The question isn’t “Does going viral win elections?” It’s “Where are voters forming impressions about candidates?” And the answer is online, including older voters.
No, virality isn’t electability. A spike in views isn’t a coalition. But dismissing organic social as a niche skill for young voters misunderstands the modern information ecosystem. Voters of all ages encounter political information through algorithmic feeds, whether that’s Facebook, YouTube, or news clips shared socially.
Treating social media as a youth outreach tactic is a dangerous, outdated idea pushed by consultants who haven’t updated their playbook. Social isn’t a side channel, and Democrats have to stop pretending they can spin up a digital program in an election year and ignore it in the off years. That is not how trust or familiarity gets built.
Social media is the primary distribution layer for political information.
The issue isn’t whether social media wins elections on its own. Nothing does. The issue is whether campaigns can afford to ignore the dominant channel where voters form opinions.
Authenticity, narrative clarity, and consistency aren’t influencer skills. They’re modern campaign fundamentals.
I have lived in the Minneapolis, Minnesota area all my life. A long time!
Never, ever has our relatively quiet state been covered nation-wide for so long a time, courtesy of trumpolini's goons and no small amount of fraud issues. Other than trumpolini and his coup clan, the support we've gotten has been wonderful!
trumpolini has placed Minnesota high on his hated states. Always because we trend blue, and now because of his knee-jerk reaction to anyone who tells the truth about him, e.g., Governor Tim Walz.
Governor Walz) is not running again.
Both of our U.S. Senators are leaving office at the end of this term.
>> Senator Amy Klobuchar is running for the Minnesota Governor seat.
>> Senator Tina Smith announced last fall that she would not run again.
>> Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan is running for Senator Smith's seat.
Suffice it to say the upcoming election in Minnesota is complicated. And may become more so, for all I know.
It might be interesting to you and helpful to Minnesotans to provide us your wisdom and take about what's going on here, election-wise.
Of course the party is going to hand wring themselves into losing. Just find people who match the district and can behave like a normal person. It's not that hard.
Why is it "electability" only matters for Democratic candidates but the GOP can throw out the most lunatic, corrupt, openly crazy people it wants and no one cares? In fact, that seems to be a positive for them.
How can Democrats can fail to see the statistics that work against a savvy online progressive winning a senate seat in a red state? If 40% of a red state is absolutely unreachable and 60% usually vote red, then 75% of "middle" voters need to come on board for Dems to win those senate seats in November. And many of those voters have personal redlines when it comes to candidates. I have Trump-voting family members, and I listen to their very real redlines. Acceptable policy makes a difference. And it varies by state. Crockett and AOC are two absolute redlines for a lot of the middle. That said, authenticity and presence on short videos and sparking passion in voters is also essential. Lauren's mention of Ossoff seems right on the mark. Online savvy is important in October; didn't Elon's blast made a difference with the youngest voters? Best populist target: anti-elite, pro-the guy/gal in a white pickup running a construction business with 3 employees (people with very small businesses need to feel like the Democrats will work for them; it's about 20% of tax returns with a Schedule C, and they felt abandoned by Biden equating working class with union jobs).
I think their red lines are due to mainlining Fox all day and not really knowing anything about them. Someone like AOC who is personable and sincere could make headwinds with being on the ground and meeting people. Look at her and Bernie selling out the oligarchy tour in places like Idaho.
I appreciate your reply, but think you might have missed my point, which is a mathematical one. Beto O'Rourke lost by less than 3% to a weak candidate, likely because his intense presence online began to reveal some real flakiness. Harris lost by 14% to Trump in Texas. Swinging that 14% is a real reach. If I were a Texas Independent leaning R, I might just skip that line on the ballot in November if it were Paxton vs Crockett. You need to listen to Sarah's Focus Group podcast about Texas Republicans. Tour tickets are vibes, not data. Swing Hispanic Biden to Trump and some church folks who are horrified by what is happening to refugees. Win if enough hard core R's stay home. (A close relation is one of these hard core R's; Mr. Pro-Trump would show up to vote against Crockett, stay home for Talarico.)
FWIW, I don't think Crockett can win the general in Texas but I think Talarico has a chance especially in Paxton is the GOP nominee. He is still probably a long shot. Texas is maroon at best, not purple.
The problem with electibility as an argument is that you don't know who is electable until you try. See Mamdani or AOC. Democrats have been winning special election largely after special election including flipping some deep red districts. See the recent flip in Tarrant county. Trump is extremely underwater and ICE is rampant and unchecked and people don't like it. Plus fallout from Epstein.
Is now the time to really worry that someone is so liberal that they can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory or are these bed-wetting consultants and politicians just worried that their private job sector gravy trains will be hurt by a more economically and socially left Democratic Party?
I'm reading this as there are a lot of Democratic strategists and others who are vastly underestimating how much their base is angry as hell at Trump and Co. Not all of them are like this and I think Pretti's murder hardened stances. Simply put, there is not a lot of appetite among Democratic Party voters for "look forward, not backward" and/or "I am sensible pragmatist who can reach across the aisle for commonsense solutions." Those ships have sailed/bridges have been burned...etc.
The fact that a lot of strategists and consultants can't read the room is revealing.
I can attest to the fact that primary voters are generally middle age and older, reliable voters. I was a precinct captain in my district for 16 years. Rarely were young people present. And most of those who showed up tended to be progressives. I retired before the last midterm election so I'm not current on who attends but I'm guessing it hasn't changed much. It's also true that most of the campaign managers, consultants and their staff are youngish. So there is a bit of disconnect. It would be wise, I think, to emphasize connecting with older voters who are not social media enthusiasts, and also plug into social media to appeal to younger, but often less reliable, younger voters. No matter which method of contact is used, authenticity and clear messaging is paramount.
Mealy-mouthed whining about 'electability' will never end, the political consultant class have to eat, too.
See, all that inside-baseball, horserace-excitement bullshit that podsters and pundits burble endlessly about absolutely matter, to prop up a two-party system built on corruption and lies. It absolutely matters, until the people tear the system down with their bare hands, and then it doesn't.
I realize he's an independent but I'd be interested in deep coverage of the Osborn-Ricketts race in Nebraska, also the crowded primary field in MT-1 seeking to challenge Zinke. Thanks Lauren.
"They worried that too many candidates were being deemed electable based on their ability to go viral, with no guarantee that the clicks and views would translate into general election votes."
That seems a worrying statement on a few levels:
1) Ability to go viral is a very shallow metric, it hopefully is not their primary focus? I just saw the Tim Miller interview with the guy who wrote Supercommunicators - that conversation proposed helpful guidance on electability I think - if the Dem has an ability to connect with their audience, to first empathize on issues the voters care about, then I think it gives a better guarantee this would translate into some votes in a general election.
2) It plays into the concern that whoever is advising the Dems about social media is too disconnected from regular people still - or has a vested interest in not connecting with regular people.
I think the focus on social media fluency is necessary not for the ability to go viral but rather for the politician's message to be heard clearly and directly by the people - if not social media then how else will they get their message to the voters? Virality seems just like an extra skill that can help. Really what it boils down to is imposing an authenticity filter I think - the public has gotten used to this after COVID and possibly prefers it over the old communication style, even if it feels more chaotic and informal. Otherwise I think Joe Biden and Kamala would have had an easier time in the 2024 election.
One other thing is I don't like how the one guy supposedly running as a populist would, as he dropped out of the race, knife the other Dem candidate in the back over electability concerns. It's a sign the Dems don't know what their core unifying value is - they're still maybe searching for what works.
The Republicans have a unifying principle which is loyalty to Trump. Everyone on their side who jockeys for power, however chaotically, still agrees on that.
For Dems to unify, opposition to Trump is a start. It means the unifying value exists and lies somewhere on the opposite side of what Trump stands for. Unfortunately that doesn't narrow it down by much - essentially all of the historic American values have been abandoned by Trump by now.
The Dems could use someone like a party leader to articulate what their core value is - maybe someone who is a good organizer can help? I think the Dems used to be the party of the working class and of the minorities, those without power in society - they have let circumstances and the Republicans drive a wedge between them and this base though so now are adrift. Biden really did attempt to correct that and re-connect with the working class I believe - it would be interesting to know if they ever got that message or if something blocked it. Perhaps in this situation, to have a base again would require the people to first organize, mobilize and lead, and the leaders to follow.
I do think all parties struggle to find good candidates who might also win - not just Ds
Thanks for the great article about Sage. Found another article that seems to support the concerns that wahls cannot understand the other side. A repub site is already “branding” wahls as a “radical”; repubs would not have been able to do this with Sage, in this monk’s very humble opinion.🙏
And, Sage is now endorsing Turek!
https://laurabelin.substack.com/p/sizing-up-wahls-vs-turek-after-democratic
The Democratic party is a normal political party. Which means, there are clashes between the donor class, the base, the pundit class, and the politicians. Still, this time around they've been dealt a straight flush and there's no excuse for not going all in, especially when the opponent has queen high. A winning message is not hard to find. Do not worry about solid Republican constituencies you will never get. You don't need them.
Run on Epstein.
Run on the gutting of health care research.
Run on affordability - but be serious, and make it clear that this is the result of wealth extraction and hoarding by plutocrats and oligarchs.
And so on.
Well, the Dems avoided podcasts in 2024 and look where that got us.
Dems start using everything, I mean everything! And start talking like regular people and not like AI robots like Hakeem Jeffries!
Establishment Dems are some special kind of stupid or just f’ing complicit.
No more Mr. Nice Guy crap!
Sheesh!
The question isn’t “Does going viral win elections?” It’s “Where are voters forming impressions about candidates?” And the answer is online, including older voters.
No, virality isn’t electability. A spike in views isn’t a coalition. But dismissing organic social as a niche skill for young voters misunderstands the modern information ecosystem. Voters of all ages encounter political information through algorithmic feeds, whether that’s Facebook, YouTube, or news clips shared socially.
Treating social media as a youth outreach tactic is a dangerous, outdated idea pushed by consultants who haven’t updated their playbook. Social isn’t a side channel, and Democrats have to stop pretending they can spin up a digital program in an election year and ignore it in the off years. That is not how trust or familiarity gets built.
Social media is the primary distribution layer for political information.
The issue isn’t whether social media wins elections on its own. Nothing does. The issue is whether campaigns can afford to ignore the dominant channel where voters form opinions.
Authenticity, narrative clarity, and consistency aren’t influencer skills. They’re modern campaign fundamentals.
I have lived in the Minneapolis, Minnesota area all my life. A long time!
Never, ever has our relatively quiet state been covered nation-wide for so long a time, courtesy of trumpolini's goons and no small amount of fraud issues. Other than trumpolini and his coup clan, the support we've gotten has been wonderful!
trumpolini has placed Minnesota high on his hated states. Always because we trend blue, and now because of his knee-jerk reaction to anyone who tells the truth about him, e.g., Governor Tim Walz.
Governor Walz) is not running again.
Both of our U.S. Senators are leaving office at the end of this term.
>> Senator Amy Klobuchar is running for the Minnesota Governor seat.
>> Senator Tina Smith announced last fall that she would not run again.
>> Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan is running for Senator Smith's seat.
Suffice it to say the upcoming election in Minnesota is complicated. And may become more so, for all I know.
It might be interesting to you and helpful to Minnesotans to provide us your wisdom and take about what's going on here, election-wise.
Please and thank you.
Of course the party is going to hand wring themselves into losing. Just find people who match the district and can behave like a normal person. It's not that hard.
Why is it "electability" only matters for Democratic candidates but the GOP can throw out the most lunatic, corrupt, openly crazy people it wants and no one cares? In fact, that seems to be a positive for them.
Then the loons are electable. There may be a double standard…. That’s politics.
How can Democrats can fail to see the statistics that work against a savvy online progressive winning a senate seat in a red state? If 40% of a red state is absolutely unreachable and 60% usually vote red, then 75% of "middle" voters need to come on board for Dems to win those senate seats in November. And many of those voters have personal redlines when it comes to candidates. I have Trump-voting family members, and I listen to their very real redlines. Acceptable policy makes a difference. And it varies by state. Crockett and AOC are two absolute redlines for a lot of the middle. That said, authenticity and presence on short videos and sparking passion in voters is also essential. Lauren's mention of Ossoff seems right on the mark. Online savvy is important in October; didn't Elon's blast made a difference with the youngest voters? Best populist target: anti-elite, pro-the guy/gal in a white pickup running a construction business with 3 employees (people with very small businesses need to feel like the Democrats will work for them; it's about 20% of tax returns with a Schedule C, and they felt abandoned by Biden equating working class with union jobs).
I think their red lines are due to mainlining Fox all day and not really knowing anything about them. Someone like AOC who is personable and sincere could make headwinds with being on the ground and meeting people. Look at her and Bernie selling out the oligarchy tour in places like Idaho.
I appreciate your reply, but think you might have missed my point, which is a mathematical one. Beto O'Rourke lost by less than 3% to a weak candidate, likely because his intense presence online began to reveal some real flakiness. Harris lost by 14% to Trump in Texas. Swinging that 14% is a real reach. If I were a Texas Independent leaning R, I might just skip that line on the ballot in November if it were Paxton vs Crockett. You need to listen to Sarah's Focus Group podcast about Texas Republicans. Tour tickets are vibes, not data. Swing Hispanic Biden to Trump and some church folks who are horrified by what is happening to refugees. Win if enough hard core R's stay home. (A close relation is one of these hard core R's; Mr. Pro-Trump would show up to vote against Crockett, stay home for Talarico.)
FWIW, I don't think Crockett can win the general in Texas but I think Talarico has a chance especially in Paxton is the GOP nominee. He is still probably a long shot. Texas is maroon at best, not purple.
The problem with electibility as an argument is that you don't know who is electable until you try. See Mamdani or AOC. Democrats have been winning special election largely after special election including flipping some deep red districts. See the recent flip in Tarrant county. Trump is extremely underwater and ICE is rampant and unchecked and people don't like it. Plus fallout from Epstein.
Is now the time to really worry that someone is so liberal that they can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory or are these bed-wetting consultants and politicians just worried that their private job sector gravy trains will be hurt by a more economically and socially left Democratic Party?
I'm reading this as there are a lot of Democratic strategists and others who are vastly underestimating how much their base is angry as hell at Trump and Co. Not all of them are like this and I think Pretti's murder hardened stances. Simply put, there is not a lot of appetite among Democratic Party voters for "look forward, not backward" and/or "I am sensible pragmatist who can reach across the aisle for commonsense solutions." Those ships have sailed/bridges have been burned...etc.
The fact that a lot of strategists and consultants can't read the room is revealing.
I can attest to the fact that primary voters are generally middle age and older, reliable voters. I was a precinct captain in my district for 16 years. Rarely were young people present. And most of those who showed up tended to be progressives. I retired before the last midterm election so I'm not current on who attends but I'm guessing it hasn't changed much. It's also true that most of the campaign managers, consultants and their staff are youngish. So there is a bit of disconnect. It would be wise, I think, to emphasize connecting with older voters who are not social media enthusiasts, and also plug into social media to appeal to younger, but often less reliable, younger voters. No matter which method of contact is used, authenticity and clear messaging is paramount.
Mealy-mouthed whining about 'electability' will never end, the political consultant class have to eat, too.
See, all that inside-baseball, horserace-excitement bullshit that podsters and pundits burble endlessly about absolutely matter, to prop up a two-party system built on corruption and lies. It absolutely matters, until the people tear the system down with their bare hands, and then it doesn't.
I realize he's an independent but I'd be interested in deep coverage of the Osborn-Ricketts race in Nebraska, also the crowded primary field in MT-1 seeking to challenge Zinke. Thanks Lauren.
Hi Lauren,
I'd be interested in following the Michigan Senatorial race.