And these four candidates' permissible differences are why Dem's are situated to win in these very different races. They are not required to be stiff, sycophantic clones of any dear leader. The flexibility to run their own races is a great advantage and strength that simply does not exist- is not permitted to exist- in the opposition. This is one time Dem diversity may be an unalloyed good.
So true. What flies in Pennsylvania might well not fly in NY. We just need to be on the same bus; we don’t have to get off at the same stop. I am worried that Dems will fracture in the next elections, especially in 2028. I hope that I’m wrong.
You nailed it. Efforts to find “the” face of the party are driven by consultants and the DNC. It has become proactively unhelpful. I wrote about it here a few weeks ago. Thank you for this!!
Thank you so much for this. Its about time. The Democratic Party's message can unify many subgroups relation to each other and to their individual relationship with power. Its not that hard to figure out. And there's no need to for division if its loosely coupled. Seems to me the current administration makes it wasy to ground the campaign in very real reality instead of indulging in stupid Trumpian fantasy.
That reality includes:
Not murdering people in a boat without due process.
Improving health care instead of sabotaging it.
Not sabotaging care for children, the elderly, and the poor.
Strengthening our relationships with allies.
Treating people who aspire to be US Citizens with respect.
Avoiding convulsive economic policies that create uncertainty.
Listening to actual doctors and researchers on public health.
Supporting university research.
Regulating media (news, social and otherwise) to prevent it from destabilizing society.
Opposing human rights violations, starvation in Gaza.
Opposing invasions of sovereign countries.
Respecting expertise while verifying it.
Its not mysterious. We can disagree on things without stepping on each other. Regardless of the community, Democrats seem to agree on the basic itinerary. We can share that itinerary and coordinate movements. We don't need to force everyone into the same tour bus or cruise ship.
I have watched Spanberger and been impressed by her, ever since she first joined the House of Representatives. I expect her to do well in the governor election. Platner, Mamdani and Drey are all intriguing candidates. I hope to learn more about them in the future. I agree all Democratic candidates do not need to sound alike. In fact, their voice and their ideas are essential to winning over wavering voters.
Jess Piper's latest post on her Substack, The View from Rural Missouri, talks about her own encounter with fellow Democrats criticizing the way she talks about things:
"Poking fun at the terms I use won’t win me over. Neither will acting like you know better than me about the things I deal with on a daily basis.
"The men beating me over the head online about my language reminded me of that Atlantic story: Many of my fellow Democrats aren’t listening, and some are putting words in voters mouths. Not listening to their words.
"They will tell people how to feel and how to speak and what to be concerned about, and when these voters don’t vote for Democrats, because no one actually listened to them, the party and the strategists will scratch their heads and proclaim that rural folks are obviously racist. Stupid. Simple. Low-IQ voters."
It looks as if these candidates are focused on the concerns of the people they are to represent, not on proving their pro or anti current president bona fides.
It's not that Democrats have to sound the same on every issue, but can they sound the same on any issue? (other than not being Republicans) And I am saying that as a guy who has voted Democrat consistently since Bush, Jr. You can win some election battles on a "We're not fascists" platform, but you can't win enough to rebuild the country. There does need to be a unifying message to get a real political mandate/majority to make meaningful change. Otherwise, we're just stalling for time with more Biden type placeholders while Republicans actually change the country every chance they get.
Democrats have had chances over the years to do things like enshrine the right to choose into law or strengthen the voting rights act and they chose not to do them because they had a big tent filled with competing interests. For the activists in the party, it has been disheartening to win elections and still feel like they lost because none of their desired policies were advanced. In many cases, they were thrown to the curb almost as fast as the Democrats took office. Compare that to the whackos of MAGA/MAHA. They won the election, got their guy, and got their crazy policies lightning fast.
Do the Democrats who want gun control ever get their desired policies? Or the reproductive rights activists? Or those supporting Palestinians? Or those who want police reform? No, because the official Democratic position is "We'll stop things from getting a lot worse. We won't make them better and we'll tolerate them getting a little worse, but we will hold the line on a lot worse. You can count on us for that. Usually. Well, sometimes."
When all you want is one thing and you don't care who is hurt or the point is hurting people it's easy to be successful. When you know there are multiple goals and multiple people who are impacted by those goals the job is much harder.
I'd like to agree but I think the issue runs deeper than that. Republicans didn't want just one thing, they wanted lots of things and won most of them. They won the gun debate; they won the Supreme Court; they won the repeal of Roe; they won the immigration debate; they won the federal government is more bad than good debate; they won the USAID should be eliminated debate; etc.
And when I say they won, I mean that Democrats aren't even going to challenge those things. No Democrat is going to attempt to campaign on stricter gun laws or expanding the federal government or packing the court or bringing back USAID or increasing immigration or doing more international aid. They might win and try to sneak those things past the public in marginal ways, but they aren't going to actively campaign on any of those things. I'm not even sure they can run a winning federal campaign with vaccines in the platform at this stage. There are things Americans want and there are things Americans will tolerate and, in a distant third place, there are things Democrats want, like health care, fewer mass shootings, and a humane immigration system.
I have zero hope that America will realize that a lot of this is amoral or stupid or anti-democratic. I have a little hope that Trump will do enough economic damage that Americans will vote for a Democrat to fix their economic pain. Of course, that hope dies as soon as I remember that America is broke and will have go the austerity route to repair this economic damage.
All of those wins took years and years to accomplish. There were a lot of loses and compromises along the way but they kept pushing. I don't think Democrats have that kind of time.
That's the problem. The doomsday clock is ticking and Democrats can't do anything beyond slowing it down. It doesn't get a lot of attention, but I think Alito and Thomas (possibly even Roberts) retiring during Trump's term will be among the most catastrophic possibilities. And if Trump starts fearing a midterm loss of the Senate, he and his billionaire buddies will make that happen before the midterms to ensure he gets his legacy justices.
Agree. The Bulwark has been guilty of this back and forth, but I get the frustration. I wish Democrats had some kind of overarching strategy but I do expect them to get behind winning candidates regardless of their differences.
Thank you for voicing this- different areas of the country have different needs that should be addressed in ways specific to the people living there. All these Democrats wringing their hands over Mamdani are missing the point. What people in NYC are looking for will be different from what people in rural Iowa or Maine are looking for. And that is ok. A Democratic platform of community would encompass all of these campaigns. Different community, different focus of the message. In some areas it would be healthcare, others housing (actually, most areas have housing problems), in other areas jobs will be the biggest concern. There is no reason that the Democrats can't address these concerns in different ways.
Thanks Jill, well said. Only fools shop in the one size fits all department. This mantra that the experts hired to tell democratic candidates what to think and say has been folly for far too long. We end up with people who cannot utter a word without their speech writers crafting it for them. Canned crap will always sound like canned crap.
Too many have stayed too long and simply believe they are the answer to the problem. If they looked in the mirror with a shred of honesty or integrity they just may recognize we are where we are because of them.
Be real, be you and the word best summarizing it is be "relatable." This isn't that hard folks, it just isn't.
Yup, "authenticity" is not a tone of voice... it means, you know. Candidates run as themselves, say what they think, and do what they say. It shouldn't sound like a revolutionary idea, and yet it would represent a sea change for the current version of the Democratic party.
I'm not even that annoyed with Dems refusing to back Mamdani (who I love). Good for them. They should do what works in their district, provided that's who they are and what they believe. We can all politely disagree on whether or not to open municipal grocery stores. What we can't do is undermine the nominee, once selected. If you don't endorse Mamdani, fine. But don't try to tear him down.
I am of the camp that is forced to vote for Democrats because I'm opposed to fascism. The only time I feel like I have any agency at all in the two-party political system is during the **primaries**. My one wish, really, is for all the activists to actually start voting in the primaries. If you want young people, minorities, socialists, whatever to be the nominee -- Vote. In. The. Primary. It's not hard.
So, if you're getting all sour in the face that "the party doesn't represent me," it might be because you're in the 70% of eligible voters who don't even know when your state holds nominating contests or otherwise don't bother to do the one thing that would change the course the party charts. Yeah - it's not a shock the party fails to represent the people when only the most partisan 30% bother to say something about who should be the nominee.
Yes, be a VIP. A Very Important Person, by Voting In the Primary. This is the best way to create some desperately needed balance in the general elections.
Democrats are certainly guilty of it (frequently sounding like academics who make up terms), but it pales in comparison to Republicans, who use the same propaganda points to the word. There's a point here: simple threats, more division, and easy to remember propaganda work better in an already divided society. Also, plenty of Americans, while preferring Democratic policies, happily vote for Republicans BECAUSE they're inauthentic and lie the way the way they want them to.
I agree that being authentic is a way to counteract this, but plenty of Americans WANT to be lied to.
Thank you for making this point, which I’ve personally been banging the drum about during all the hand-wringing about the Democrats’ lack of a real platform and national cohesiveness. The various Trump-supporting congressional creatures have no platform either, other than blindly following their Dear Leader. Opposing Trump’s policies can be the Dems unifying cry, but the specifics of alternative policies can and should be decided at the district and state level. And that approach also has the advantage of forcing Trump to attack a host of differing policies—a moving target as it were. Of course, come 2028, the Dems will need to coalesce around at least some meaningful national policies. But that’s for later. Now they just have to win seats.
An entire article on Democrat communication without the words Israel, Gaza or AIPAC.
8% of Democrats support Israel. Even your most Bulwark-pilled Democrats are running away from Israel - just look at Slotkin and Buttigieg. Bulwark favorite Richie Torres will probably be primaried. Maybe others in "safe seats".
Gaza wasn't the reason Harris lost in 2024, but I don't think many, if any, Democratic primary candidates will be wrapping themselves in the Israeli flag in 2026, and the 2028 Democratic nominee won't be "standing with Israel".
The DNC's game-playing, like they did recently at their little getaway, won't work much longer.
No kidding?....you mean the Mayor of New York City and the Governor of Kentucky will have a different look and sound? Mamdami and Andy Breasher are both great guys, great communicators and excite all manner of people around them with good ideas and positive energy. John Tester and Richie Torres can belong to the same party. That's when Democrats and America are Great. Get with the program people
sure and he's already walking back all Israel all the time because he knows he got to far off the center. Odds are he'll get re elected. Democrats have to be pro Palestine without being anti Israel or "pro Hamas". I know you are very passionate about Palestine. Most Americans even in urban districts are not. Palestinians were othered from day one, they've been invisible for 40 years. Doesn't make it right but that's were we are at. There's major work that needs to be done to center Palestine over Israel in this country. The rest of the world isn't having that problem.
oh its a new day for sure. Every Democrat in the Presidential Primary that will start in a little over a year is going to have to have a very compelling plan for Palestine that gets those people out from under Israeli control in the West Bank and Gaza. That’s going to mean restraining Israel and leading an International effort. That needs to happen right now but it won’t
And these four candidates' permissible differences are why Dem's are situated to win in these very different races. They are not required to be stiff, sycophantic clones of any dear leader. The flexibility to run their own races is a great advantage and strength that simply does not exist- is not permitted to exist- in the opposition. This is one time Dem diversity may be an unalloyed good.
So true. What flies in Pennsylvania might well not fly in NY. We just need to be on the same bus; we don’t have to get off at the same stop. I am worried that Dems will fracture in the next elections, especially in 2028. I hope that I’m wrong.
You nailed it. Efforts to find “the” face of the party are driven by consultants and the DNC. It has become proactively unhelpful. I wrote about it here a few weeks ago. Thank you for this!!
https://open.substack.com/pub/hmeltonfox/p/pro-democracy-coalition-must-dump?r=4cg543&utm_medium=ios
Thank you so much for this. Its about time. The Democratic Party's message can unify many subgroups relation to each other and to their individual relationship with power. Its not that hard to figure out. And there's no need to for division if its loosely coupled. Seems to me the current administration makes it wasy to ground the campaign in very real reality instead of indulging in stupid Trumpian fantasy.
That reality includes:
Not murdering people in a boat without due process.
Improving health care instead of sabotaging it.
Not sabotaging care for children, the elderly, and the poor.
Strengthening our relationships with allies.
Treating people who aspire to be US Citizens with respect.
Avoiding convulsive economic policies that create uncertainty.
Listening to actual doctors and researchers on public health.
Supporting university research.
Regulating media (news, social and otherwise) to prevent it from destabilizing society.
Opposing human rights violations, starvation in Gaza.
Opposing invasions of sovereign countries.
Respecting expertise while verifying it.
Its not mysterious. We can disagree on things without stepping on each other. Regardless of the community, Democrats seem to agree on the basic itinerary. We can share that itinerary and coordinate movements. We don't need to force everyone into the same tour bus or cruise ship.
I have watched Spanberger and been impressed by her, ever since she first joined the House of Representatives. I expect her to do well in the governor election. Platner, Mamdani and Drey are all intriguing candidates. I hope to learn more about them in the future. I agree all Democratic candidates do not need to sound alike. In fact, their voice and their ideas are essential to winning over wavering voters.
Jess Piper's latest post on her Substack, The View from Rural Missouri, talks about her own encounter with fellow Democrats criticizing the way she talks about things:
"Poking fun at the terms I use won’t win me over. Neither will acting like you know better than me about the things I deal with on a daily basis.
"The men beating me over the head online about my language reminded me of that Atlantic story: Many of my fellow Democrats aren’t listening, and some are putting words in voters mouths. Not listening to their words.
"They will tell people how to feel and how to speak and what to be concerned about, and when these voters don’t vote for Democrats, because no one actually listened to them, the party and the strategists will scratch their heads and proclaim that rural folks are obviously racist. Stupid. Simple. Low-IQ voters."
https://jesspiper.substack.com/p/why-cant-we-just-listen
It looks as if these candidates are focused on the concerns of the people they are to represent, not on proving their pro or anti current president bona fides.
It's not that Democrats have to sound the same on every issue, but can they sound the same on any issue? (other than not being Republicans) And I am saying that as a guy who has voted Democrat consistently since Bush, Jr. You can win some election battles on a "We're not fascists" platform, but you can't win enough to rebuild the country. There does need to be a unifying message to get a real political mandate/majority to make meaningful change. Otherwise, we're just stalling for time with more Biden type placeholders while Republicans actually change the country every chance they get.
Democrats have had chances over the years to do things like enshrine the right to choose into law or strengthen the voting rights act and they chose not to do them because they had a big tent filled with competing interests. For the activists in the party, it has been disheartening to win elections and still feel like they lost because none of their desired policies were advanced. In many cases, they were thrown to the curb almost as fast as the Democrats took office. Compare that to the whackos of MAGA/MAHA. They won the election, got their guy, and got their crazy policies lightning fast.
Do the Democrats who want gun control ever get their desired policies? Or the reproductive rights activists? Or those supporting Palestinians? Or those who want police reform? No, because the official Democratic position is "We'll stop things from getting a lot worse. We won't make them better and we'll tolerate them getting a little worse, but we will hold the line on a lot worse. You can count on us for that. Usually. Well, sometimes."
When all you want is one thing and you don't care who is hurt or the point is hurting people it's easy to be successful. When you know there are multiple goals and multiple people who are impacted by those goals the job is much harder.
I'd like to agree but I think the issue runs deeper than that. Republicans didn't want just one thing, they wanted lots of things and won most of them. They won the gun debate; they won the Supreme Court; they won the repeal of Roe; they won the immigration debate; they won the federal government is more bad than good debate; they won the USAID should be eliminated debate; etc.
And when I say they won, I mean that Democrats aren't even going to challenge those things. No Democrat is going to attempt to campaign on stricter gun laws or expanding the federal government or packing the court or bringing back USAID or increasing immigration or doing more international aid. They might win and try to sneak those things past the public in marginal ways, but they aren't going to actively campaign on any of those things. I'm not even sure they can run a winning federal campaign with vaccines in the platform at this stage. There are things Americans want and there are things Americans will tolerate and, in a distant third place, there are things Democrats want, like health care, fewer mass shootings, and a humane immigration system.
I have zero hope that America will realize that a lot of this is amoral or stupid or anti-democratic. I have a little hope that Trump will do enough economic damage that Americans will vote for a Democrat to fix their economic pain. Of course, that hope dies as soon as I remember that America is broke and will have go the austerity route to repair this economic damage.
All of those wins took years and years to accomplish. There were a lot of loses and compromises along the way but they kept pushing. I don't think Democrats have that kind of time.
That's the problem. The doomsday clock is ticking and Democrats can't do anything beyond slowing it down. It doesn't get a lot of attention, but I think Alito and Thomas (possibly even Roberts) retiring during Trump's term will be among the most catastrophic possibilities. And if Trump starts fearing a midterm loss of the Senate, he and his billionaire buddies will make that happen before the midterms to ensure he gets his legacy justices.
Indeed. It takes a few minutes to blow a building to smithereens. It takes years to build one. Destruction has always been easier than construction.
Lots of (especially never Trump) folks spent the last year screaming at Democrats to unite behind one cohesive, unified message like Republicans love.
No need for the snarky title oozing with disdain. Democrats were never all saying exactly the same thing.
Agree. The Bulwark has been guilty of this back and forth, but I get the frustration. I wish Democrats had some kind of overarching strategy but I do expect them to get behind winning candidates regardless of their differences.
Thank you for voicing this- different areas of the country have different needs that should be addressed in ways specific to the people living there. All these Democrats wringing their hands over Mamdani are missing the point. What people in NYC are looking for will be different from what people in rural Iowa or Maine are looking for. And that is ok. A Democratic platform of community would encompass all of these campaigns. Different community, different focus of the message. In some areas it would be healthcare, others housing (actually, most areas have housing problems), in other areas jobs will be the biggest concern. There is no reason that the Democrats can't address these concerns in different ways.
Thanks Jill, well said. Only fools shop in the one size fits all department. This mantra that the experts hired to tell democratic candidates what to think and say has been folly for far too long. We end up with people who cannot utter a word without their speech writers crafting it for them. Canned crap will always sound like canned crap.
Too many have stayed too long and simply believe they are the answer to the problem. If they looked in the mirror with a shred of honesty or integrity they just may recognize we are where we are because of them.
Be real, be you and the word best summarizing it is be "relatable." This isn't that hard folks, it just isn't.
Yup, "authenticity" is not a tone of voice... it means, you know. Candidates run as themselves, say what they think, and do what they say. It shouldn't sound like a revolutionary idea, and yet it would represent a sea change for the current version of the Democratic party.
I'm not even that annoyed with Dems refusing to back Mamdani (who I love). Good for them. They should do what works in their district, provided that's who they are and what they believe. We can all politely disagree on whether or not to open municipal grocery stores. What we can't do is undermine the nominee, once selected. If you don't endorse Mamdani, fine. But don't try to tear him down.
I am of the camp that is forced to vote for Democrats because I'm opposed to fascism. The only time I feel like I have any agency at all in the two-party political system is during the **primaries**. My one wish, really, is for all the activists to actually start voting in the primaries. If you want young people, minorities, socialists, whatever to be the nominee -- Vote. In. The. Primary. It's not hard.
And yet, not only do we routinely have only something like 60% of eligible voters participate in *general* elections (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election), but we also only have like 30% of voters vote in primaries.
So, if you're getting all sour in the face that "the party doesn't represent me," it might be because you're in the 70% of eligible voters who don't even know when your state holds nominating contests or otherwise don't bother to do the one thing that would change the course the party charts. Yeah - it's not a shock the party fails to represent the people when only the most partisan 30% bother to say something about who should be the nominee.
Yes, be a VIP. A Very Important Person, by Voting In the Primary. This is the best way to create some desperately needed balance in the general elections.
Democrats are certainly guilty of it (frequently sounding like academics who make up terms), but it pales in comparison to Republicans, who use the same propaganda points to the word. There's a point here: simple threats, more division, and easy to remember propaganda work better in an already divided society. Also, plenty of Americans, while preferring Democratic policies, happily vote for Republicans BECAUSE they're inauthentic and lie the way the way they want them to.
I agree that being authentic is a way to counteract this, but plenty of Americans WANT to be lied to.
Thank you for making this point, which I’ve personally been banging the drum about during all the hand-wringing about the Democrats’ lack of a real platform and national cohesiveness. The various Trump-supporting congressional creatures have no platform either, other than blindly following their Dear Leader. Opposing Trump’s policies can be the Dems unifying cry, but the specifics of alternative policies can and should be decided at the district and state level. And that approach also has the advantage of forcing Trump to attack a host of differing policies—a moving target as it were. Of course, come 2028, the Dems will need to coalesce around at least some meaningful national policies. But that’s for later. Now they just have to win seats.
An entire article on Democrat communication without the words Israel, Gaza or AIPAC.
8% of Democrats support Israel. Even your most Bulwark-pilled Democrats are running away from Israel - just look at Slotkin and Buttigieg. Bulwark favorite Richie Torres will probably be primaried. Maybe others in "safe seats".
Gaza wasn't the reason Harris lost in 2024, but I don't think many, if any, Democratic primary candidates will be wrapping themselves in the Israeli flag in 2026, and the 2028 Democratic nominee won't be "standing with Israel".
The DNC's game-playing, like they did recently at their little getaway, won't work much longer.
https://www.joewrote.com/p/the-ratf-and-cking-will-continue?r=3hh94p&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
No kidding?....you mean the Mayor of New York City and the Governor of Kentucky will have a different look and sound? Mamdami and Andy Breasher are both great guys, great communicators and excite all manner of people around them with good ideas and positive energy. John Tester and Richie Torres can belong to the same party. That's when Democrats and America are Great. Get with the program people
Richie Torres is going to be primaried.
sure and he's already walking back all Israel all the time because he knows he got to far off the center. Odds are he'll get re elected. Democrats have to be pro Palestine without being anti Israel or "pro Hamas". I know you are very passionate about Palestine. Most Americans even in urban districts are not. Palestinians were othered from day one, they've been invisible for 40 years. Doesn't make it right but that's were we are at. There's major work that needs to be done to center Palestine over Israel in this country. The rest of the world isn't having that problem.
Literally nobody is pro-Hamas. Nobody.
I’m afraid being “pro-Israel” is not a winning strategy.
Hell, the vice-chair of the DNC was on FYpod the other day, and was quite open that he would NEVER take a dollar from AIPAC.
Senator Slotkin was said she had never taken AIPAC money (a lie), and never would (probably true).
Same with Buttigieg.
This was unthinkable 2 years ago.
oh its a new day for sure. Every Democrat in the Presidential Primary that will start in a little over a year is going to have to have a very compelling plan for Palestine that gets those people out from under Israeli control in the West Bank and Gaza. That’s going to mean restraining Israel and leading an International effort. That needs to happen right now but it won’t
Also: Most Americans even in urban districts don’t vote in Democratic primaries. Can’t get to the general unless you go through that pesky primary.
Unless you’re Kamala Harris.