This post will be a bit of a pile on to MM’s post from yesterday. MM wrote:

“I’m not saying that all of the Democrats need to be yelling about this all of the time, but can we have at least one who takes anti-Trump duty every day? It could be a rotating assignment. As Joe posted the other day, we need to be running to daylight or whatever sports metaphor you want to use.”

I came across this article in The New Republic. It’s a report on why Biden/Dems lost the 2024 election. Some snippets:

This was especially true of those who skipped voting in 2024. In the important Sunbelt states, these voters were 13 percent of the 2020 coalition, and a majority said they would have voted for Harris if they’d voted in 2024 rather than sitting out. These voters didn’t want Democrats to moderate. They wanted a stronger economic message and wanted Democrats to fight for them. But they often felt like they’d been supporting Democrats for years and hadn’t gotten results.

In fact, moderating on some positions was more likely to reinforce Republican talking points and make Democrats seem weak, according to the report. “If we want to build a bigger coalition, it’s actually going to make it worse if we keep trying to look more like Republicans, or we keep trying to go in this triangulation direction,” Fernandez Ancona said. “It’s not that we’re not saying we need to move more left and be more socialist.… We’re really saying we need to actually go towards strength, which is what we define in the report as basically standing for what you believe in.”

…

Too often, Democratic messages end up reinforcing the story that Republicans are telling, Way to Win says. The report pointed to the losing campaigns of Senators Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Jon Tester in Montana, who touted their support of conservative immigration policies. Instead, Democrats need to tell their own story when it comes to immigration, one that highlights the contributions immigrants make and argues that legal immigration should be easier.

This report is in line with other work from researchers across the left showing that moderation doesn’t necessarily win Democrats more seats. G. Elliott Morris (a former colleague of mine from 538, the now-defunct political analysis site), published a post on his Substack analyzing moderate candidate performance when compared to candidates further to the left. “I estimate that strategic moderation in 2024 could have increased a Democrat’s vote share by 1-1.5 points and their chance of winning by just 10%—not enough to overcome the uncertainty driven by other factors in the election. This is not to say that moderation doesn’t matter, but lots of other factors matter more,” he wrote.

And Anat Shenker-Osorio, a political strategist and messaging consultant, has made the same arguments. She says Democrats need to embrace “magnetism,” which is similar to the “strength” that Way to Win advocates: staking out forceful positions that risk pushing some voters away but are also much more likely to attract voters than simply taking whatever positions the polls suggest.

When we act like wimps and don’t standup for what we truly believe in, we get wimpy results.

When we don’t consistently and persistently fill the airwaves/media landscape with our chosen message (to MM’s point), this allows our opponents to seize the initiative and set the terms of the policy debate.

When we don’t aggressively play on our home field (see my post from 11/14/25 titled Home Field Advantage), we reduce the enthusiasm of our base, resulting in many who stay home on election day without any material gain from independents or persuadable Republicans who see Dems as weak and unwilling to take a stand.

The TNR article uses key words our Dem electeds and especially, our leaders need to see/hear. The positive words are (paraphrased at times by me): “fight”, “strength”, “belief”, “magnetism”, ‘tell their own story”, “forceful”, “risk”. The negative words are (paraphrased at times by me): “moderate”, “lack of results”, “reinforcing Republicans”, “positions suggested by polling”.

Again, we need to play aggressively to our home field advantage dammit!

And our elected officials need to have a consistent and persistent presence in all forms of media with a strong, heartfelt message that we proudly own.

One quick story from my campaigns that illustrates this point (and I wish I had the chance to do over):

During a debate in my first campaign, my main opponent made a major gaff. The race included me as a Democrat, the incumbent Republican and a third-party Libertarian with multiple sclerosis who was in a wheelchair (who ultimately screwed me over big time). The Libertarian accused the Republican of taking money from a disgraced conservative supporter, but he got the name of the person wrong. I leaned over and whispered to him the correct name, and in a rebuttal, he corrected himself, pushing the point that the Republican had taken dirty money. When the debate ended, the republican walked past me, confronted the Libertarian and told him if she wasn’t in a wheelchair, she would have smacked him in the face. True quote. Unfortunately for the Republican, the moderator’s mike was still hot and everybody heard her threat. So far, so good for me. I immediately spoke to my team and told them we needed to make hay by showing voters this is who she was. My team counseled restraint, using the dictum that “you don’t get in front of a freight train when its careening down the tracks out of control”. While the Republican‘s actions made national news, in an election that I lost by the slimmest of margins, I regret not heeding to my gut and following my own strategy of acting from strength and conviction. Did it matter in the end? We’ll never know. But I should have pushed not only my advantage, but the view that my main opponent did not share voters’ values and was not worthy of their vote.

We need to push our leaders, electeds and candidates- HARD - to play on their home field, press their advantage, show authentic conviction, strongly communicate their values and beliefs, and stand behind the policies in which they truly believe. And to be effective, they need to do it consistently and persistently.

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Avatar

Marmot Pimpernel 11 months ago

A week or two ago, G. Elliott Morris had a paywalled article about Kier Starmer’s triangulation on immigration and how it backfired. I’m not a subscriber yet, but it sounds like a kickass case study.

Avatar

Scott H11 months ago

AlL YoU PeOpLe cRiTiCiZiNg tHe dEmOcRaTiC PaRtY ArE ThE PrObLeM.

Avatar
Avatar

Sepideh M11 months ago

What Democrats do not seem to get is that a lot of people are not going to stand for being treated like they are Black. The rest of us are not a reliable base that the Democratic Party can repeatedly sell out and still have us show up to vote. We will stay at home.

There was a choice not to distinguish the Harris campaign from the Biden one in several ways. When nothing changed about the Democratic National Convention besides the name of the candidate, that was demoralizing, and people stayed home.

Here is a comedian that does a popular online YouTube show. Kamala Harris was to be on his show, but they were trying to change the topic based on pollster suggestions as opposed to trusting the guy who ran the show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTqY-xmK7Eg

Avatar

Joe is Wypoxic11 months ago

Just watched. That video made me sick and changed my entire view of Harris. Very sad actually...

Avatar

Sepideh M11 months ago

Kareem Rahma is a Muslim, and some of his Subway Takes are with various Muslims on the NYC Subway. Here is one he did in London. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bh_F2-uX7E4

The way the Harris campaign screwed up the Muslim vote was repetitive and thorough.

Avatar

Scott H11 months ago

You'd think a billion dollars would have bought somebody who knew how to avoid doing that but noooooooooooo.

Avatar

Scott H11 months ago

Quite frankly it simply reinforced my entire view of Harris.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur11 months ago

Heh. "Genetically modified takes."

Avatar

mister mixAuthor11 months ago

I remember Walz’ take. It was good.

Harris had a good authentic presence when it got out, but she’s also a cautious lawyer and she was way too deferential to the Biden campaign team. That was her failure of leadership and it was disqualifying imo.

Avatar

Joe is Wypoxic11 months ago

I've never been elected at her level so what do I know I have been in the arena), but she struck me as a "lightweight" - not in intellect, but in her political instincts and seeming lack of convictions. Still supported her of course b/c the alternative was actual evil

Avatar

mister mixAuthor11 months ago

Her 2020 primary campaign was poorly run and she flopped around on her positions. I don’t think she would have won a 2024 primary.

Avatar

Scott H11 months ago

Exactly.

We were told by the same centrists now who always punch left to "don't debate this until after the election"

So, people like me who had her ranked near the bottom in 2020, dutifully stfu only to watch what happened. Her 2020 campaign should have raised nothing but red flags but again, a billion dollars was funneled her way and we see what happened.

But saying that simply means I'm a "racist and sexist" despite the fact I self-ID as a Dem, unlike so many people elsewhere, white, middle aged who hate unions and love them their "law and order" (ie, fear "disorder") and come from decidedly non-Democratic backgrounds who revert to that like "SQUIRREL!!!!" to avoid addressing fundamental questions about Dem Party policies and strategies.

Avatar

r po11 months ago

I don't watch podcasts. I watched this. What does the phrase "bacon is spice" mean? Was this supposed to troll people who don't eat pork? I am known to say, "chorizo is spice" but chorizo doesn't necessarily mean pork.

Bacon is: pork belly, cured in pink salt with spices, and then usually smoked. I make it myself from time to time, what people buy in stores is shit food, but convenient. The political gesture addressed the corporate shit food, not the authentic stuff.

I am quite confused because a billion $$$ got spent thinking about stupid shit like this? Why not shit on fried chicken and watermelon while they were at it.

I must have this all wrong. Right? Tell me something else is going on.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur11 months ago

I am sorry to see your regert, J.W.! Gah.

It's a thin line to walk.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur11 months ago

Paraphrasing a great quote (excellent video at link by a new, frustrated, candidate). "Ya gotta buy these big lists of donors from consultants who charge a lot money for them. So you can raise more money to buy more lists."

(Reposting from ealier today because the guy is telling his truth with conviction.)

https://bsky.app/profile/mikesacks.bsky.social/post/3mawky72lzk2w

Avatar

Joe is Wypoxic11 months ago

He's spot on!

Avatar

r po11 months ago

Who wants to vote for (belong to) a party of self debasing cowards? Is a strategy of convincing voters that A) Republicans are correct but B) they're just a little too aggressive (our weaker and wimpier version is better). Maybe in the future we should have some elections, pay attention to the results, and do a correlation between who won and who lost.

Oh. I see, we did that already. And the result elite Ds have decided on is: double down on MOAR weakness, more cowardly behavior, and we can always buy as many kneepads our groveling requires!!!

Avatar

Scott H11 months ago

Dems alliance with techbros early on gave rise to the billionaire oligarchy. Dems decades of bad (neolib) policies turned working class groups against liberalism itself (and saying that simply results in the reframing attempt that it's "racist" to say that, just ask noted experts elsewhere).

It left liberals unable to staff and equip many institutions tasked with taming capital and more importantly, over time, completely uninterested in doing so.

The result? A party run largely by bankers, economists and other member of, as Matt Stoller calls them the Extreme Wealth Defense Industry.

Avatar

Busted Knee11 months ago

How was the party of California not going to ally with them? How is California wealth created?

Blue state wealth is dependent on the very oligarchs and industries we complain about. Yet none of us are willing to grind blue state weatlth into the ground and make less money. The nation sees that. We are baddies who haven't had our "maybe we are the baddies" moment.