I rarely add my $0.02 cents here, but I have to dump it all here today, because most of yesterday's comments were ABSOLUTELY INSANE. I love my fellow Hopium mates but IMO some of us need a seriously frank reality check right now...
"It was because she was a woman. All those macho Latinos and young men who listen to podcasts didn't want her. I'm not sure we can afford to run a woman next time." I am begging you guys, absolutely BEGGING you to cut this out. This is the same shit people said after 2016 that made them feel compelled en masse to pick a boring centrist elderly white man in 2020 over all the other options. Years later, look where that got us. PLEASE do not do that again. Look, Harris lost because she was stuck being the VP to either the most or 2nd-most unpopular President in modern history, and was given 107 days to cancel out 3 years worth of negative sentiment from the public, which - while the attempt was exhilarating - proved to be impossible. (Biden was as unpopular for most of his whole term as Carter was at his nadir or Bush Jr. was right after Katrina!) Young men are more progressive in both economic and social attitudes than older men, and while some misogyny still obviously exists, insisting that bigotry is the engine powering the thinking of large numbers of young men who are potential Dem voters is so untrue, insulting, and alienating. I would like to remind y'all that the demographic shifts away from Dems in '24 were the same as in '22, when there was no biracial woman running for President. I would like to remind y'all that Hillary Clinton - a woman! - won Latino men by large margins. (Also, the President of Mexico is a Jewish woman.) I would like to remind y'all that Biden was losing in hypothetical polling to woman-of-color Nikki Haley by a landslide. Harris improved on Biden's polling among all groups, and won more raw votes than he did in '20 in WI, NV, NC & GA. The excitement of having her possibly make history powered voters TOWARD her in a way no Midwestern white dude could ever have managed. It just wasn't enough, because a billion dollars can't buy you more TIME, which is what she needed.
"I wrote a zillion postcards but we didn't win. What ways can we contact people other than mail, calls, and door-knocking?" Uh, none? Unless you believe in chemtraiIs and mass hypnosis, talking and writing are kind of the main modes of human communication. Even though postcarding makes for a more jolly activity, it is not as helpful as phone or text banking or frankly anything else, but folks here got reeeeeal touchy when that was pointed out.
"Ok, but why did I put effort into volunteering when clearly the ground game didn't make a difference?" It did make a difference, it just couldn't save the White House or our majorities. The admiration for Biden on here is *still* blinding people to how much grave damage he did. The Harris team have publicly described the internal polling when she took over as "gruesome" and "catastrophic," and the whole campaign as a "rescue mission" to pull off "a miracle." Biden was going to Iose every swing state by something like 8 or 9 points and likely take blue states down with him as well. The ground game makes something like a 2% difference, which is everything in a tied game, but won't save you if it's not. If we had not switched candidates AND had the best ever ground game, we would have lost at least 4 more Senate seats and dozens of House seats, guaranteeing Republican power for a generation.
"Why was the NYT not talking about the good Biden did BEFORE the election? It would have made a BIG difference!" It would have had the same impact as an editorial from Cronkite or Murrow, which is to say none. Old folks are having a *really* hard time grasping that. The data is clear that Harris/Dems whole loss came from low-information voters who avoid traditional media. My 24yo brother is a college-educated honors student and was a 4H **state ambassador,** and I genuinely don't think has ever held a real newspaper in his life, let alone read one. If the NYT shut down tomorrow he wouldn't even know. He wasn't going to vote until Harris took over, then voted for her on the basis that she was "more liberal and a nicer person and would rather see her face for a few years." He wanted to get "coconut-pilled" (look it up), and took note when Charli XCX proclaimed "Kamala IS brat" (look it up). He doesn't know what 60 Minutes is, but would have loved it if Harris had found her way onto Hot Ones (look it up). This is the world now, Grandma.
"I'm disowning Fetterman. Who could primary him?" LOL WTF GTFO This man could be a top contender for President in '28 if he wants to be, and we need to spend the years in between cloning him. He is a true progressive who campaigned hard for Bernie and Biden and Harris and won his swing state by FIVE points. Lemme get this straight: FDR got chummy with Stalin, but Fetterman merely agrees to meet with the President-elect who carried his state and you're MAD about that? He damned Trump with some backhanded compliments on a talk show and said he'd keep an open mind on the Cabinet and you're MAD before he even votes on anyone? Newsflash: every swing district person is gonna do that. Politics 101. Their job is to survive. Loud opposition is the job of folks in safe seats.
"If we need to get louder, why aren't we getting loud already? Where are our leaders?!?!" They are taking a damn minute to figure out what went wrong and what the new line of attack needs to be. We just lost to the worst people on Earth, remember? Maybe re-evaluating is needed before we start running our mouths again. Nothing has happened yet, and when it does we need to pick our battles.
"Why are all those Dems appeasing the enemy by voting for that Laken Riley Act? They should be opposing such a horrible bill!" You may like it or not, but the idea that we should detain someone who is a thief and not a citizen is a reasonable-sounding idea to most Americans. Hate to break it to you guys, but if a bill gets dozens of the opposing party members to vote yes, by definition that means it is incredibly popular and non-controversial. Our government is supposed to represent popular ideas, right? Don't complain when they do their job for once. Besides, Schumer & co. will almost certainly get amendments on it.
"Why was Obama being nice to Trump in that photo?" Because being polite to someone who you hate is what you do at a freaking FUNERAL (with assigned seating). What was Obama supposed to do, bend over and fart in Cheeto's face while the cameras are rolling? This wasn't a game of cooties, it was a FUNERAL.
"What can we do about these endless negative emails begging me for money?" Click the "unsubscribe" button at the bottom of the email. If it's a text, click the "block spam" button. You are asking why you have weeds in your garden, when you never pull up the weeds. Pull up the weeds and after a while they will stop growing. Just. Click. Unsubscribe.
"I think she lost because she focused too much on battleground states!" Holy crap. I'm out.
While I don’t agree with everything you wrote, and some might react to your very-candid tone, these are important thoughts to ponder that definitely deserve an upvote.
Unfortunately, Americans never gave President Biden sufficient credit for his great accomplishments. That translates into the polling fact that Will is stating. Those facts are NOT "a view from the MAGA crowd". Polling is polling, however unfair.
I and many others have faulted Team Biden for insufficiently communicating his accomplishments. Whereas Trump and the right-wing ecosphere campaigned loudly for nine years.
Sir, the only person here being MAGA-esque is you, by denying reality to assauge your emotions. Trump claims he's popular but that not true: he is never had a majority approval rate or won a majority of voters.
Similarly, Joe Biden hasn't had a positive approval rating - or anything close - since the fall of 2021.
Popular parties win re-election. Unpopular parties lose re-election. That's how this whole thing works.
** a convicted felon with a finding of sexual assault on the side
** a person responsible for undoing 49 years of reproductive freedom;
** a guy indicted for two other separate felony crimes in addition to being found guilty of defrauding the state of NY $400 Million or so
** a guy who calls our troops “suckers and losers”
** a guy whose former staffers deemed “unfit to serve” … “a fascist” … “an effing moron”
One might wonder if the losing side might have done a better job connecting the dots for people ?
Should Biden have taken himself out of a re-election campaign toward the end of 2023… declared himself satisfied that he rescued the country from Trump and inviting younger Dems to compete for the 2024 nomination?
Uh, did I say he was a bad President? Nope. Reading comprehension is vital.
What I said is that he was a catastrophically unpopular President, which is just a fact, as every single one of the hundreds of reputable polls published for the last 3.5 years as well as the recent election results have shown. You can think that is unfair and that he was great (I was a big supporter for most of his term), but you would be in a small minority of Americans, and in a Democracy the majority rules. It is quite literally a popularity contest. When the people who are your allies in your own party feel the need to force you out with only weeks to go to even have an even chance at not getting electorally annihilated, which your own loyal staff is willing to say in public was what was happening... you may have not failed as a policymaker but you have failed as a politician, which is more than half the job.
I wish people focused on incremental policy details and made rational choices but they don't. Saying Harris lost because of her demographic or any other reason other than her association with an unpopular administration is against every bit of data we have, and profoundly counter-productive.
You declared Biden to be the most or second most unpopular president in modern history.
Bush 43 dropped down to 25 percent; Trump was at 34 percent
It is true the Biden was unpopular among the MAGA folks .. and Biden had to pass must/pass legislation without gop
support. Even the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill saw 87 percent of Congressional Republicans vote against their constituents. Because they could not be seen as supporting Biden.
I acknowledge many of your other points.
But Biden is going to look good in history. And Dems do a terrible job at connecting the dots necessary to help folks see.
Look at the mess Biden inherited.
Trump’s dismissal of Covid spiraled the pandemic out of control. He had to shut down the economy. Guess what happens when it reopens? Demand for stuff far exceeded supply. We know what happens to prices
Biden inherited a terrible situation.. inflation was caused by Trump. How many Gopers voted for the inflation reduction act?
Biden’s policy got inflation down to 3 percent or so. Wages went up by more.
Oh, lordy. You can't just pick someone's low point and ignore the high points. Reagan hit below 40 in his first term but had almost 60 by the end of it. Bush Jr. was very popular in his first term and won re-election, unpopular in his 2nd, which led to McCain's defeat. Biden was above 50 for six months, then after that hit 40 on a good day. He was high 30s for the past year. The only reason Democrats had a chance this year was because they were running against the only guy who might be equally as unpopular.
Who gives a crap what history thinks? History is written by the winners, and I have to be alive now. I think I'm done here.
Thank you. President Biden has done an OUTSTANDING job getting this country back on track. HOWEVER, he-and the Democrats have done a MISERABLE job of messaging about the wonderful policies they enacted to help everyday Americans after this devastating pandemic that has scourged economies worldwide. And, they have done a horrible job calling out the Republicans for obstructing these policies all along the way. Sadly, its not just Biden; it’s been the Democrats’ incompetent messaging over the past 25 years. This must change or else we WILL lose our democracy because we will continue to lose crucial elections due to incompetent messaging.
Meidas had an interesting piece today criticizing Obama for giving the Trump people the photo op they were seeking. You make some good points here but not all the comments you’re posting qualify as “absolutely insane.” I find some of this post needlessly intimidating. Not sure that’s what you were after?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. All the comments I am criticizing represent lines of thinking that repeatedly lead liberals to defeat, so when I keep seeing them pop up... yeah, I'd say that qualifies as insane, as least in a colloquial sense. Caring about Obama's photo faux pas, criticizing our own party members, and coming up with theories for our losses that have no basis in data gets us zero new voters and wastes valuable energy.
I wasn't after any sort of tone in my post other than saying what I thought needed to be said in my own unapologetic voice. If that's intimidating, I won't apologize.
Two things can be true at once. Kamala Harris ran an excellent campaign facing tremendous headwinds and a short runway to succeed and we live in a country with a long history of racism and sexism.
Yes, but I have yet to see hard data that quantifies the impact of racism and sexism on this election. Certainly I have not seen any data that supports the claim, made by some here, that racism and sexism were the reason Kamala Harris lost.
The uber-super-duper frustrating thing here is that not only do we lack data that supports that knee-jerk assumption, but all the data we have says the opposite, and people still won't let it gooooo.
The retort they make is "Oh, people just aren't answering honestly. They're hiding their true feelings." Oh, really? Because the bigots seem shamelessly loud and proud from where I'm standing. Who exactly are these otherwise liberal-leaning voters who are like "I'm okay with having a woman be my mayor, governor, Senator, and Vice President... but not having that same woman be actual President and I better lie to a pollster about it, even though it's anonymous!"
Yes. It's called the Bradley Effect. Jeezus. Politics 101. Some people just can't accept the fact that there is racism and sexism alive and well and cost us an election. They come up with everything, the price of eggs, the price of gas, messaging. It's all bullshit.
The Bradley Effect was debunked decades ago. Like, before the first black President outperformed his polls to win a then-record number of votes.
Oh well, I tried. I want more Dems to win and to see a Dem female President while my Mom is still around to share it with me. I thought we shared the same goal, but enjoy your self-fulfilling prophecy, mixing up speculation for fact, and generally unpleasant attitude, I guess.
Well, duh. Saying Harris faced rampant racism and sexism from her opponents is undeniable. Saying it was the reason we lost is dangerously obtuse, when there were so many other variables.
Look, the main engine powering Trump's rise is white supremacy and Christian nationalism. No doubt about that. That's what his base voters want. But he didn't get his swing-state winning margin from those people, he got it from low-propensity voters who couldn't care less about that and merely wanted the status quo to stop. The main engine powering Biden's win was the pro-democracy activist movement that rose up to provide an alternate, progressive future. That's what his base voters wanted. But he didn't get his swing-state winning margin from those people, he got it from low-propensity voters who couldn't care less about that and merely wanted the status quo to stop.
How do we know that low-information voters, who were concerned about the cost of living, were also not voting based on racial and gender prejudices? I agree with Michael Podhorzer that the failure to turn out Democrats was probably the most important factor in Harris' loss, but we have yet to have a good analysis, as far as I am aware, about the role that race and gender played among the people who did vote in this election..
I'm open to any further research that gets done, and agree we have a long way to go as a country in our attitudes toward race and gender, in general.
Speaking frankly but with all due respect, labelling my use of the word "duh" as a "form of disdain" is Exhibit A in why the crowd that frequents these comments is not good at connecting with young people, young men especially. I say "duh" to my Mom, and she says it right back, and we both love each other very much. This level of pearl-clutching and reading into people's tone is absolute anathema to younger guys in the internet age, or even in American culture generally, which is not exactly refined. If you want to win hearts and minds in the electorate you desperately need to win back, you've got to get a bit more comfortable with irreverence and the occasional aggressive return.
I do not have to get more comfortable with "irreverence and the occasional aggressive return." If this is the approach that some young men choose to use on the internet, so be it. I think it will be less successful than those forms of communication that show greater respect for others and whose purpose is to bring us together to protect and expand our democracy.
Jane, in your own personal life, you can communicate in whatever style suits your own preference, and right to surround yourself with people who respect that. Sure.
However, this is a Substack dedicated to messaging politics, "getting louder," and being "information warriors." So if we are serious about that task, we need to recognize that requires communicating with other people who do not share our personal style. To be candid, you are attempting to achieve two things that are no longer in concert but instead in conflict. You may be sincere in wanting to "show respect for others," and "bring us together to protect and expand our democracy." Yet part of respect is getting on someone's level and accepting who they are, and if your version of respectful speech comes off to them as prim and polite and patronizing, and you recoil at the first hint of their authentic voice, then you are not bringing people together or expanding democracy, instead you are alienating them and undermining it.
We had four years of a President dedicated to "lowering the temperature" and it led us right back into the ring with a crude and cartoonish wrestling supervillain. This stylistic approach you are insisting on is not "more successful," in achieving the goal we all wish to achieve. You say, "so be it," but are you enjoying the consequences of that so far? I am most certainly not. Time to prioritize results over style.
According to Egberto Willies of Politics Done Right, when voters compared both platforms, they very much preferred Harris..until told it was Harris'. Very damning evidence of racism and sexism right there; also, Dems out performed her in several races in key states. More evidence, in Willies' words, "probative."
Um... there is truly nothing "damning" about that discrepancy because that has also been found to apply to **every other elected Democrat,** regardless of gender or race. Individual Democratic policies always poll higher and test better than the percent of the vote Democrats receive, because people like the ideas but don't trust Democrats themselves. They don't trust the brand or the party, and by saying "it must be because they're racist and sexist, for an Ivy League professor told me so" you just made yourself into Exhibit A for why the propaganda painting Dems as "woke gender-obsessed elites" gets traction... because sadly, for a certain slice of our party, there appears to be a grain of truth to that.
The white man veteran candidate for Senate in Missouri got almost the exact same number of votes as Kamala Harris did, which is to say they both lost by double digits. Through ballot measures, Missouri recently passed a higher minimum wage, paid family leave, protected abortion rights, and legalized marijuana.
It's not a race/gender problem, it's not a policy problem, it's a branding problem.
You are wrong on Biden's winning margin. He won because low propensity voters were terrified of another trump administration. People were dying. Lots of them. The economy was in the shitter. Michael Podhorzer delves into this in detail. You should read him carefully and reassess some of your rants. And, we have plenty of reason to think that Harris lost due to sexism and racism, or do you think you know more than people like Professor Eddie Glaude of Princeton, or Egberto Willies,of Politics Done Right, Black men who have studied and spoken on these issues.....Biden's coalition was no longer terrified of trump, in no small measure because Biden had restored normality. But if you want to believe a bunch of guys with 60,000 dollar pickups with truck nuts voted for trump because of the price of eggs, go ahead....I'll close with the Joe Trippi; we have run a woman twice, we got 48% twice....
Look, I'm clearly unlikely to move you off of this belief set you are clinging to, but:
1) I have read Podhorzer. Have you? His outstanding recent analysis - which heavily enriched my thinking - comes to very different conclusions than you are coming to.
2) Joe Trippi seems like a nice guy and has the experience, but he was absolutely, spectacularly wrong the whole time about how this election was playing out, so any reasoning he gives as to why he was so wrong is probably equally out-of-touch and garnished with sour grapes.
3) The other men you mentioned may be incredibly educated, but they have a vested self-interest in making the assertions they are making. They have no data behind them and likely never will, so they can feel free to give people such as yourself the answers they want to hear en route to selling books and engagement without ever being disproven. Keep that in mind.
Also, the comment about truck drivers is ugly stereotyping. We need to do better here.
Dude I have BEEN reading Podhorzer for a long time and I know his work very well. But thanks for trying. The comment about truck drivers should have been attributed to Tom Nichols. Go ahead, try and take him on.
Kamala Harris was an excellent candidate but did the Harris/Biden people really run an excellent campaign? I’m not talking about the effort with Liz Cheney and Never Trumpers (I am fine with that) or the convention (fantastic). I’m talking about the overall campaign effort (see my note about canvassing). The campaign - for a campaign that said/knew it was down in the polls - was way too conservative. MVP spent August not doing press. The message was not super resonant. Kamala made one trip to the border (which was awesome) and that was it. I have a lot of sympathy for the limited time and was/am a big JOD fan (and think Plouffe, Cutter and other are really smart) but I think the whole Obama group frame of having MVP say “Prices are too high” was not, as Simon has pointed out, really helpful. It seems like the places we did overperform (NC and Wis) were due to the state parties rather than the campaign. It’s not clear to me that the two billion raised was as well spent as it could have been. We should be, as the dust clears, really tough minded. I, for one, think we need to move on from having former Obama operatives run everything. We need a a change.
Obama clearly looked like he was humoring Trump. I did a ton for grassroots effort, and like you I felt it made a difference, but it's that 2%. If people are unhappy with the incumbent, fairly or not, all the ground game and money can only do so much.
I must confess that I thought Kamala Harris’ huge GOTV operations, and the monumental grassroots effort to which a vast number of independent pro-democracy organizations contributed, would bring a lot more than +2%. I was expecting at least 5 percent from that.
People with actual data and then good analyses will have to figure this out. I know we helped, especially in down ballot races, but the bigger issues going forward are "above my paygrade."
The Harris campaign, I think I got this tidbit from Tara McGowan on a Deep State Radio pod I heard during the election, apparently was surprised by the number of volunteers that signed up and were not planning on having so many supporters and so did not plan for or get ready to really leverage the grassroots. Anecdotally, I experienced this in my canvassing (which I did in Michigan, PA and NC). The offices, while they did call me and others up, seemed to lack an intensity of purpose or clear direction about goals for canvassing. I often would come to an office and say “I’d like to canvass” and would be told “let me see what I can find” for you. In one instance, I could tell the organizer was just trying to find TERFs for us to be able to do something and I said “no worries we can go to another office” and they said great (this was on the weekend before the election). The scripts were still persuasion scripts, and not GOTV, scripts a week before Election Day. The training for canvassers seemed random (and I was able to waive it off everytime which I don’t know is a good thing). I would ask questions like “what should we do with video doorbells” and was told that “was a good question” (there are a lot of video doorbells in some areas). Also, it was clear that the campaign had more materials then they knew what to do with and so just shoved them at us (and did not seem to care if we brought them back). Like the money, it’s not clear to me that the volunteer effort by the campaign was “well spent” (not the case for Hopium, we were clearly directed and effective)
I also think that we are really limited by “mini van” - that app is poor for even finding the potential voters (mean just integration into making a route with Google maps) and, most importantly about what data you enter into it (after a door knock). It is so random in terms of what you are supposed to do for entering data and clear that they aren’t doing a whole lot with the data collected (in terms of improving the odds of persuasion with a specific voter at the door or via ads, phone calls). I’ve heard that the GOP is far ahead of us in really leveraging data. I got the impression that we were still just using the 1,2,3 approach (like the old days). NGP Van is a small company started by a bunch of ex campaign staffers. Why isn’t the DNC going to real tech people to figure out how to maximize data and grassroots outreach? We need to call this stuff out. We can’t be mediocre any more (and get away with it).
This resonates a lot. The official committees are still figuring out how to incorporate grassroots efforts in a meaningful way. I have a friend who did a lot in Georgia for some candidates, and would "hear postcards aren't effective/let us do a mailer for you for X dollars", from outside consultants. I do think there is a fear that grassroots are cutting in on their turf. The thing that makes me the most frustrated is when I hear about the amount of money spent on advertising and focused on "tested results". I have done analytics for a living for over 15 years, and it's very important, but only when you add a lot of context to it, which is seems was lacking.
Seems those metrics are less important now, though trump is a unique, messianic figure who can get by without all that. let's see what happens when generic maniac republican runs in four years; we know JD has the all the charisma of a dead flounder, one that is unsuitable for the table......
That's exactly what I think. The Republicans are going to have to actually put in some effort now that they won't have their precious electoral cash cow on the ballot. To make important decisions based on any election with him in it is a big mistake, in my view.
Amen. I can't with this whole line of thinking of "It didn't turn out like I wanted, so I guess my efforts were a mistake." What are we, 8 years old? People need to get wise and grow up. The Harris/Walz campaign was a massively inspiring effort in the short time it existed. I was a whole new level of devastated people didn't reward it, and I don't see myself ever forgiving the voters that didn't. But I don't regret the little bit of money, time, and support I gave because **it was the right thing to do and every little bit helps!!!**
We act by our values, not by other people's actions.
Yeah, I've been so angry about the outcome and the people who voted for a felon and rapist. However, I went on an overseas vacation right after the election. I lead a privileged life, am grateful and lucky, but it provides little insight on how to reach the people we are purporting to help.
I for one am looking forward to a presidential election that does NOT have trump in it, along with the disruption of his low-information voters, that seem to be causing us to make the impulsive and flawed assumptions that you mention.
Appreciate the update! Just wanted to recheck in on what we should be doing. For those of us readers who are not big influencers online- other than sending letters to our congress people (and of course doing what we can for folks in LA) what are the best specific actions we can be taking at this point?
Congress’ next order of business should be to pass legislation that bars convicted felons from using any bathroom in the White House or in the Capitol.
If need be, this can be one of Democrats’ demands for raising the debt ceiling. But let’s not be unreasonable. If we need to compromise, an explicit exception can be made for diaper-wearing felons.
If anyone is feeling climate anxiety watching what's happening in LA and has seen the report on last year's global temperature (NYT link below), please don't lose hope. Climate scientists are hammering the point that any impact we can make in this arena today will have a lasting effect on the future. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, Rebecca Solnit and Katharine Hayhoe, to name a few among many, are better resources than I on this topic.
That said, Ms. Solnit has a great, concise resource (also linked below) for actionable ideas to make a difference, which I thought the many civically-minded people in this group might be interested in. I myself will be spending an hour with Climate Changemakers today and hope to maybe see some of you there in the future.
Here is some rare bipartisanship in Washington. RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard were both Democrats who actually ran for President as Democrats. The Senate Democrats will vote against them and the Senate Republicans will vote for them.
A question for you, regarding "bipartisanship." Do you believe the Trump party would value what you are calling "bipartisanship" if someone with an R joins the Democrats to oppose a Trump initiative?
Some fine Democrats have come from Hawaii -- Daniel Inouye, Brian Schatz, Mazie Hirono and many others. I believe Tulsi Gabbard ran as a Democrat in Hawaii for reasons other than Democratic principles. (It gave her the best chance to win political power.)
On the other hand, there is a state representative, Beth Fukumoto -- who ran and won as a Republican, but in 2017, resigned her office and apologized to voters as she admitted should not in good faith support the party of Trump. I believe people -- principled people -- TEND to gravitate to the party that best reflects their principles. Responding to "lust for power" is not something to which I'd apply the word "bipartisanship." "Self-interest" -- that's more like it.
PS: Barack Obama.... How could I forget Barack Obama???
I am bringing to your attention this post by Robert Leonard, who writes "Deep Midwest: Politics and Culture." The column is written by a guest columnist, Pat Shipley, who lives in southwest Iowa. She has a lot to say about what is wrong with the Democrats from a rural perspective. (For those of you who don't know, I-35 runs north-south through the middle of the state.)
I encourage everyone to read Ed's link to an article on democratic rural leaders. It was very informative about why we lose rural voters. Today in the Hartford Courant I read a similar post that also expressed the ire of rural voters about bussed in door-knockers who are from urban areas who know nothing about the problems facing rural voters. Ed's link blames the state parties for not having appropriate literature, etc.
I think, as I have mentioned before, we need a 50 state solution with funding from the DNC to develop candidates who know the people and communities. We need to "speak their language" and if successful, do their utmost to deliver.
If you want dive deeper in how we can compete in rural areas would strongly advocate watching my interview with Jane Kleeb about the work we funded in Nebraska.
I watched it again. She basically goes into more info than the article called It's Dems Who Have the Weird Problem by Frank Barry of Bloomberg Opinion. I expected to be turned off by the article. But it made sense. Should be talking values, not policy. It mentions a former Republican who now leads the Democratic party in Shelby County, Ohio by the name of Chris Gibbs, a cattle, corn and soybean farmer and his work to bring Democrats in the area " out of hiding". The perception in his area is that a Democrat is someone with a nose ring and blue hair. He complains that the party tries a top down approach which you have discussed with Jane. It mentions mistakes the national party makes with these voters and ends with there are rural campaign veterans in the area who understand what it will take for the party to reconnect with Trump voters. Whether national leaders and activists will listen remains to be seen.
I guess it’s not possible to email Simon so I will put a question here that I hope he will address in his next zoom meeting for members. You and Tom Snyder have made excellent suggestions for the communication changes that need to take place within the Democratic party. My question: how can we get the people who need to be doing the talking louder and more often and in different ways to hear this message (shadow cabinet that communicates with voters directly in the media and your suggestion that they need to come out hard and often against what is happening) and bump up their willingness to do what is needed? It’s great to hear and read the wisdom of those who know what needs to be done; quite frustrating not to see anything changing day to day. Thanks Simon!
WOW! Although I cannot fully agree on a couple of things, I appreciate your passion and truths. This is the kind of conversation we need. I agree that if we don't find a way to talk to republicans, at least on key issues, we aren't going to be able to stop the horror show or get anything we want done, done. Fetterman is in survival mode, as all politicians are. I agree that Kamala was awesome. She and Walz did an amazing and uplifting campaign. I believe that she needed more time AND that legacy media fell down on countering the lies of trump. What I'm interested in is: WHERE WERE ALL THE VOTERS?
Time to order some Trump Did That stickers when inflation kicks up again with high prices & unemployment. Laughed when I heard about Musk backing off on this vow to cut $2 trillion.
We may be in for hard economic times but we do not need to sit back. We need to remind voters over and over again about his 3 campaign promises when he fails. Push those in office to do the same. Make jokes about how Humpty fell off the wall scrambling to put those 3 promises back together. Challenge the media to do the same.
"Economic reality catches up with every president, and Donald Trump is no exception. His Mar-a-Lago entourage and perhaps the president-elect are already learning that what’s promised either cannot be fulfilled or would be terrible if it was. So now they’re backpedaling on his three central campaign commitments."
Trump Did This stickers is a great idea but can be used against us if things go well if gas goes down. Not discouraging but it's worth noting. I saw these on gas stations throughout rural MN for years.
Simon, you talked on your Hopium video on Wednesday night about getting a fuller handle on Trump's madness. If you haven't already (and I suspect you have), following the work of Mary L. Trump could be useful. Her book, Too Much and Never Enough, is an excellent look into the dysfunction and sadism of the Trump family. Her newest book, How Could Anyone Ever Love You," is supposed to be outstanding as well. As a psychologist and niece of DJT, she has a unique vantage point to probe his psyche.
"In 2020, new Hispanic registrants in Arizona were +22 Dem. By 2022 the GOP had halved that Democratic advantage, to make it +11 Dem. But the bottom truly fell out for Democrats in 2024, as they had an advantage of only 2.5% among Hispanic new registrants.
"What else accounts for the Dem drop-off in Arizona? Voter turnout was a big part of it. If we set the registration aside and just look at party registration shares for those who voted in each election, in 2020 the electorate was +4.7 GOP. In 2024 that surged to +9.2 GOP - a 4.5% improvement in electorate share for the GOP."
I want to share what I am doing in my small way. I live in California in a very blue district so my contacting my congress people may have limited results. But I am still doing it. I have both senators and my congressman in my contacts list. I have started a log of my topic and will contact them daily. I spoke with a human for my congressman but got recordings for the senators. I followed up my phone message to the senators with an email specifically asking what they were doing about my concern. (Today it was Tulsi Gabbard) I am going to communicate about the Horrible Four separately and try and tie my comment to current news.
I gave more than I could afford in this past election and like all of you had too many fundraising emails in response. I have been hitting unsubscribe and span for months.
Simon I appreciate you going to bat about the fund-raising email. I will not donate online again, but will send money orders or something.
One last thing, after seeing the Medias Touch video after Ben was evacuated I subscribed to his blog. He is getting a big following and is "renting space in Trump's head."
I will donate online again when ActBlue makes it possible to do so while provide just my name and physical address. I will not give ActBlue or any campaign my email or cell phone number.
The problem is the whole operation is overseen by Elon Musk, who is the CEO of 6 companies, has 11 children, and is in the top-20 in the Diablo 4 leaderboard. He doesn't have enough time to supervise his assistant Donald Trump.
The Dems are taking a beating from FOTUS and maga on the Cal fires. Despite fierce Santa Ana winds, extensive drought and sparks flying everywhere. Basic science vs climate denial. But since they won by infrequent, uneducated voters this will stick in their minds as a Dem failure because there won't be a response otherwise. So is the Dem party is rebutting this stuff?? It appears that Cal & Newsom & Dem Mayor of LA will be particular targets for FOTUS. Joe needs to get as much aid to them before 1/20 as he can! Simon, assuming your wife et al are on top of this!!! So very sad.
I don't engage with legacy media, but on alternative media they are clapping back pretty heavy with fact checking, interviews on the ground, videos, etc. Legacy media is going to do their darndest to make Democrats look bad. The good news is that low-information voters don't watch/read legacy media.
Unbelievable! I don't know how they live with themselves or sleep at night!
I rarely add my $0.02 cents here, but I have to dump it all here today, because most of yesterday's comments were ABSOLUTELY INSANE. I love my fellow Hopium mates but IMO some of us need a seriously frank reality check right now...
"It was because she was a woman. All those macho Latinos and young men who listen to podcasts didn't want her. I'm not sure we can afford to run a woman next time." I am begging you guys, absolutely BEGGING you to cut this out. This is the same shit people said after 2016 that made them feel compelled en masse to pick a boring centrist elderly white man in 2020 over all the other options. Years later, look where that got us. PLEASE do not do that again. Look, Harris lost because she was stuck being the VP to either the most or 2nd-most unpopular President in modern history, and was given 107 days to cancel out 3 years worth of negative sentiment from the public, which - while the attempt was exhilarating - proved to be impossible. (Biden was as unpopular for most of his whole term as Carter was at his nadir or Bush Jr. was right after Katrina!) Young men are more progressive in both economic and social attitudes than older men, and while some misogyny still obviously exists, insisting that bigotry is the engine powering the thinking of large numbers of young men who are potential Dem voters is so untrue, insulting, and alienating. I would like to remind y'all that the demographic shifts away from Dems in '24 were the same as in '22, when there was no biracial woman running for President. I would like to remind y'all that Hillary Clinton - a woman! - won Latino men by large margins. (Also, the President of Mexico is a Jewish woman.) I would like to remind y'all that Biden was losing in hypothetical polling to woman-of-color Nikki Haley by a landslide. Harris improved on Biden's polling among all groups, and won more raw votes than he did in '20 in WI, NV, NC & GA. The excitement of having her possibly make history powered voters TOWARD her in a way no Midwestern white dude could ever have managed. It just wasn't enough, because a billion dollars can't buy you more TIME, which is what she needed.
"I wrote a zillion postcards but we didn't win. What ways can we contact people other than mail, calls, and door-knocking?" Uh, none? Unless you believe in chemtraiIs and mass hypnosis, talking and writing are kind of the main modes of human communication. Even though postcarding makes for a more jolly activity, it is not as helpful as phone or text banking or frankly anything else, but folks here got reeeeeal touchy when that was pointed out.
"Ok, but why did I put effort into volunteering when clearly the ground game didn't make a difference?" It did make a difference, it just couldn't save the White House or our majorities. The admiration for Biden on here is *still* blinding people to how much grave damage he did. The Harris team have publicly described the internal polling when she took over as "gruesome" and "catastrophic," and the whole campaign as a "rescue mission" to pull off "a miracle." Biden was going to Iose every swing state by something like 8 or 9 points and likely take blue states down with him as well. The ground game makes something like a 2% difference, which is everything in a tied game, but won't save you if it's not. If we had not switched candidates AND had the best ever ground game, we would have lost at least 4 more Senate seats and dozens of House seats, guaranteeing Republican power for a generation.
"Why was the NYT not talking about the good Biden did BEFORE the election? It would have made a BIG difference!" It would have had the same impact as an editorial from Cronkite or Murrow, which is to say none. Old folks are having a *really* hard time grasping that. The data is clear that Harris/Dems whole loss came from low-information voters who avoid traditional media. My 24yo brother is a college-educated honors student and was a 4H **state ambassador,** and I genuinely don't think has ever held a real newspaper in his life, let alone read one. If the NYT shut down tomorrow he wouldn't even know. He wasn't going to vote until Harris took over, then voted for her on the basis that she was "more liberal and a nicer person and would rather see her face for a few years." He wanted to get "coconut-pilled" (look it up), and took note when Charli XCX proclaimed "Kamala IS brat" (look it up). He doesn't know what 60 Minutes is, but would have loved it if Harris had found her way onto Hot Ones (look it up). This is the world now, Grandma.
"I'm disowning Fetterman. Who could primary him?" LOL WTF GTFO This man could be a top contender for President in '28 if he wants to be, and we need to spend the years in between cloning him. He is a true progressive who campaigned hard for Bernie and Biden and Harris and won his swing state by FIVE points. Lemme get this straight: FDR got chummy with Stalin, but Fetterman merely agrees to meet with the President-elect who carried his state and you're MAD about that? He damned Trump with some backhanded compliments on a talk show and said he'd keep an open mind on the Cabinet and you're MAD before he even votes on anyone? Newsflash: every swing district person is gonna do that. Politics 101. Their job is to survive. Loud opposition is the job of folks in safe seats.
"If we need to get louder, why aren't we getting loud already? Where are our leaders?!?!" They are taking a damn minute to figure out what went wrong and what the new line of attack needs to be. We just lost to the worst people on Earth, remember? Maybe re-evaluating is needed before we start running our mouths again. Nothing has happened yet, and when it does we need to pick our battles.
"Why are all those Dems appeasing the enemy by voting for that Laken Riley Act? They should be opposing such a horrible bill!" You may like it or not, but the idea that we should detain someone who is a thief and not a citizen is a reasonable-sounding idea to most Americans. Hate to break it to you guys, but if a bill gets dozens of the opposing party members to vote yes, by definition that means it is incredibly popular and non-controversial. Our government is supposed to represent popular ideas, right? Don't complain when they do their job for once. Besides, Schumer & co. will almost certainly get amendments on it.
"Why was Obama being nice to Trump in that photo?" Because being polite to someone who you hate is what you do at a freaking FUNERAL (with assigned seating). What was Obama supposed to do, bend over and fart in Cheeto's face while the cameras are rolling? This wasn't a game of cooties, it was a FUNERAL.
"What can we do about these endless negative emails begging me for money?" Click the "unsubscribe" button at the bottom of the email. If it's a text, click the "block spam" button. You are asking why you have weeds in your garden, when you never pull up the weeds. Pull up the weeds and after a while they will stop growing. Just. Click. Unsubscribe.
"I think she lost because she focused too much on battleground states!" Holy crap. I'm out.
While I don’t agree with everything you wrote, and some might react to your very-candid tone, these are important thoughts to ponder that definitely deserve an upvote.
thank you. I just cannot with this flying off the handle stuff. We have good info available to us, use it or ask a librarian (like me).
Librarians are absolute heroes who deserve everything. The library is as essential to our health as the hospital or fire station.
Biden did not sign an E.O. Making it easier for mentally ill folks to buy guns.
Biden did not lose 3 million jobs.
Biden did not add $8 trillion to the debt
Biden did not dismiss the deadly coronavirus
Biden DID pass an infrastructure bill to bring better and safer roads and bridges for your friends and family.
Biden DID pass the CHIP manufacturing bill to bring more vital technology manufacturing back home
BIDEN did pass the anti inflation bill and also lower prescription drug prices
So when you sully Biden as a lousy president, your other points lose value.
In fairness, Will did not call Biden "a lousy president". Please point me to where he says that, for I’m seeing nothing of the sort.
“Harris lost because she was stuck being the VP to either the most or 2nd-most unpopular President in modern history”
That view comes from the Trump MAGA crowd. But it’s way off base
Unfortunately, Americans never gave President Biden sufficient credit for his great accomplishments. That translates into the polling fact that Will is stating. Those facts are NOT "a view from the MAGA crowd". Polling is polling, however unfair.
I and many others have faulted Team Biden for insufficiently communicating his accomplishments. Whereas Trump and the right-wing ecosphere campaigned loudly for nine years.
Sir, the only person here being MAGA-esque is you, by denying reality to assauge your emotions. Trump claims he's popular but that not true: he is never had a majority approval rate or won a majority of voters.
Similarly, Joe Biden hasn't had a positive approval rating - or anything close - since the fall of 2021.
Popular parties win re-election. Unpopular parties lose re-election. That's how this whole thing works.
And when a political party loses to:
** a twice impeached president
** a convicted felon with a finding of sexual assault on the side
** a person responsible for undoing 49 years of reproductive freedom;
** a guy indicted for two other separate felony crimes in addition to being found guilty of defrauding the state of NY $400 Million or so
** a guy who calls our troops “suckers and losers”
** a guy whose former staffers deemed “unfit to serve” … “a fascist” … “an effing moron”
One might wonder if the losing side might have done a better job connecting the dots for people ?
Should Biden have taken himself out of a re-election campaign toward the end of 2023… declared himself satisfied that he rescued the country from Trump and inviting younger Dems to compete for the 2024 nomination?
Thats a fair question… but imponderable
Uh, did I say he was a bad President? Nope. Reading comprehension is vital.
What I said is that he was a catastrophically unpopular President, which is just a fact, as every single one of the hundreds of reputable polls published for the last 3.5 years as well as the recent election results have shown. You can think that is unfair and that he was great (I was a big supporter for most of his term), but you would be in a small minority of Americans, and in a Democracy the majority rules. It is quite literally a popularity contest. When the people who are your allies in your own party feel the need to force you out with only weeks to go to even have an even chance at not getting electorally annihilated, which your own loyal staff is willing to say in public was what was happening... you may have not failed as a policymaker but you have failed as a politician, which is more than half the job.
I wish people focused on incremental policy details and made rational choices but they don't. Saying Harris lost because of her demographic or any other reason other than her association with an unpopular administration is against every bit of data we have, and profoundly counter-productive.
You declared Biden to be the most or second most unpopular president in modern history.
Bush 43 dropped down to 25 percent; Trump was at 34 percent
It is true the Biden was unpopular among the MAGA folks .. and Biden had to pass must/pass legislation without gop
support. Even the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill saw 87 percent of Congressional Republicans vote against their constituents. Because they could not be seen as supporting Biden.
I acknowledge many of your other points.
But Biden is going to look good in history. And Dems do a terrible job at connecting the dots necessary to help folks see.
Look at the mess Biden inherited.
Trump’s dismissal of Covid spiraled the pandemic out of control. He had to shut down the economy. Guess what happens when it reopens? Demand for stuff far exceeded supply. We know what happens to prices
Biden inherited a terrible situation.. inflation was caused by Trump. How many Gopers voted for the inflation reduction act?
Biden’s policy got inflation down to 3 percent or so. Wages went up by more.
But Dems don’t connect the dots
Historians will.
Oh, lordy. You can't just pick someone's low point and ignore the high points. Reagan hit below 40 in his first term but had almost 60 by the end of it. Bush Jr. was very popular in his first term and won re-election, unpopular in his 2nd, which led to McCain's defeat. Biden was above 50 for six months, then after that hit 40 on a good day. He was high 30s for the past year. The only reason Democrats had a chance this year was because they were running against the only guy who might be equally as unpopular.
Who gives a crap what history thinks? History is written by the winners, and I have to be alive now. I think I'm done here.
Thank you. President Biden has done an OUTSTANDING job getting this country back on track. HOWEVER, he-and the Democrats have done a MISERABLE job of messaging about the wonderful policies they enacted to help everyday Americans after this devastating pandemic that has scourged economies worldwide. And, they have done a horrible job calling out the Republicans for obstructing these policies all along the way. Sadly, its not just Biden; it’s been the Democrats’ incompetent messaging over the past 25 years. This must change or else we WILL lose our democracy because we will continue to lose crucial elections due to incompetent messaging.
Meidas had an interesting piece today criticizing Obama for giving the Trump people the photo op they were seeking. You make some good points here but not all the comments you’re posting qualify as “absolutely insane.” I find some of this post needlessly intimidating. Not sure that’s what you were after?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. All the comments I am criticizing represent lines of thinking that repeatedly lead liberals to defeat, so when I keep seeing them pop up... yeah, I'd say that qualifies as insane, as least in a colloquial sense. Caring about Obama's photo faux pas, criticizing our own party members, and coming up with theories for our losses that have no basis in data gets us zero new voters and wastes valuable energy.
I wasn't after any sort of tone in my post other than saying what I thought needed to be said in my own unapologetic voice. If that's intimidating, I won't apologize.
Two things can be true at once. Kamala Harris ran an excellent campaign facing tremendous headwinds and a short runway to succeed and we live in a country with a long history of racism and sexism.
Yes, but I have yet to see hard data that quantifies the impact of racism and sexism on this election. Certainly I have not seen any data that supports the claim, made by some here, that racism and sexism were the reason Kamala Harris lost.
The uber-super-duper frustrating thing here is that not only do we lack data that supports that knee-jerk assumption, but all the data we have says the opposite, and people still won't let it gooooo.
The retort they make is "Oh, people just aren't answering honestly. They're hiding their true feelings." Oh, really? Because the bigots seem shamelessly loud and proud from where I'm standing. Who exactly are these otherwise liberal-leaning voters who are like "I'm okay with having a woman be my mayor, governor, Senator, and Vice President... but not having that same woman be actual President and I better lie to a pollster about it, even though it's anonymous!"
Yes. It's called the Bradley Effect. Jeezus. Politics 101. Some people just can't accept the fact that there is racism and sexism alive and well and cost us an election. They come up with everything, the price of eggs, the price of gas, messaging. It's all bullshit.
The Bradley Effect was debunked decades ago. Like, before the first black President outperformed his polls to win a then-record number of votes.
Oh well, I tried. I want more Dems to win and to see a Dem female President while my Mom is still around to share it with me. I thought we shared the same goal, but enjoy your self-fulfilling prophecy, mixing up speculation for fact, and generally unpleasant attitude, I guess.
I'm the unpleasant one? Hoo boy....
Actually Podhorzer notes in his writings just that; polls tell you what people say, not what they do. If you actually do read him you would know that.
Well, duh. Saying Harris faced rampant racism and sexism from her opponents is undeniable. Saying it was the reason we lost is dangerously obtuse, when there were so many other variables.
Look, the main engine powering Trump's rise is white supremacy and Christian nationalism. No doubt about that. That's what his base voters want. But he didn't get his swing-state winning margin from those people, he got it from low-propensity voters who couldn't care less about that and merely wanted the status quo to stop. The main engine powering Biden's win was the pro-democracy activist movement that rose up to provide an alternate, progressive future. That's what his base voters wanted. But he didn't get his swing-state winning margin from those people, he got it from low-propensity voters who couldn't care less about that and merely wanted the status quo to stop.
Good point about many voters wanting to end the status quo – first when Trump was the status quo, and this time when the status quo was Biden.
How do we know that low-information voters, who were concerned about the cost of living, were also not voting based on racial and gender prejudices? I agree with Michael Podhorzer that the failure to turn out Democrats was probably the most important factor in Harris' loss, but we have yet to have a good analysis, as far as I am aware, about the role that race and gender played among the people who did vote in this election..
I'm open to any further research that gets done, and agree we have a long way to go as a country in our attitudes toward race and gender, in general.
Speaking frankly but with all due respect, labelling my use of the word "duh" as a "form of disdain" is Exhibit A in why the crowd that frequents these comments is not good at connecting with young people, young men especially. I say "duh" to my Mom, and she says it right back, and we both love each other very much. This level of pearl-clutching and reading into people's tone is absolute anathema to younger guys in the internet age, or even in American culture generally, which is not exactly refined. If you want to win hearts and minds in the electorate you desperately need to win back, you've got to get a bit more comfortable with irreverence and the occasional aggressive return.
I do not have to get more comfortable with "irreverence and the occasional aggressive return." If this is the approach that some young men choose to use on the internet, so be it. I think it will be less successful than those forms of communication that show greater respect for others and whose purpose is to bring us together to protect and expand our democracy.
Jane, in your own personal life, you can communicate in whatever style suits your own preference, and right to surround yourself with people who respect that. Sure.
However, this is a Substack dedicated to messaging politics, "getting louder," and being "information warriors." So if we are serious about that task, we need to recognize that requires communicating with other people who do not share our personal style. To be candid, you are attempting to achieve two things that are no longer in concert but instead in conflict. You may be sincere in wanting to "show respect for others," and "bring us together to protect and expand our democracy." Yet part of respect is getting on someone's level and accepting who they are, and if your version of respectful speech comes off to them as prim and polite and patronizing, and you recoil at the first hint of their authentic voice, then you are not bringing people together or expanding democracy, instead you are alienating them and undermining it.
We had four years of a President dedicated to "lowering the temperature" and it led us right back into the ring with a crude and cartoonish wrestling supervillain. This stylistic approach you are insisting on is not "more successful," in achieving the goal we all wish to achieve. You say, "so be it," but are you enjoying the consequences of that so far? I am most certainly not. Time to prioritize results over style.
According to Egberto Willies of Politics Done Right, when voters compared both platforms, they very much preferred Harris..until told it was Harris'. Very damning evidence of racism and sexism right there; also, Dems out performed her in several races in key states. More evidence, in Willies' words, "probative."
Um... there is truly nothing "damning" about that discrepancy because that has also been found to apply to **every other elected Democrat,** regardless of gender or race. Individual Democratic policies always poll higher and test better than the percent of the vote Democrats receive, because people like the ideas but don't trust Democrats themselves. They don't trust the brand or the party, and by saying "it must be because they're racist and sexist, for an Ivy League professor told me so" you just made yourself into Exhibit A for why the propaganda painting Dems as "woke gender-obsessed elites" gets traction... because sadly, for a certain slice of our party, there appears to be a grain of truth to that.
The white man veteran candidate for Senate in Missouri got almost the exact same number of votes as Kamala Harris did, which is to say they both lost by double digits. Through ballot measures, Missouri recently passed a higher minimum wage, paid family leave, protected abortion rights, and legalized marijuana.
It's not a race/gender problem, it's not a policy problem, it's a branding problem.
Keep bending over backwards and twisting yourself into knots. It won't change the facts.
You are wrong on Biden's winning margin. He won because low propensity voters were terrified of another trump administration. People were dying. Lots of them. The economy was in the shitter. Michael Podhorzer delves into this in detail. You should read him carefully and reassess some of your rants. And, we have plenty of reason to think that Harris lost due to sexism and racism, or do you think you know more than people like Professor Eddie Glaude of Princeton, or Egberto Willies,of Politics Done Right, Black men who have studied and spoken on these issues.....Biden's coalition was no longer terrified of trump, in no small measure because Biden had restored normality. But if you want to believe a bunch of guys with 60,000 dollar pickups with truck nuts voted for trump because of the price of eggs, go ahead....I'll close with the Joe Trippi; we have run a woman twice, we got 48% twice....
Look, I'm clearly unlikely to move you off of this belief set you are clinging to, but:
1) I have read Podhorzer. Have you? His outstanding recent analysis - which heavily enriched my thinking - comes to very different conclusions than you are coming to.
2) Joe Trippi seems like a nice guy and has the experience, but he was absolutely, spectacularly wrong the whole time about how this election was playing out, so any reasoning he gives as to why he was so wrong is probably equally out-of-touch and garnished with sour grapes.
3) The other men you mentioned may be incredibly educated, but they have a vested self-interest in making the assertions they are making. They have no data behind them and likely never will, so they can feel free to give people such as yourself the answers they want to hear en route to selling books and engagement without ever being disproven. Keep that in mind.
Also, the comment about truck drivers is ugly stereotyping. We need to do better here.
Dude I have BEEN reading Podhorzer for a long time and I know his work very well. But thanks for trying. The comment about truck drivers should have been attributed to Tom Nichols. Go ahead, try and take him on.
Kamala Harris was an excellent candidate but did the Harris/Biden people really run an excellent campaign? I’m not talking about the effort with Liz Cheney and Never Trumpers (I am fine with that) or the convention (fantastic). I’m talking about the overall campaign effort (see my note about canvassing). The campaign - for a campaign that said/knew it was down in the polls - was way too conservative. MVP spent August not doing press. The message was not super resonant. Kamala made one trip to the border (which was awesome) and that was it. I have a lot of sympathy for the limited time and was/am a big JOD fan (and think Plouffe, Cutter and other are really smart) but I think the whole Obama group frame of having MVP say “Prices are too high” was not, as Simon has pointed out, really helpful. It seems like the places we did overperform (NC and Wis) were due to the state parties rather than the campaign. It’s not clear to me that the two billion raised was as well spent as it could have been. We should be, as the dust clears, really tough minded. I, for one, think we need to move on from having former Obama operatives run everything. We need a a change.
Obama clearly looked like he was humoring Trump. I did a ton for grassroots effort, and like you I felt it made a difference, but it's that 2%. If people are unhappy with the incumbent, fairly or not, all the ground game and money can only do so much.
I must confess that I thought Kamala Harris’ huge GOTV operations, and the monumental grassroots effort to which a vast number of independent pro-democracy organizations contributed, would bring a lot more than +2%. I was expecting at least 5 percent from that.
People with actual data and then good analyses will have to figure this out. I know we helped, especially in down ballot races, but the bigger issues going forward are "above my paygrade."
The Harris campaign, I think I got this tidbit from Tara McGowan on a Deep State Radio pod I heard during the election, apparently was surprised by the number of volunteers that signed up and were not planning on having so many supporters and so did not plan for or get ready to really leverage the grassroots. Anecdotally, I experienced this in my canvassing (which I did in Michigan, PA and NC). The offices, while they did call me and others up, seemed to lack an intensity of purpose or clear direction about goals for canvassing. I often would come to an office and say “I’d like to canvass” and would be told “let me see what I can find” for you. In one instance, I could tell the organizer was just trying to find TERFs for us to be able to do something and I said “no worries we can go to another office” and they said great (this was on the weekend before the election). The scripts were still persuasion scripts, and not GOTV, scripts a week before Election Day. The training for canvassers seemed random (and I was able to waive it off everytime which I don’t know is a good thing). I would ask questions like “what should we do with video doorbells” and was told that “was a good question” (there are a lot of video doorbells in some areas). Also, it was clear that the campaign had more materials then they knew what to do with and so just shoved them at us (and did not seem to care if we brought them back). Like the money, it’s not clear to me that the volunteer effort by the campaign was “well spent” (not the case for Hopium, we were clearly directed and effective)
That’s incredibly disappointing to hear!
I also think that we are really limited by “mini van” - that app is poor for even finding the potential voters (mean just integration into making a route with Google maps) and, most importantly about what data you enter into it (after a door knock). It is so random in terms of what you are supposed to do for entering data and clear that they aren’t doing a whole lot with the data collected (in terms of improving the odds of persuasion with a specific voter at the door or via ads, phone calls). I’ve heard that the GOP is far ahead of us in really leveraging data. I got the impression that we were still just using the 1,2,3 approach (like the old days). NGP Van is a small company started by a bunch of ex campaign staffers. Why isn’t the DNC going to real tech people to figure out how to maximize data and grassroots outreach? We need to call this stuff out. We can’t be mediocre any more (and get away with it).
This resonates a lot. The official committees are still figuring out how to incorporate grassroots efforts in a meaningful way. I have a friend who did a lot in Georgia for some candidates, and would "hear postcards aren't effective/let us do a mailer for you for X dollars", from outside consultants. I do think there is a fear that grassroots are cutting in on their turf. The thing that makes me the most frustrated is when I hear about the amount of money spent on advertising and focused on "tested results". I have done analytics for a living for over 15 years, and it's very important, but only when you add a lot of context to it, which is seems was lacking.
Seems those metrics are less important now, though trump is a unique, messianic figure who can get by without all that. let's see what happens when generic maniac republican runs in four years; we know JD has the all the charisma of a dead flounder, one that is unsuitable for the table......
That's exactly what I think. The Republicans are going to have to actually put in some effort now that they won't have their precious electoral cash cow on the ballot. To make important decisions based on any election with him in it is a big mistake, in my view.
Amen. I can't with this whole line of thinking of "It didn't turn out like I wanted, so I guess my efforts were a mistake." What are we, 8 years old? People need to get wise and grow up. The Harris/Walz campaign was a massively inspiring effort in the short time it existed. I was a whole new level of devastated people didn't reward it, and I don't see myself ever forgiving the voters that didn't. But I don't regret the little bit of money, time, and support I gave because **it was the right thing to do and every little bit helps!!!**
We act by our values, not by other people's actions.
Yeah, I've been so angry about the outcome and the people who voted for a felon and rapist. However, I went on an overseas vacation right after the election. I lead a privileged life, am grateful and lucky, but it provides little insight on how to reach the people we are purporting to help.
Hi Will,
Don't disagree with everything you say, but here's my two cents (https://davidsalzillo.substack.com/p/salzillos-two-cents-a-2024-election)
Tell me what you think.
Though my brother has better takes (https://michaelsalzillo17.substack.com/p/progressives-and-the-long-story-of).
I for one am looking forward to a presidential election that does NOT have trump in it, along with the disruption of his low-information voters, that seem to be causing us to make the impulsive and flawed assumptions that you mention.
Appreciate the update! Just wanted to recheck in on what we should be doing. For those of us readers who are not big influencers online- other than sending letters to our congress people (and of course doing what we can for folks in LA) what are the best specific actions we can be taking at this point?
Congress’ next order of business should be to pass legislation that bars convicted felons from using any bathroom in the White House or in the Capitol.
If need be, this can be one of Democrats’ demands for raising the debt ceiling. But let’s not be unreasonable. If we need to compromise, an explicit exception can be made for diaper-wearing felons.
If anyone is feeling climate anxiety watching what's happening in LA and has seen the report on last year's global temperature (NYT link below), please don't lose hope. Climate scientists are hammering the point that any impact we can make in this arena today will have a lasting effect on the future. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, Rebecca Solnit and Katharine Hayhoe, to name a few among many, are better resources than I on this topic.
That said, Ms. Solnit has a great, concise resource (also linked below) for actionable ideas to make a difference, which I thought the many civically-minded people in this group might be interested in. I myself will be spending an hour with Climate Changemakers today and hope to maybe see some of you there in the future.
https://www.nottoolateclimate.com/_files/ugd/c8ef46_65f7332b00de468aa7091e31a4b2f772.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/01/09/climate/2024-heat-record-climate-goal.html
Here is some rare bipartisanship in Washington. RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard were both Democrats who actually ran for President as Democrats. The Senate Democrats will vote against them and the Senate Republicans will vote for them.
Not enough. The bipartisanship we need is four Republicans, along with all Democrats, voting against them.
A question for you, regarding "bipartisanship." Do you believe the Trump party would value what you are calling "bipartisanship" if someone with an R joins the Democrats to oppose a Trump initiative?
Some fine Democrats have come from Hawaii -- Daniel Inouye, Brian Schatz, Mazie Hirono and many others. I believe Tulsi Gabbard ran as a Democrat in Hawaii for reasons other than Democratic principles. (It gave her the best chance to win political power.)
On the other hand, there is a state representative, Beth Fukumoto -- who ran and won as a Republican, but in 2017, resigned her office and apologized to voters as she admitted should not in good faith support the party of Trump. I believe people -- principled people -- TEND to gravitate to the party that best reflects their principles. Responding to "lust for power" is not something to which I'd apply the word "bipartisanship." "Self-interest" -- that's more like it.
PS: Barack Obama.... How could I forget Barack Obama???
I am bringing to your attention this post by Robert Leonard, who writes "Deep Midwest: Politics and Culture." The column is written by a guest columnist, Pat Shipley, who lives in southwest Iowa. She has a lot to say about what is wrong with the Democrats from a rural perspective. (For those of you who don't know, I-35 runs north-south through the middle of the state.)
https://rleonard.substack.com/p/a-democratic-rural-leaders-view-from
I encourage everyone to read Ed's link to an article on democratic rural leaders. It was very informative about why we lose rural voters. Today in the Hartford Courant I read a similar post that also expressed the ire of rural voters about bussed in door-knockers who are from urban areas who know nothing about the problems facing rural voters. Ed's link blames the state parties for not having appropriate literature, etc.
I think, as I have mentioned before, we need a 50 state solution with funding from the DNC to develop candidates who know the people and communities. We need to "speak their language" and if successful, do their utmost to deliver.
If you want dive deeper in how we can compete in rural areas would strongly advocate watching my interview with Jane Kleeb about the work we funded in Nebraska.
I watched it again. She basically goes into more info than the article called It's Dems Who Have the Weird Problem by Frank Barry of Bloomberg Opinion. I expected to be turned off by the article. But it made sense. Should be talking values, not policy. It mentions a former Republican who now leads the Democratic party in Shelby County, Ohio by the name of Chris Gibbs, a cattle, corn and soybean farmer and his work to bring Democrats in the area " out of hiding". The perception in his area is that a Democrat is someone with a nose ring and blue hair. He complains that the party tries a top down approach which you have discussed with Jane. It mentions mistakes the national party makes with these voters and ends with there are rural campaign veterans in the area who understand what it will take for the party to reconnect with Trump voters. Whether national leaders and activists will listen remains to be seen.
I guess it’s not possible to email Simon so I will put a question here that I hope he will address in his next zoom meeting for members. You and Tom Snyder have made excellent suggestions for the communication changes that need to take place within the Democratic party. My question: how can we get the people who need to be doing the talking louder and more often and in different ways to hear this message (shadow cabinet that communicates with voters directly in the media and your suggestion that they need to come out hard and often against what is happening) and bump up their willingness to do what is needed? It’s great to hear and read the wisdom of those who know what needs to be done; quite frustrating not to see anything changing day to day. Thanks Simon!
WOW! Although I cannot fully agree on a couple of things, I appreciate your passion and truths. This is the kind of conversation we need. I agree that if we don't find a way to talk to republicans, at least on key issues, we aren't going to be able to stop the horror show or get anything we want done, done. Fetterman is in survival mode, as all politicians are. I agree that Kamala was awesome. She and Walz did an amazing and uplifting campaign. I believe that she needed more time AND that legacy media fell down on countering the lies of trump. What I'm interested in is: WHERE WERE ALL THE VOTERS?
Time to order some Trump Did That stickers when inflation kicks up again with high prices & unemployment. Laughed when I heard about Musk backing off on this vow to cut $2 trillion.
We may be in for hard economic times but we do not need to sit back. We need to remind voters over and over again about his 3 campaign promises when he fails. Push those in office to do the same. Make jokes about how Humpty fell off the wall scrambling to put those 3 promises back together. Challenge the media to do the same.
"Economic reality catches up with every president, and Donald Trump is no exception. His Mar-a-Lago entourage and perhaps the president-elect are already learning that what’s promised either cannot be fulfilled or would be terrible if it was. So now they’re backpedaling on his three central campaign commitments."
Trump Did This stickers is a great idea but can be used against us if things go well if gas goes down. Not discouraging but it's worth noting. I saw these on gas stations throughout rural MN for years.
Simon, you talked on your Hopium video on Wednesday night about getting a fuller handle on Trump's madness. If you haven't already (and I suspect you have), following the work of Mary L. Trump could be useful. Her book, Too Much and Never Enough, is an excellent look into the dysfunction and sadism of the Trump family. Her newest book, How Could Anyone Ever Love You," is supposed to be outstanding as well. As a psychologist and niece of DJT, she has a unique vantage point to probe his psyche.
Tom Bonier's post about Arizona election results is similar to what I previously posted in the chat about the survey results from Unidos.
https://open.substack.com/pub/tombonier/p/lessons-from-arizona?r=35imqc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
and Unidos survey https://unidosus.org/hispanicvote/polling-issues/
"In 2020, new Hispanic registrants in Arizona were +22 Dem. By 2022 the GOP had halved that Democratic advantage, to make it +11 Dem. But the bottom truly fell out for Democrats in 2024, as they had an advantage of only 2.5% among Hispanic new registrants.
"What else accounts for the Dem drop-off in Arizona? Voter turnout was a big part of it. If we set the registration aside and just look at party registration shares for those who voted in each election, in 2020 the electorate was +4.7 GOP. In 2024 that surged to +9.2 GOP - a 4.5% improvement in electorate share for the GOP."
(Paleo on The Downballot)
Yes, let's hear from your wife, Caitlin Durkovich, Deputy Homeland Security Advisor to President Biden, about disaster relief and the climate crisis.
Will from Cal, I appreciated your comments.
I want to share what I am doing in my small way. I live in California in a very blue district so my contacting my congress people may have limited results. But I am still doing it. I have both senators and my congressman in my contacts list. I have started a log of my topic and will contact them daily. I spoke with a human for my congressman but got recordings for the senators. I followed up my phone message to the senators with an email specifically asking what they were doing about my concern. (Today it was Tulsi Gabbard) I am going to communicate about the Horrible Four separately and try and tie my comment to current news.
I gave more than I could afford in this past election and like all of you had too many fundraising emails in response. I have been hitting unsubscribe and span for months.
Simon I appreciate you going to bat about the fund-raising email. I will not donate online again, but will send money orders or something.
One last thing, after seeing the Medias Touch video after Ben was evacuated I subscribed to his blog. He is getting a big following and is "renting space in Trump's head."
I will donate online again when ActBlue makes it possible to do so while provide just my name and physical address. I will not give ActBlue or any campaign my email or cell phone number.
The problem is the whole operation is overseen by Elon Musk, who is the CEO of 6 companies, has 11 children, and is in the top-20 in the Diablo 4 leaderboard. He doesn't have enough time to supervise his assistant Donald Trump.
"This morning the DNC joined the fight to block the Republican Party from stealing a Supreme Court seat in North Carolina."
Better late than never.
The Dems are taking a beating from FOTUS and maga on the Cal fires. Despite fierce Santa Ana winds, extensive drought and sparks flying everywhere. Basic science vs climate denial. But since they won by infrequent, uneducated voters this will stick in their minds as a Dem failure because there won't be a response otherwise. So is the Dem party is rebutting this stuff?? It appears that Cal & Newsom & Dem Mayor of LA will be particular targets for FOTUS. Joe needs to get as much aid to them before 1/20 as he can! Simon, assuming your wife et al are on top of this!!! So very sad.
I don't engage with legacy media, but on alternative media they are clapping back pretty heavy with fact checking, interviews on the ground, videos, etc. Legacy media is going to do their darndest to make Democrats look bad. The good news is that low-information voters don't watch/read legacy media.