When I see this data that says we are perceived as weak, it is probably from the fact that our AG did not aggressively deal with the insurrection. In listening to Rick Wilson's elephant in the room today, I have to agree that dealing with corruption and all the corrupt officials should be task one when (ever hopeful) we take back Congress. Once we force these people to face the consequences of their actions, we can then do the other things but only by doing that will we save our democracy. If we do not save the democracy, the other things will not get done.
I had mentioned in an earlier post seeing an increase in anti-Spanberger comments across Facebook that have intensified after her rebuttal speech. To me, this is a sign that her speech was effective.
As just one example her official Facebook page is overrun with MAGA comments that have overtaken any of the positive ones.
If you scroll through the page, the number one attack that you see over and over is "high taxes." It's repetitive to the point of robotic and I'm not sure where this is coming from, other than as usual, MAGA conflating proposals to tax the wealthy with going after the working class. I also think she was very effective at addressing affordability during the campaign and MAGA is trying to dismantle that by painting her as a hypocrite. As a woman, there are also a lot of comments about her appearance (I've seen "witch" and "vampire" mentioned) and something about wearing a plastic bag keeps being mentioned as some kind of an inside joke. The only thing I could find was traced to an older photo where she was wearing an escape hood during the aftermath of the 1/6 insurrection to protect against tear gas.
At the same time, though Spanberger has a very positive reception across Bluesky accounts, the purity left is starting to spring into action with their usual BS, like this example:
user micchato posted: “Further evidence that Democrats burnish their image for likely GOP voters with a lesser fascism” and then re-shared a Rich Puchalsky post that had Spanberger’s photo and the statement “Who is the Democratic Party getting to answer Trump’s speech? An ex-CIA girlboss. The party of Fascism vs. the party of empire.”
Long story short, I would expect the right wing to zero in on her, especially after the rebuttal speech. I think she’s a threat like Mikie Sherril (though she doesn't seem to be in their crosshairs as much) because she won over younger voters, like young men, by over 10 points. And the purity left will try to divide democrats by painting her as an imperialist, like they did with Hillary Clinton in 2016.
I also saw a weird FB post using the Spanberger speech for an analysis of how the Democrats always use “empty rhetoric.” I find FB gives me weird posts after major political events-such as No Kings. On Threads I sometimes see posts from self-important people talking about how they no longer donate to Democrats or the DNC. I think some of this is fake/misinformation.
Absolutely, they are using algorithms to push pro-MAGA content. A study published in the February issue of Nature (Gauthier, Hodler, Widmer, and Zhuravskaya) talks about how exposure to right-wing content on X is impacting users to become more supportive of right-wing views. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10098-2
This quote about the study is from Joohn Choe who tracks disinformation efforts:
"What the Nature study reveals is something much more powerful and harder to fight: the platform algorithm itself is a tool of ideological inculcation. This is much more dangerous than just a bot network.
X's recommendation system demonstrably amplifies conservative content by roughly 20% over baseline, suppresses traditional news by 58%, and, disturbingly, creates durable attitude shifts that persist even after users stop seeing the algorithmic feed. When you layer on top of that Grok's documented rightward editorial calibration, and the Trump administration's explicit strategy of using official government accounts (@StateDept, @SecRubio, @SecKennedy) as partisan amplifiers, you get something that looks like a coordinated influence operation but requires almost no coordination at all: the platform's architecture does the amplifying, the government accounts provide the credibility transfer, and the anonymous engagement-farmers ride the wave."
I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook is doing the same.
That's been going on a LONG time. There are studies galore about exposure to misinfo, and how "prebutting" with correct info can be an effective counterweight.
That makes a lot of sense. We definitely do need to appear and feel strong. But it leaves me with two questions:
What attributes or behaviors signal “strength” to American voters?
Do signifiers of strength differ by political party?
In 2024, we had a very strong Democrat who kept her head no matter what and made intelligible, clear economic arguments. She took on the job of presidential candidate with less than four months, and campaigned tirelessly while making it look easy. The other choice was a thin-skinned baby-man who babbled incoherently and promised to abuse his power for retribution.
But one was a Black woman and one was a White man. And voters thought he was stronger. A friend of mine (a White man) actually referred to her as weak and "dodging questions" and said he didn't want her as President.
Lately I have heard a lot (from Democrats) about the strength of the Epstein survivors, but I feel like many Americans would consider the rapists to be strong, rather than the victims.
A big fraction of American voters seem to think these are indicators of strength: being a White man, getting what you want, escaping accountability, hurting people's feelings, overt bigotry, bringing frivolous lawsuits, letting people die, and violating the law.
And the same voters think it is weak to compromise, ask for help, work together, understand nuance, or have empathy.
As Mister Rogers said, "It’s very dramatic when two people come together to work something out. It’s easy to take a gun and annihilate your opposition, but what is really exciting to me is to see people with differing views come together and finally respect each other."
So how do we pick the diverse and brilliant candidates we want, the ones who are genuinely strong like Gov. Spanberger, without signaling to a lot of voters that we are weak?
This is a great question. The way it was framed, the respondents think that Dems let "red tape" get in the way of progress. So, because most Dems think rules and laws are important, and not just suggestions, and Dems mostly believe in limited executive power, as envisioned by the founders, they're perceived as weak. Dems also have historically done an extremely poor job of touting victories (which would nullify the perception that we're not making progress). The last part is prevalent even in Dem camps-- when there's a lot of questions like "Why haven't the Dems done anything to [fill in the blank]?". Or "Dems have abandoned working people because they're afraid of their donors", when those statements can be shown objectively to be false.
Well, headline writers could do a better job. How many headlines about President Biden’s accomplishments were framed as “Fears Remain Despite Historic Achievements” or “Trump Hits Back Hard on Biden Accomplishment”?
On a joyful/serious note, I just received my red hat, and will be wearing it to the weekly protests, plus anywhere else I can wear a hat. I may be the only person hoping for cold weather on the next No Kings day. A college friend knitted it for me.
Wow, thank you so much for all of the polls and the analyses, Simon. Very interesting stuff. What is very interesting to me is in the one "green" poll, Dems and rational indies have the absolute quantifiable (what we've done through legislation, what we've fought for, what the results have been) high ground, by a mile over MAGA, on the top 9 issues. Just emphasizes that there is a ton of fertile ground to run on.
Calls are in to WI members regarding our 5 part agenda. Continuing to write postcards for WI Supreme Court and emailed a thank you to AG Kaul for his work to defend our democracy.
I wonder how "weak" vs. "strong" varies just based on who won the last election. Are we viewed as weak mainly because we lost the last national election? Is that at least part of the reason?
People somehow assume Democrats can just fix things despite not having a lot of political power. We might want them to fight differently, but I think people have unrealistic expectations. In this case, they see Democrats unable to stop some of Trump's abuses, and decide Democrats are "weak". Every time we don't succeed at stopping him, people tend to conclude we are "weak", despite often not having the power to do certain things.
Also, how are we both "More Ineffective" and "More Competent" than Republicans? Polls are what they are I guess.
We do have to be seen as fighting, being strong, as Simon always says. We need to repeat themes confidently. We are better for the economy. We empower ordinary people instead of elites.
My MoC was interviewed by a local independent news org yesterday. The headline was “Democrats have few options to push back against Trump”.
Sigh.
I will continue to contact him and encourage a more creative and forceful approach to his job. He seems stuck in his habits, old ways, and even said something like “everything will change in November when Dems win back the House”.
Id like to share a couple of thoughts about the perceptions of weak vs. strong. I agree this is an important measure. My sense is that part of our party's relative weakness in this area comes from Democrats believing our party leaders are "weak" and are frustrated by it. Why is this? I think it is because we see our leaders being too cautious, poll-testing their messaging and lacking authenticity in the way they express themselves, perhaps because they are still playing by the media rules they used to gain power and longevity, when the playing field has completely changed. On a personal level, it is why I find Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries so frustrating. Every time I see them speak it seems they are just saying lines that are from a messaging platform or script, versus what is really on their mind. Strength doesn't just come from screaming at Trump, it comes from taking stands with conviction and authenticity, something I think our leaders can use a lot more of. Many Democrats are showing these traits more and more, I believe there is more work to do in this area, particularly for those who are in positions of party leadership.
Great stuff. Glass half-full take-as Trumps midterm threats build, and as they are covered and explained by non traditional media, I believe Democratic voters and D leaning independents well become even more engaged, and come off the sidelines even if the polling still finds people view the D leadership as not fighting hard enough. The threat to a core right like voting concentrates one's self interest just as the threat of the draft motivated tens of thousands to get active in the anti-Vietnam war protests. It wasn't purely altruism
Good morning from the Sierra Nevada. The snow goblins dumped five feet of snow onto my house ten days ago and effectively shut down the high regions of Tuolumne County: couldn’t get down our road for four days, no electricity for six days and four more days until Internet was restored just last night. All very good for the water-giving snow pack, but... I had no idea whether TRex had led us into WW III or been impeached or neither.
That having been said, I was at the (delayed) TCIndivisible meeting last night and we got to work a) planning for very potential ICE invasion and b) recapping the state of our local election slates, and c) planning for No Kings 3. I signed up for the required-by-town-ordinance security detail for No Kings. We act as peace-keepers. The real police handle difficulties. I also made a plug for people to donate actual money to (local) campaigns.
And, I let Senator Padilla, for whom I am super proud to have voted, know how much I adore him.
Oh, dear God, I am so happy to see you posting, Emily! I was about to find an old response from you to one of my posts and DM you to ensure you were okay! I have asked on the board about you because I haven't seen a comment from you in days!
Hi Elizabeth…. I lived in Charlotte for a ten year stretch awhile back. I don’t remember seeing a single flake in those years…. From there I moved to Vermont (grin) and got to vote for Bernie Sanders on his initial run for House of Reps.
Yeah 5 feet is A LOT of snow. The most I ever saw in Minnesota was about 2.5 feet (I remembered it closer to 3 feet... I'm going to stick to that number when I tell the story verbally). Granted it was on Halloween.... That shuts things down, even in the city. Completely.
I have come to believe the strong v. weak dichotomy is why Analilia Mejia won the NJ CD-11 primary. The AIPAC ads were abhorrent and certainly cost Malinowski many votes but they may not have been the sole cause. Analilia is consistent and unapologetic in her positions and has the receipts proving her effectiveness.
Similarly when Mikie Sherrill (in the 2nd debate) labeled Ciattarelli a heartless contributor to the opioid epidemic, she was throwing an unapologetic punch. It sealed the deal IMHO.
Hi, I have had a busy day but am jumping in to say I agree 100% with the fighter thing. That's why we elected Spanberger & Sherrill! I think that the shadow hearings are very effective at projecting "the fight", and that we should expand them to encompass other topics.
In other news, NJ now officially has an attorney general - most of Gov. Sherrill's appointees are now confirmed! She is going right at Orange, who's trying to sue to get our voter data and to block the guv's initiatives on immigration. Bring it, I say. Our Lt. Governor, Dale Caldwell, is also our sec. of state, and he's a badass too -- his father was a Baptist minister who marched w Dr. King, and he does not play around when it comes to voting rights. NJ is in good hands.
I have followed Rick Wilson for a long time (and BTW, he's on the board at VoteRiders!) and believe his voice is valuable, though he can sometimes be really negative. He is definitely tapped in to the perception of Dem weakness issue.
Going to a march in support of immigrants tomorrow sponsored by the great American Friends Service Committee--the Quakers know how to do resistance! And will continue with postcards. Keep going!
I think this is working.
When I see this data that says we are perceived as weak, it is probably from the fact that our AG did not aggressively deal with the insurrection. In listening to Rick Wilson's elephant in the room today, I have to agree that dealing with corruption and all the corrupt officials should be task one when (ever hopeful) we take back Congress. Once we force these people to face the consequences of their actions, we can then do the other things but only by doing that will we save our democracy. If we do not save the democracy, the other things will not get done.
I came here to say the same thing. We need to make these people accountable for the harm they have caused.
I had mentioned in an earlier post seeing an increase in anti-Spanberger comments across Facebook that have intensified after her rebuttal speech. To me, this is a sign that her speech was effective.
As just one example her official Facebook page is overrun with MAGA comments that have overtaken any of the positive ones.
https://www.facebook.com/SpanbergerForGovernor
If you scroll through the page, the number one attack that you see over and over is "high taxes." It's repetitive to the point of robotic and I'm not sure where this is coming from, other than as usual, MAGA conflating proposals to tax the wealthy with going after the working class. I also think she was very effective at addressing affordability during the campaign and MAGA is trying to dismantle that by painting her as a hypocrite. As a woman, there are also a lot of comments about her appearance (I've seen "witch" and "vampire" mentioned) and something about wearing a plastic bag keeps being mentioned as some kind of an inside joke. The only thing I could find was traced to an older photo where she was wearing an escape hood during the aftermath of the 1/6 insurrection to protect against tear gas.
At the same time, though Spanberger has a very positive reception across Bluesky accounts, the purity left is starting to spring into action with their usual BS, like this example:
https://bsky.app/profile/micchiato.bsky.social/post/3mfkdp7b3ak26
user micchato posted: “Further evidence that Democrats burnish their image for likely GOP voters with a lesser fascism” and then re-shared a Rich Puchalsky post that had Spanberger’s photo and the statement “Who is the Democratic Party getting to answer Trump’s speech? An ex-CIA girlboss. The party of Fascism vs. the party of empire.”
Long story short, I would expect the right wing to zero in on her, especially after the rebuttal speech. I think she’s a threat like Mikie Sherril (though she doesn't seem to be in their crosshairs as much) because she won over younger voters, like young men, by over 10 points. And the purity left will try to divide democrats by painting her as an imperialist, like they did with Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Purity left is more often than not Russia.
I also saw a weird FB post using the Spanberger speech for an analysis of how the Democrats always use “empty rhetoric.” I find FB gives me weird posts after major political events-such as No Kings. On Threads I sometimes see posts from self-important people talking about how they no longer donate to Democrats or the DNC. I think some of this is fake/misinformation.
Absolutely, they are using algorithms to push pro-MAGA content. A study published in the February issue of Nature (Gauthier, Hodler, Widmer, and Zhuravskaya) talks about how exposure to right-wing content on X is impacting users to become more supportive of right-wing views. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10098-2
This quote about the study is from Joohn Choe who tracks disinformation efforts:
"What the Nature study reveals is something much more powerful and harder to fight: the platform algorithm itself is a tool of ideological inculcation. This is much more dangerous than just a bot network.
X's recommendation system demonstrably amplifies conservative content by roughly 20% over baseline, suppresses traditional news by 58%, and, disturbingly, creates durable attitude shifts that persist even after users stop seeing the algorithmic feed. When you layer on top of that Grok's documented rightward editorial calibration, and the Trump administration's explicit strategy of using official government accounts (@StateDept, @SecRubio, @SecKennedy) as partisan amplifiers, you get something that looks like a coordinated influence operation but requires almost no coordination at all: the platform's architecture does the amplifying, the government accounts provide the credibility transfer, and the anonymous engagement-farmers ride the wave."
I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook is doing the same.
That's been going on a LONG time. There are studies galore about exposure to misinfo, and how "prebutting" with correct info can be an effective counterweight.
That makes a lot of sense. We definitely do need to appear and feel strong. But it leaves me with two questions:
What attributes or behaviors signal “strength” to American voters?
Do signifiers of strength differ by political party?
In 2024, we had a very strong Democrat who kept her head no matter what and made intelligible, clear economic arguments. She took on the job of presidential candidate with less than four months, and campaigned tirelessly while making it look easy. The other choice was a thin-skinned baby-man who babbled incoherently and promised to abuse his power for retribution.
But one was a Black woman and one was a White man. And voters thought he was stronger. A friend of mine (a White man) actually referred to her as weak and "dodging questions" and said he didn't want her as President.
Lately I have heard a lot (from Democrats) about the strength of the Epstein survivors, but I feel like many Americans would consider the rapists to be strong, rather than the victims.
A big fraction of American voters seem to think these are indicators of strength: being a White man, getting what you want, escaping accountability, hurting people's feelings, overt bigotry, bringing frivolous lawsuits, letting people die, and violating the law.
And the same voters think it is weak to compromise, ask for help, work together, understand nuance, or have empathy.
As Mister Rogers said, "It’s very dramatic when two people come together to work something out. It’s easy to take a gun and annihilate your opposition, but what is really exciting to me is to see people with differing views come together and finally respect each other."
So how do we pick the diverse and brilliant candidates we want, the ones who are genuinely strong like Gov. Spanberger, without signaling to a lot of voters that we are weak?
This is a great question. The way it was framed, the respondents think that Dems let "red tape" get in the way of progress. So, because most Dems think rules and laws are important, and not just suggestions, and Dems mostly believe in limited executive power, as envisioned by the founders, they're perceived as weak. Dems also have historically done an extremely poor job of touting victories (which would nullify the perception that we're not making progress). The last part is prevalent even in Dem camps-- when there's a lot of questions like "Why haven't the Dems done anything to [fill in the blank]?". Or "Dems have abandoned working people because they're afraid of their donors", when those statements can be shown objectively to be false.
Well, headline writers could do a better job. How many headlines about President Biden’s accomplishments were framed as “Fears Remain Despite Historic Achievements” or “Trump Hits Back Hard on Biden Accomplishment”?
Did you make those headlines up, or did you copy them from existing media, because they are unfortunately 100% spot on. LOL!
Let’s say I paraphrased them. They are closer than I would like to actual WaPo headlines in 2023.
On a joyful/serious note, I just received my red hat, and will be wearing it to the weekly protests, plus anywhere else I can wear a hat. I may be the only person hoping for cold weather on the next No Kings day. A college friend knitted it for me.
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/31/nx-s1-5693767/red-hat-protest-minnesota
Those are really beautiful. What a kind gift!
Wow, thank you so much for all of the polls and the analyses, Simon. Very interesting stuff. What is very interesting to me is in the one "green" poll, Dems and rational indies have the absolute quantifiable (what we've done through legislation, what we've fought for, what the results have been) high ground, by a mile over MAGA, on the top 9 issues. Just emphasizes that there is a ton of fertile ground to run on.
Calls are in to WI members regarding our 5 part agenda. Continuing to write postcards for WI Supreme Court and emailed a thank you to AG Kaul for his work to defend our democracy.
I wonder how "weak" vs. "strong" varies just based on who won the last election. Are we viewed as weak mainly because we lost the last national election? Is that at least part of the reason?
People somehow assume Democrats can just fix things despite not having a lot of political power. We might want them to fight differently, but I think people have unrealistic expectations. In this case, they see Democrats unable to stop some of Trump's abuses, and decide Democrats are "weak". Every time we don't succeed at stopping him, people tend to conclude we are "weak", despite often not having the power to do certain things.
Also, how are we both "More Ineffective" and "More Competent" than Republicans? Polls are what they are I guess.
We do have to be seen as fighting, being strong, as Simon always says. We need to repeat themes confidently. We are better for the economy. We empower ordinary people instead of elites.
My MoC was interviewed by a local independent news org yesterday. The headline was “Democrats have few options to push back against Trump”.
Sigh.
I will continue to contact him and encourage a more creative and forceful approach to his job. He seems stuck in his habits, old ways, and even said something like “everything will change in November when Dems win back the House”.
Id like to share a couple of thoughts about the perceptions of weak vs. strong. I agree this is an important measure. My sense is that part of our party's relative weakness in this area comes from Democrats believing our party leaders are "weak" and are frustrated by it. Why is this? I think it is because we see our leaders being too cautious, poll-testing their messaging and lacking authenticity in the way they express themselves, perhaps because they are still playing by the media rules they used to gain power and longevity, when the playing field has completely changed. On a personal level, it is why I find Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries so frustrating. Every time I see them speak it seems they are just saying lines that are from a messaging platform or script, versus what is really on their mind. Strength doesn't just come from screaming at Trump, it comes from taking stands with conviction and authenticity, something I think our leaders can use a lot more of. Many Democrats are showing these traits more and more, I believe there is more work to do in this area, particularly for those who are in positions of party leadership.
Great stuff. Glass half-full take-as Trumps midterm threats build, and as they are covered and explained by non traditional media, I believe Democratic voters and D leaning independents well become even more engaged, and come off the sidelines even if the polling still finds people view the D leadership as not fighting hard enough. The threat to a core right like voting concentrates one's self interest just as the threat of the draft motivated tens of thousands to get active in the anti-Vietnam war protests. It wasn't purely altruism
Good morning from the Sierra Nevada. The snow goblins dumped five feet of snow onto my house ten days ago and effectively shut down the high regions of Tuolumne County: couldn’t get down our road for four days, no electricity for six days and four more days until Internet was restored just last night. All very good for the water-giving snow pack, but... I had no idea whether TRex had led us into WW III or been impeached or neither.
That having been said, I was at the (delayed) TCIndivisible meeting last night and we got to work a) planning for very potential ICE invasion and b) recapping the state of our local election slates, and c) planning for No Kings 3. I signed up for the required-by-town-ordinance security detail for No Kings. We act as peace-keepers. The real police handle difficulties. I also made a plug for people to donate actual money to (local) campaigns.
And, I let Senator Padilla, for whom I am super proud to have voted, know how much I adore him.
Oh, dear God, I am so happy to see you posting, Emily! I was about to find an old response from you to one of my posts and DM you to ensure you were okay! I have asked on the board about you because I haven't seen a comment from you in days!
Now, I am a bit happier!
PS: Sen Padilla made me cry.
FIVE FEET?!?! Holy smokes! That would shut this part of NC down for three months. Wish I were kidding.
Hi Elizabeth…. I lived in Charlotte for a ten year stretch awhile back. I don’t remember seeing a single flake in those years…. From there I moved to Vermont (grin) and got to vote for Bernie Sanders on his initial run for House of Reps.
Yeah 5 feet is A LOT of snow. The most I ever saw in Minnesota was about 2.5 feet (I remembered it closer to 3 feet... I'm going to stick to that number when I tell the story verbally). Granted it was on Halloween.... That shuts things down, even in the city. Completely.
See you in the Spring!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Halloween_blizzard
I have come to believe the strong v. weak dichotomy is why Analilia Mejia won the NJ CD-11 primary. The AIPAC ads were abhorrent and certainly cost Malinowski many votes but they may not have been the sole cause. Analilia is consistent and unapologetic in her positions and has the receipts proving her effectiveness.
Similarly when Mikie Sherrill (in the 2nd debate) labeled Ciattarelli a heartless contributor to the opioid epidemic, she was throwing an unapologetic punch. It sealed the deal IMHO.
People want results.
Hi, I have had a busy day but am jumping in to say I agree 100% with the fighter thing. That's why we elected Spanberger & Sherrill! I think that the shadow hearings are very effective at projecting "the fight", and that we should expand them to encompass other topics.
In other news, NJ now officially has an attorney general - most of Gov. Sherrill's appointees are now confirmed! She is going right at Orange, who's trying to sue to get our voter data and to block the guv's initiatives on immigration. Bring it, I say. Our Lt. Governor, Dale Caldwell, is also our sec. of state, and he's a badass too -- his father was a Baptist minister who marched w Dr. King, and he does not play around when it comes to voting rights. NJ is in good hands.
I have followed Rick Wilson for a long time (and BTW, he's on the board at VoteRiders!) and believe his voice is valuable, though he can sometimes be really negative. He is definitely tapped in to the perception of Dem weakness issue.
Going to a march in support of immigrants tomorrow sponsored by the great American Friends Service Committee--the Quakers know how to do resistance! And will continue with postcards. Keep going!