I think whoever is selected needs to find ways to communicate on platforms that can reach a large audience and combat the massive amount of misinformation that is being spewed from right wing media sources and right wing podcasts that so many people listen to and believe everything that is said without any fact checking. It is hard to win elections when the other side is lying about everything from Hurricane relief, to immigrants eating pets and coming from prisons and insane asylums, to what they are going to do for the working class. When you have a billionaire that controls a major media source pushing lies to everyone on the platform without any checks or balances and a major news outlet doing the same, it’s not easy to combat no matter what your message is. Kamala Harris had a great message and a plan, the GOP had lies and a very big reach to perpetuate them and now we are watching as they basically admit it was all a lie. Groceries aren’t going to be cheaper, Project 2025 is Trumps plan, and they are going after Social Security , Medicare and healthcare.
Respectfully, disagree. There are lies on both sides of the aisle. There are also billionaires controlling the left narrative. Harris had the opportunity to go on a long form podcast, but chose not to.
There are just as many left wing platforms pushing lies and their narrative as well.
Continuing to believe that the only reason people voted for Trump is because they were lied to or ignorant - is a missed opportunity for change so the party you support can have a chance of winning.
Amy, I love that you point out the missed opportunity for change based on over-simplifying “the only reason.”
However, the false equivalency of, “there are lies on both sides,” is the death of democracy (please forgive my dramatic terminology). There is no equivalent on one side to The Big Lie on the other.
And while there are “billionaires controlling narratives” on both sides, only one side posts, “Any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America, will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals. GET READY TO ROCK!!!”
No matter what “the other side” says or does, you are so right that you can only change yourself. And it all comes down to connection. Are you connecting with voters in a meaningful way that motivates them to vote for you?
Thank you for your commentary. It drives me batty when people dismiss Trump's massive, massive election lies with "all politicians lie." The severity matters. If a person suffers from a papercut, a sliced open hand, and a severed artery, we wouldn't treat the sliced hand first. We need to address the severed artery before we can address all the other wounds.
How is the severity of a lie determined? Because Trump’s lies are seen more severe to you and others- does that make lies told by Harris and other left leaning people, irrelevant? Or not as severe, therefore it is acceptable?
Examples of the lies by Harris and democrats-
Claiming Biden was cognitively well enough to run for a second term, calling Trump a fascist and misquoting Trump to get different results. Just to name a few. Sharing in case someone wants to know sources and to illustrate both parties lie.
These sources are important - truly - but I think they're also fundamentally missing the point: no one here denied that both parties lie.
Gina said that, "There is no equivalent on one side to The Big Lie on the other." Ashley said that, "It drives me batty when people dismiss Trump's massive, massive election lies." So it seems pretty clear *which* of Trump's lies they're both talking about.
I mean, Ashley pretty clearly compared all of the lies told on both sides to physical wounds, so when you ask "Does that make lies told by Harris and other left leaning people, irrelevant? Or not as severe, therefore it is acceptable?" it seems like you're putting words in people's mouths. No one said that lies told by Democrats were either irrelevant or acceptable. They just said that they were not as big as the Big Lie that continues to ripple out in our politics: right up until it was clear that he was winning, Trump was laying the groundwork (and already making unsubstantiated claims) that the 2024 election was going to be "rigged" too. That's a big, democracy-killing lie. It just is. One that he has kept repeating, and that his now-VP pointedly refused to disavow. Heck, I had to 'disqualify' some lower-level candidates from getting my vote this year because *they* won't acknowledge election integrity and to me that's a rot that needs to be cut out of the party A.S.A.P.
That doesn't make the Democrats perfect and honest, or perfectly honest, so thank goodness no one here has claimed that. But given the choice between "Accepts election results" and "Undermines elections unless they win"...one of those definitely seems a lot more severe in a democratically-elected leader. I'm interested to hear why that might not be the case.
Amy, I just want to go on record that no lies are irrelevant, nor acceptable. It really pains me when anyone knowingly and purposefully lies. It undermines trust and erodes confidence in our system.
However, we’ve already discussed severity, and I think it’s good that we’ve all established where we stand. If you don’t want to acknowledge the different levels of damage caused by different lies, fine. Apparently, that’s not going to be a productive conversation.
But I think the discussion about meaningful connection motivating voters is worthwhile.
I think there are good points made by all of you. In my opinion, all lies by political leaders have consequences and agree that severity matters. I also believe that severity is subjective.
Calling Trump a Fascist is analogous to Trump calling Harris a Communist, so we’ll call that one a wash. Questioning Biden’s mental fitness is analogous to questioning Trump’s mental fitness, so we’ll call that one a wash. Both those examples are very much “both sides” lies. There is not a lie analogous to claiming the entire election was fraudulent. There just simply isn’t.
“Continuing to believe that the only reason people voted for Trump is because they were lied to or ignorant - is a missed opportunity for change so the party you support can have a chance of winning.” I agree with this — it’s the only way forward. Dems must ditch the condescending assumptions and seek a new way.
Please factually back up anything that you’re saying. Really, anything at all. What billionaires are controlling the “left narrative?” Or for that matter, what is the “left narrative?” What are “left wing platforms” and what lies have they pushed? What is the long form podcast Harris didn’t go on? Surely you’re not talking about Rogan who lets anyone come on to say anything, true or not, for hours, with almost zero pushback. When people vote for someone because they’re grievously uninformed, believe things that are not true, will let it all burn down for the sake of higher profits and lower taxes for themselves or want to take this country back to some sort of white Christian, patriarchal past, it’s not their opponents who need to change.
And thank you for showing once again how Trump voters can rarely, if ever, provide factual justifications for their positions or statements without falling back on the lazy but false trope of both-sides-ism and when that fails, leave the room in a huff.
I’m basing my comment on several exchanges from Kate. I have had many private exchanges with conservative voices that were on here but have left because they have been treated poorly and name called. Thoughts across these exchanges are all similar but not one is playing a victim. I’m sorry you can’t see the way the conservative commenters are treated on here but it is rough! Not by all, of course, but definitely by Kate.
Curious, is there conservative friendly places where liberal/progressive voices would be treated better? BTW I'm not downplaying how you're treated here, but I might argue the other way around isn't any better
I agree — it would be very hard for a liberal to feel welcome in most conservative friendly spaces online. I find most political online content hard to swallow because I don’t fall into either party well, and so I applaud people who engage kindly within their differences.
I think the problem lies with the fact that this particular space was created by Sharon, someone many of us followed because she is not a party loyalist. This being her content, I think came with the assumption for many people that it would not be only liberal friendly or conservative friendly, but open to all to feel welcome to engage for understanding, without feeling belittled or called out. Clearly many conservatives have not felt able to speak up here since the election, and that’s disappointing.
Not that I’m aware of-but to be fair, I don’t read other conservative content, other than The Free Press. I would say that there is a mix of commentators but mostly right leaning. I admit that I don’t spend much time in other comment sections. This was a unique community but there has been a shift since the Election, IMO.
My dream DNC team would be the head writers for Kimmel, Colbert and The Daily show, historians and policy wonks like Sharon McMahon and Heather Cox Richardson and people who know how to get millions of views on TikTok.
I became more politically informed when DJT came into the picture, so I am fairly new to all of this.
The quote above confuses me.
I am a middle class person and from my perspective the Dems especially the Harris campaign was all about the working class. From child tax credits, small business start up help and assists buying a home.
From what I have seen/understood, it's the *perception* of support that was lacking in this most recent election cycle. Perception matters far, far more than facts, because it hits people in their hearts and their guts, and the Democrats do have a real messaging problem. As Donald Trump said (and polling evidence supports) he "won on groceries." The perception of the Republican messaging was one of understanding: "I get it. Food is expensive, you can't afford the things you used to be able to buy, the world feels scarier and less safe than it used to, and that really sucks. It's not your fault: it's Biden, he made the economy like this. It's the Democrats, they care more about making sure immigrants stay fed, not your kids, and they're wasting their time on 'diversity' and 'equality' when they could be focused on 'real' problems. We're going to fix it for you."
Meanwhile the perception of the Democrats messaging was: "Things aren't so bad as they seem! The economy is doing really well, actually. Crime is down. We know things are still hard, but we've been working to make them better. We just need to keep that work going!" It just didn't hit voters the same way, and that's being reflected worldwide as anti-incumbent sentiment continues to ripple around the globe. "We just need to keep on keeping on" is exactly the opposite of how many voters are feeling, so the Democrat's messaging as the party of 'normality' and 'stability' kind of backfired when what the voters really wanted is change - any change.
Right, but like, the economy IS doing well. Crime IS down. As Sharon always says, feelings aren't facts, and I want politicians who are honest with me about the state of the world, rather than creating a fear in me they have to solve. The Harris campaign DID talk about the economy, a lot. They talked about a number of policies that were actually going to make things better. I'm genuinely curious (I read a lot of your comments and I think they are great) - how should Harris have talked about it in an effective way? And what about what Trump did say about his plans - aside from his 'concept of plan' - like how we're going to round up and mass deport immigrants - that DID resonate with people?
I honestly don't know how we begin to untangle the web of distrust (for experts, the media, etc), address the poor literacy about the role and functions of the local/state/federal government, and break the information silos that got us to this point. I wish I did!
Because I do actually agree with this point: "As Sharon always says, feelings aren't facts, and I want politicians who are honest with me about the state of the world, rather than creating a fear in me they have to solve."
And my comment was only to point out this (rather uncomfortable) fact: perception matters more to voters. Human beings are wonderfully, delightfully, incredibly complex...and so is the world that we live in. Running on feelings and perceptions simply reflects voters' reality back to them, and that really resonates. So if the facts don't align with the voters' feelings, then the candidate running on facts likely needs to get buy-in from voters' feelings first *before* they can then effectively change voters' minds on those things that 'feel' true.
The question(s) would then be: Why did it feel true to say that the economy was struggling? (Because those individuals are truly struggling? Because Fox News was dedicated to making the economy seem as bad as possible? Both?) Why did it feel like crime was getting worse? (Because crime has gone UP in some areas, even if it went down overall, so people in those areas aren't convinced that everything is indeed getting better? Because they were told, over and over again, stories about crimes and criminals so they developed a perception of high criminal activity?)
Each question is another thread to untangle. Cutting through those threads with demagoguery is one method - the easy, less honest one - but truly unravelling them takes empathy and skill, and I don't think that the Democrats' messaging has always done that well. IMO.
I totally hear you. I keep getting stuck on the vile parts of his messaging - the mass deportations. The things about women. The desire to take away books and punish journalists - and that how resonated with people. Ultimately though, you are right that the Democrats are terrible storytellers, and they continue to lean more and more into data when that has been shown time and time again (in data! Oh the irony!) to be really ineffective. I like your point that the Democrats have to connect with feelings and I think that was what Kamala was trying to do by connecting to joy - she couldn't run on anger and fear when she was trying to essentially continue the last administration, with the exception about stoking fear about the other side. Thanks for responding!
Someone’s reality can and often does depend on the lenses through which THEY perceive their circumstances. “Data” isn’t what pays the household bills or puts food on the table. I believe many voted with their bank accounts in mind, which in many cases were smaller than several years ago. For reference, I am in a group on FB that consists of many middle to upper middle class income “grandmillenial” young women. Many of these are two-income families and they talk about struggling. Not necessarily with buying groceries, but thebability to purchase a home or to save for extras or their children’s education. This is their reality regardless what statistics may show. And, as we saw with the jobs reports corrections, perception actually was reality. My suggestion to the Dem party would be to get out of the DC bubble and work more on understanding rather than seeking to be understood. And, one last thing, as Sharon has stated, if feelings aren’t facts, perhaps the message of “JOY “wasn’t the best route, in hindsight.
I think you make really good points here, and will dig in on this a bit with regard to the complexity of things being “better” overall, but that not being everyone’s experience or perception.
I live in a rural area in a rural state. My state’s poverty rate is 18.9%, the county I live in has a 20.2% poverty rate, and in October of this year, my county had a 5.4% unemployment rate. The closest city to us had a 7.1/10 score on crime.
The people falling in those percentages do not see evidence of things being better. The talk about being able to afford basic necessities was very very real to them, much more so than ideological issues that do not impact them daily. That doesn’t mean these people don’t or didn’t care about rights or social issues, but many of them don’t have the luxury of political activism.
So when it comes to perception: if they see someone in the government speaking on things that matter to them and impact them — whether we believe they’re being played or lied to doesn’t matter. They feel like someone is listening and that is powerful motivation.
So basically DJT, GOP, MAGA all lied about the state of the economy, crime, immigration, inflation, the reason for the price of groceries and the dems needed to campaign like the lies were true and tell people how they were going to fix it ?!
I agree with this, Emily. I would also add, Harris was often simply not effective as a speaker. I think she will forever be tied to the phrase “word salad”. Public speaking is difficult. I am not judging her intellect, just making an observation. Whether right or wrong, someone’s ability (or inability) to communicate can influence how they are perceived.
I agree, and I think it's a mistake when people say 'it was about the economy!' Harris had well thought out plans for the economy and Trump had "the concept of a plan." I think it's really silly for the Dems to continue to tie themselves in knots trying to talk more about something that they already DID talk more about than the other side does, in both '16 and '24, and ignore that Trump also ran an on aggressively anti-immigration platform, promising shock and awe mass deportation, as well as other fear and anger inducing things (supporting guns, bookbans etc). I'm not saying that the Dems should support those things, (and in fact this article bothers me bc it sounds like a lot of these nominees are suggesting moving to a more Republican-esque version), but I do think it's a mistake not to acknowledge what you're dealing with in your voting block.
I think the bigger question will be how Democrats can take back control of the narrative. It’s seemed to me that the GOP has crafted a media apparatus that sets the news, the panic, the anger and upset. Dems will never win if they don’t begin to craft their own narrative rather than letting the GOP define them. (And of course, the viewership that biased Fox News has on the country is a major part of that.)
I do find it ironic that Democrats are trying to be more relatable while the GOP is packing their administration with billionaires. This is weirdly disconnected from being relatable and yet those supporting this seem to think it’s fine. I would hope that the Ds come up with a strategy to counter the flood of chaos news that tends to overwhelm everything else. I also hope they can come up with a strategy to concretely deliver- at local levels- what Ds believe in.
100% agree this is problematic BUT also it might be that Caucasian males present the biggest demographic opportunity to flip? As in, how do dems better connect with younger white men?
I’m just sitting back waiting for the GOP party to eat their own so to speak. I am one of those people that has limited my TV watching of news shows a lot now. I don’t mind reading about it but that is pretty much my limit.
I so appreciate The Preamble for cutting through some of the noise other sources create. And for the thoughtful conversations it inspires.
My initial reaction to this piece is that if we were to have another presidential election this year, the Democratic Party should consider completely rebranding—cleaning house at every leadership level and bringing in recognizable faces who aren’t tainted by perceived corruption. They would need to look like a genuinely different organization. The contrast to the alternative party, which seems willing to throw institutions out the window and therefore looks appealing to the average disgruntled voter, is making them look out of touch.
Then again, we just had an election that showed how short the average voter’s political memory is—maybe about a year, if that. By the time 2028 rolls around, many might forget what just happened in 2024 and simply seek stability and order, turning out in large numbers much as they did in 2020. Who knows, maybe the message “At least we’re not Trump” will resonate again in 2028. But just because that message wins doesn’t mean it’s what’s best for the people.
My unrealistic hope is that the Democratic Party will genuinely learn from this experience. On one hand, they should differentiate themselves from the incoming administration that relies on bigoted support. (I’m not saying all Republicans are bigots, just that the Republican coalition currently includes some who are, and the party seems to need them to win.) On the other hand, Democrats should recognize that most Americans despise the party system itself. Voters might turn out in contrast to the alternative, but very few trust either side. The two-party framework encourages all sorts of perverse incentives: once you’ve won the fundraising battle, you’ve often had to make so many compromises that you’ve essentially sold out your constituents. Or at least it will increasingly appear that way in a media landscape where political influencers gain monetarily from polarizing hot takes.
In my view, the best possible platform for democracy would be one that strongly pushes for structural reforms—eliminating Congressional conflicts of interest, enacting campaign finance reform, and rethinking how politicians govern. Not only would this be healthier for the country, but right now it would align with where voters actually stand.
Yikes - so they want to shift the Democratic Party by making it more like the Republican Party, particularly in regards to moving away from 'political correctness'? I'm all for focusing on working people and unions, but both Harris and Clinton had well-thought out economic policies (like with Harris, affordable housing plans for one thing) and in the 2024 election Trump said he had 'the concept of a plan.' When are the Dems going to admit to themselves that this isn't about the economy or policies, and stop tying themselves in knots over the excuses people make in polite company about why they could vote for Biden in 2020, but not Harris in 2024, or Clinton in 2016? I don't think they can start to win until they can admit to themselves, even just privately, what voters have demonstrated in the last 3 elections. If there's one thing I can say about the Republican Party, it's that they have their finger on the pulse of the nation's voters, and are willing to craft their strategy to appeal to them, regardless of how distasteful it may be.
Re: all white men, tragic I must admit, however, maybe this is the strategy that is needed until the dems get back on their feet. Hopefully, when they do, the image of women can be reshaped. I’m thinking there has been major programming throughout history demeaning women, e.g. - the teachings/beliefs of Christianity provides a male dominated theme. - the famous prayer that starts with, “ Our father …..” Jesus is a man, etc. Buddha is a man, Allah is a man. The male dominating programming from most religions is historic and deep. It pains me to say this but society just might not be ready yet for a woman leader. We have a lot of work to do. We sure got close though.
Ken Martin may be a good choice. He has a load of experience and knows how the sausage is made but isn’t part of DC. I think it may be a good idea for Democrats to disassociate from the Coasts and the Ivy League at this juncture, and he is the only leading candidate to not have either of those connections.
Honestly there is all of this discourse about what Democrats did wrong and not enough discourse about why being a sexually abusive felon wasn't a deal breaker for 77 million Americans.
Thank you, Sharon! These are definitely names to watch! I think after the next four years, the country might be craving someone to build on the message that Vice President Harris started. Someone with a sound platform, calm and unifying demeanor, is a leader by example not force, can speak with authority and articulately, someone who has the understanding of what it means to serve with truth and honor. Sounds a little like Pete Buttegieg or Jeff Jackson. 🙂
I don't know any of these folks, and I see the appeal of different strategies. I'd like to see stronger communicators in the D party who are articulate and plainspoken, with a little fire in them, who have a command of the room (so to speak). When I think of D's I like to hear talk about or address issues - whether in politics or media - here's who comes to mind: Pete Buttigieg, John Fetterman, Jacky Rosen, Bill Maher. I'm sure there are more, but these four names popped into my head.
James Skoufis is our state representative! He’s a really good guy! We met him a couple of years ago at his office when our son was part of a college engineering team that James was giving an award to for their performance at a national competition in DC.
I think whoever is selected needs to find ways to communicate on platforms that can reach a large audience and combat the massive amount of misinformation that is being spewed from right wing media sources and right wing podcasts that so many people listen to and believe everything that is said without any fact checking. It is hard to win elections when the other side is lying about everything from Hurricane relief, to immigrants eating pets and coming from prisons and insane asylums, to what they are going to do for the working class. When you have a billionaire that controls a major media source pushing lies to everyone on the platform without any checks or balances and a major news outlet doing the same, it’s not easy to combat no matter what your message is. Kamala Harris had a great message and a plan, the GOP had lies and a very big reach to perpetuate them and now we are watching as they basically admit it was all a lie. Groceries aren’t going to be cheaper, Project 2025 is Trumps plan, and they are going after Social Security , Medicare and healthcare.
Respectfully, disagree. There are lies on both sides of the aisle. There are also billionaires controlling the left narrative. Harris had the opportunity to go on a long form podcast, but chose not to.
There are just as many left wing platforms pushing lies and their narrative as well.
Continuing to believe that the only reason people voted for Trump is because they were lied to or ignorant - is a missed opportunity for change so the party you support can have a chance of winning.
Amy, I love that you point out the missed opportunity for change based on over-simplifying “the only reason.”
However, the false equivalency of, “there are lies on both sides,” is the death of democracy (please forgive my dramatic terminology). There is no equivalent on one side to The Big Lie on the other.
And while there are “billionaires controlling narratives” on both sides, only one side posts, “Any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America, will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals. GET READY TO ROCK!!!”
No matter what “the other side” says or does, you are so right that you can only change yourself. And it all comes down to connection. Are you connecting with voters in a meaningful way that motivates them to vote for you?
Thank you for your commentary. It drives me batty when people dismiss Trump's massive, massive election lies with "all politicians lie." The severity matters. If a person suffers from a papercut, a sliced open hand, and a severed artery, we wouldn't treat the sliced hand first. We need to address the severed artery before we can address all the other wounds.
Hi Ashley and Gina.
How is the severity of a lie determined? Because Trump’s lies are seen more severe to you and others- does that make lies told by Harris and other left leaning people, irrelevant? Or not as severe, therefore it is acceptable?
Examples of the lies by Harris and democrats-
Claiming Biden was cognitively well enough to run for a second term, calling Trump a fascist and misquoting Trump to get different results. Just to name a few. Sharing in case someone wants to know sources and to illustrate both parties lie.
https://reason.com/2024/09/03/when-bidens-bubble-wrap-burst/
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-kamala-harris-call-donald-trump-hitler-1974174
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/09/14/politics/fact-check-harris-campaign-social-media
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/11/trumps-like-it-or-not-comment-and-harris-response/
These sources are important - truly - but I think they're also fundamentally missing the point: no one here denied that both parties lie.
Gina said that, "There is no equivalent on one side to The Big Lie on the other." Ashley said that, "It drives me batty when people dismiss Trump's massive, massive election lies." So it seems pretty clear *which* of Trump's lies they're both talking about.
I mean, Ashley pretty clearly compared all of the lies told on both sides to physical wounds, so when you ask "Does that make lies told by Harris and other left leaning people, irrelevant? Or not as severe, therefore it is acceptable?" it seems like you're putting words in people's mouths. No one said that lies told by Democrats were either irrelevant or acceptable. They just said that they were not as big as the Big Lie that continues to ripple out in our politics: right up until it was clear that he was winning, Trump was laying the groundwork (and already making unsubstantiated claims) that the 2024 election was going to be "rigged" too. That's a big, democracy-killing lie. It just is. One that he has kept repeating, and that his now-VP pointedly refused to disavow. Heck, I had to 'disqualify' some lower-level candidates from getting my vote this year because *they* won't acknowledge election integrity and to me that's a rot that needs to be cut out of the party A.S.A.P.
That doesn't make the Democrats perfect and honest, or perfectly honest, so thank goodness no one here has claimed that. But given the choice between "Accepts election results" and "Undermines elections unless they win"...one of those definitely seems a lot more severe in a democratically-elected leader. I'm interested to hear why that might not be the case.
Amy, I just want to go on record that no lies are irrelevant, nor acceptable. It really pains me when anyone knowingly and purposefully lies. It undermines trust and erodes confidence in our system.
However, we’ve already discussed severity, and I think it’s good that we’ve all established where we stand. If you don’t want to acknowledge the different levels of damage caused by different lies, fine. Apparently, that’s not going to be a productive conversation.
But I think the discussion about meaningful connection motivating voters is worthwhile.
I think there are good points made by all of you. In my opinion, all lies by political leaders have consequences and agree that severity matters. I also believe that severity is subjective.
Calling Trump a Fascist is analogous to Trump calling Harris a Communist, so we’ll call that one a wash. Questioning Biden’s mental fitness is analogous to questioning Trump’s mental fitness, so we’ll call that one a wash. Both those examples are very much “both sides” lies. There is not a lie analogous to claiming the entire election was fraudulent. There just simply isn’t.
No maybe not. Also something both sides have done (lied about Election results).
I agree that it is about connection. It’s the way forward!
“Continuing to believe that the only reason people voted for Trump is because they were lied to or ignorant - is a missed opportunity for change so the party you support can have a chance of winning.” I agree with this — it’s the only way forward. Dems must ditch the condescending assumptions and seek a new way.
Please factually back up anything that you’re saying. Really, anything at all. What billionaires are controlling the “left narrative?” Or for that matter, what is the “left narrative?” What are “left wing platforms” and what lies have they pushed? What is the long form podcast Harris didn’t go on? Surely you’re not talking about Rogan who lets anyone come on to say anything, true or not, for hours, with almost zero pushback. When people vote for someone because they’re grievously uninformed, believe things that are not true, will let it all burn down for the sake of higher profits and lower taxes for themselves or want to take this country back to some sort of white Christian, patriarchal past, it’s not their opponents who need to change.
Thank you, Kate, for illustrating why conservative voices on here are leaving the room.
Good luck to you.
And thank you for showing once again how Trump voters can rarely, if ever, provide factual justifications for their positions or statements without falling back on the lazy but false trope of both-sides-ism and when that fails, leave the room in a huff.
The imagined victimhood of the conservative is a new trend I've seen and something I simply cannot entertain.
I’m basing my comment on several exchanges from Kate. I have had many private exchanges with conservative voices that were on here but have left because they have been treated poorly and name called. Thoughts across these exchanges are all similar but not one is playing a victim. I’m sorry you can’t see the way the conservative commenters are treated on here but it is rough! Not by all, of course, but definitely by Kate.
Curious, is there conservative friendly places where liberal/progressive voices would be treated better? BTW I'm not downplaying how you're treated here, but I might argue the other way around isn't any better
I agree — it would be very hard for a liberal to feel welcome in most conservative friendly spaces online. I find most political online content hard to swallow because I don’t fall into either party well, and so I applaud people who engage kindly within their differences.
I think the problem lies with the fact that this particular space was created by Sharon, someone many of us followed because she is not a party loyalist. This being her content, I think came with the assumption for many people that it would not be only liberal friendly or conservative friendly, but open to all to feel welcome to engage for understanding, without feeling belittled or called out. Clearly many conservatives have not felt able to speak up here since the election, and that’s disappointing.
Brooke, I agree it is an assumption that no one should ever be belittled. That is bullying behavior. But what do you mean by “called out”?
Is that the same as questioning statements in order to establish an agreement on facts?
Not that I’m aware of-but to be fair, I don’t read other conservative content, other than The Free Press. I would say that there is a mix of commentators but mostly right leaning. I admit that I don’t spend much time in other comment sections. This was a unique community but there has been a shift since the Election, IMO.
💯
My dream DNC team would be the head writers for Kimmel, Colbert and The Daily show, historians and policy wonks like Sharon McMahon and Heather Cox Richardson and people who know how to get millions of views on TikTok.
👍
“Democrats have abandoned the working class”
I became more politically informed when DJT came into the picture, so I am fairly new to all of this.
The quote above confuses me.
I am a middle class person and from my perspective the Dems especially the Harris campaign was all about the working class. From child tax credits, small business start up help and assists buying a home.
What am I missing?
From what I have seen/understood, it's the *perception* of support that was lacking in this most recent election cycle. Perception matters far, far more than facts, because it hits people in their hearts and their guts, and the Democrats do have a real messaging problem. As Donald Trump said (and polling evidence supports) he "won on groceries." The perception of the Republican messaging was one of understanding: "I get it. Food is expensive, you can't afford the things you used to be able to buy, the world feels scarier and less safe than it used to, and that really sucks. It's not your fault: it's Biden, he made the economy like this. It's the Democrats, they care more about making sure immigrants stay fed, not your kids, and they're wasting their time on 'diversity' and 'equality' when they could be focused on 'real' problems. We're going to fix it for you."
Meanwhile the perception of the Democrats messaging was: "Things aren't so bad as they seem! The economy is doing really well, actually. Crime is down. We know things are still hard, but we've been working to make them better. We just need to keep that work going!" It just didn't hit voters the same way, and that's being reflected worldwide as anti-incumbent sentiment continues to ripple around the globe. "We just need to keep on keeping on" is exactly the opposite of how many voters are feeling, so the Democrat's messaging as the party of 'normality' and 'stability' kind of backfired when what the voters really wanted is change - any change.
Right, but like, the economy IS doing well. Crime IS down. As Sharon always says, feelings aren't facts, and I want politicians who are honest with me about the state of the world, rather than creating a fear in me they have to solve. The Harris campaign DID talk about the economy, a lot. They talked about a number of policies that were actually going to make things better. I'm genuinely curious (I read a lot of your comments and I think they are great) - how should Harris have talked about it in an effective way? And what about what Trump did say about his plans - aside from his 'concept of plan' - like how we're going to round up and mass deport immigrants - that DID resonate with people?
I honestly don't know how we begin to untangle the web of distrust (for experts, the media, etc), address the poor literacy about the role and functions of the local/state/federal government, and break the information silos that got us to this point. I wish I did!
Because I do actually agree with this point: "As Sharon always says, feelings aren't facts, and I want politicians who are honest with me about the state of the world, rather than creating a fear in me they have to solve."
And my comment was only to point out this (rather uncomfortable) fact: perception matters more to voters. Human beings are wonderfully, delightfully, incredibly complex...and so is the world that we live in. Running on feelings and perceptions simply reflects voters' reality back to them, and that really resonates. So if the facts don't align with the voters' feelings, then the candidate running on facts likely needs to get buy-in from voters' feelings first *before* they can then effectively change voters' minds on those things that 'feel' true.
The question(s) would then be: Why did it feel true to say that the economy was struggling? (Because those individuals are truly struggling? Because Fox News was dedicated to making the economy seem as bad as possible? Both?) Why did it feel like crime was getting worse? (Because crime has gone UP in some areas, even if it went down overall, so people in those areas aren't convinced that everything is indeed getting better? Because they were told, over and over again, stories about crimes and criminals so they developed a perception of high criminal activity?)
Each question is another thread to untangle. Cutting through those threads with demagoguery is one method - the easy, less honest one - but truly unravelling them takes empathy and skill, and I don't think that the Democrats' messaging has always done that well. IMO.
I totally hear you. I keep getting stuck on the vile parts of his messaging - the mass deportations. The things about women. The desire to take away books and punish journalists - and that how resonated with people. Ultimately though, you are right that the Democrats are terrible storytellers, and they continue to lean more and more into data when that has been shown time and time again (in data! Oh the irony!) to be really ineffective. I like your point that the Democrats have to connect with feelings and I think that was what Kamala was trying to do by connecting to joy - she couldn't run on anger and fear when she was trying to essentially continue the last administration, with the exception about stoking fear about the other side. Thanks for responding!
Someone’s reality can and often does depend on the lenses through which THEY perceive their circumstances. “Data” isn’t what pays the household bills or puts food on the table. I believe many voted with their bank accounts in mind, which in many cases were smaller than several years ago. For reference, I am in a group on FB that consists of many middle to upper middle class income “grandmillenial” young women. Many of these are two-income families and they talk about struggling. Not necessarily with buying groceries, but thebability to purchase a home or to save for extras or their children’s education. This is their reality regardless what statistics may show. And, as we saw with the jobs reports corrections, perception actually was reality. My suggestion to the Dem party would be to get out of the DC bubble and work more on understanding rather than seeking to be understood. And, one last thing, as Sharon has stated, if feelings aren’t facts, perhaps the message of “JOY “wasn’t the best route, in hindsight.
I think you make really good points here, and will dig in on this a bit with regard to the complexity of things being “better” overall, but that not being everyone’s experience or perception.
I live in a rural area in a rural state. My state’s poverty rate is 18.9%, the county I live in has a 20.2% poverty rate, and in October of this year, my county had a 5.4% unemployment rate. The closest city to us had a 7.1/10 score on crime.
The people falling in those percentages do not see evidence of things being better. The talk about being able to afford basic necessities was very very real to them, much more so than ideological issues that do not impact them daily. That doesn’t mean these people don’t or didn’t care about rights or social issues, but many of them don’t have the luxury of political activism.
So when it comes to perception: if they see someone in the government speaking on things that matter to them and impact them — whether we believe they’re being played or lied to doesn’t matter. They feel like someone is listening and that is powerful motivation.
So basically DJT, GOP, MAGA all lied about the state of the economy, crime, immigration, inflation, the reason for the price of groceries and the dems needed to campaign like the lies were true and tell people how they were going to fix it ?!
Apparently not a winning strategy but maybe not a white man!
I agree with this, Emily. I would also add, Harris was often simply not effective as a speaker. I think she will forever be tied to the phrase “word salad”. Public speaking is difficult. I am not judging her intellect, just making an observation. Whether right or wrong, someone’s ability (or inability) to communicate can influence how they are perceived.
I agree, and I think it's a mistake when people say 'it was about the economy!' Harris had well thought out plans for the economy and Trump had "the concept of a plan." I think it's really silly for the Dems to continue to tie themselves in knots trying to talk more about something that they already DID talk more about than the other side does, in both '16 and '24, and ignore that Trump also ran an on aggressively anti-immigration platform, promising shock and awe mass deportation, as well as other fear and anger inducing things (supporting guns, bookbans etc). I'm not saying that the Dems should support those things, (and in fact this article bothers me bc it sounds like a lot of these nominees are suggesting moving to a more Republican-esque version), but I do think it's a mistake not to acknowledge what you're dealing with in your voting block.
I think the bigger question will be how Democrats can take back control of the narrative. It’s seemed to me that the GOP has crafted a media apparatus that sets the news, the panic, the anger and upset. Dems will never win if they don’t begin to craft their own narrative rather than letting the GOP define them. (And of course, the viewership that biased Fox News has on the country is a major part of that.)
I do find it ironic that Democrats are trying to be more relatable while the GOP is packing their administration with billionaires. This is weirdly disconnected from being relatable and yet those supporting this seem to think it’s fine. I would hope that the Ds come up with a strategy to counter the flood of chaos news that tends to overwhelm everything else. I also hope they can come up with a strategy to concretely deliver- at local levels- what Ds believe in.
Four Caucasian males. That’s one of their problems!
100% agree this is problematic BUT also it might be that Caucasian males present the biggest demographic opportunity to flip? As in, how do dems better connect with younger white men?
except for Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, I was excited to see her name. She is fantastic IMO.
She said yesterday on her IG that she is not running
I think the exact opposite. It’s white people who chose not to vote democratic so it makes sense to appeal to white properly
I’m just sitting back waiting for the GOP party to eat their own so to speak. I am one of those people that has limited my TV watching of news shows a lot now. I don’t mind reading about it but that is pretty much my limit.
I so appreciate The Preamble for cutting through some of the noise other sources create. And for the thoughtful conversations it inspires.
My initial reaction to this piece is that if we were to have another presidential election this year, the Democratic Party should consider completely rebranding—cleaning house at every leadership level and bringing in recognizable faces who aren’t tainted by perceived corruption. They would need to look like a genuinely different organization. The contrast to the alternative party, which seems willing to throw institutions out the window and therefore looks appealing to the average disgruntled voter, is making them look out of touch.
Then again, we just had an election that showed how short the average voter’s political memory is—maybe about a year, if that. By the time 2028 rolls around, many might forget what just happened in 2024 and simply seek stability and order, turning out in large numbers much as they did in 2020. Who knows, maybe the message “At least we’re not Trump” will resonate again in 2028. But just because that message wins doesn’t mean it’s what’s best for the people.
My unrealistic hope is that the Democratic Party will genuinely learn from this experience. On one hand, they should differentiate themselves from the incoming administration that relies on bigoted support. (I’m not saying all Republicans are bigots, just that the Republican coalition currently includes some who are, and the party seems to need them to win.) On the other hand, Democrats should recognize that most Americans despise the party system itself. Voters might turn out in contrast to the alternative, but very few trust either side. The two-party framework encourages all sorts of perverse incentives: once you’ve won the fundraising battle, you’ve often had to make so many compromises that you’ve essentially sold out your constituents. Or at least it will increasingly appear that way in a media landscape where political influencers gain monetarily from polarizing hot takes.
In my view, the best possible platform for democracy would be one that strongly pushes for structural reforms—eliminating Congressional conflicts of interest, enacting campaign finance reform, and rethinking how politicians govern. Not only would this be healthier for the country, but right now it would align with where voters actually stand.
Yikes - so they want to shift the Democratic Party by making it more like the Republican Party, particularly in regards to moving away from 'political correctness'? I'm all for focusing on working people and unions, but both Harris and Clinton had well-thought out economic policies (like with Harris, affordable housing plans for one thing) and in the 2024 election Trump said he had 'the concept of a plan.' When are the Dems going to admit to themselves that this isn't about the economy or policies, and stop tying themselves in knots over the excuses people make in polite company about why they could vote for Biden in 2020, but not Harris in 2024, or Clinton in 2016? I don't think they can start to win until they can admit to themselves, even just privately, what voters have demonstrated in the last 3 elections. If there's one thing I can say about the Republican Party, it's that they have their finger on the pulse of the nation's voters, and are willing to craft their strategy to appeal to them, regardless of how distasteful it may be.
Re: all white men, tragic I must admit, however, maybe this is the strategy that is needed until the dems get back on their feet. Hopefully, when they do, the image of women can be reshaped. I’m thinking there has been major programming throughout history demeaning women, e.g. - the teachings/beliefs of Christianity provides a male dominated theme. - the famous prayer that starts with, “ Our father …..” Jesus is a man, etc. Buddha is a man, Allah is a man. The male dominating programming from most religions is historic and deep. It pains me to say this but society just might not be ready yet for a woman leader. We have a lot of work to do. We sure got close though.
Ken Martin may be a good choice. He has a load of experience and knows how the sausage is made but isn’t part of DC. I think it may be a good idea for Democrats to disassociate from the Coasts and the Ivy League at this juncture, and he is the only leading candidate to not have either of those connections.
Honestly there is all of this discourse about what Democrats did wrong and not enough discourse about why being a sexually abusive felon wasn't a deal breaker for 77 million Americans.
Thank you, Sharon! These are definitely names to watch! I think after the next four years, the country might be craving someone to build on the message that Vice President Harris started. Someone with a sound platform, calm and unifying demeanor, is a leader by example not force, can speak with authority and articulately, someone who has the understanding of what it means to serve with truth and honor. Sounds a little like Pete Buttegieg or Jeff Jackson. 🙂
I don't know any of these folks, and I see the appeal of different strategies. I'd like to see stronger communicators in the D party who are articulate and plainspoken, with a little fire in them, who have a command of the room (so to speak). When I think of D's I like to hear talk about or address issues - whether in politics or media - here's who comes to mind: Pete Buttigieg, John Fetterman, Jacky Rosen, Bill Maher. I'm sure there are more, but these four names popped into my head.
I would really, really love to see Pete Buttigieg take a more prominent role in the party - he's an excellent communicator!
Why no women?
James Skoufis is our state representative! He’s a really good guy! We met him a couple of years ago at his office when our son was part of a college engineering team that James was giving an award to for their performance at a national competition in DC.