Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Valmy]

In the fallout of the recent Bondi shitfest, I watched an interview with Rep. Raskin, who overall, was good, but was also asked about the Democrat strategy going into the midterms.  He was basically asked what the Democrats plan to do when/if they take control of the House.  He did a predictable dodge...along the lines of "we're just focusing on winning...not setting an agenda". 

Though it is fairly early, the Dems, so far, seem pretty rudderless going towards the midterms as if they are just putting their hopes on negative inertia/anti-Trump sentiment to carry them through.  I think that is a pretty huge mistake.  Or at least a missed opportunity.

I think they should look at stealing Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" playbook and go for a reverse "Democrat Revolution" strategy.  Load it up with the things that are relevant to a broad base (the economy, affordability, etc.), but also even a few things that could be risky, but could have some broad appeal when tied in with economic issues (health care reform/Medicare-for-all/single payer, abortion rights/access).

It usually works out better when you give people something to vote for over something to vote against.  I think a fair bit of what sunk Harris' campaign was that their strategy was almost overhwelming pushing a vote for her as a vote against Trump.

To be fair to Democrats or the left, it's not that easy for them to decide what they're for, because they're ideologically more divided than they've been in a long while.  To use the NY analogy, the Mamdani wing and the Hochul wing really do have opposition to Trump as the biggest common ground.

I would be fine if we were really ideologically divided because then we could have debates. Instead we have various leftists and then corrupt status quo people who say nothing and stand for nothing. What I wouldn't give for some actual moderates with a clear program who actually have an ideological stand. It is hard to feel divided with people who you cannot count on and you aren't sure where they stand.

[Valmy]

I think the Dems other problem is that no matter how well of a legislator Hakeem Jeffries might be...he has not shown to be the "man of the moment" that someone in his position needs to be.

Schumer doesn't have it either...he may be a very effective back-room legislator, but he is not a front-line man.  And even if someone more younger/more energetic stepped up...the Senate has never really been a place where anyone came out to be an effective opponent for a sitting President (this doesn't count people who run for President, e.g. Obama, that's a different political dynamic).

Huh? Obama certainly had strong opposition out of the Senate with McConnell. The main example of a guy who wasn't an effective opponent is Schumer. A man feckless and weak.

[HVC]

Democrats problem, from an outsiders view, is they're the party of last resort for both the center and the left. And both sides seem to kind of hate each other (but not as much as they hate the right). But you're screwed, both because you have a two party system and because if a third party materialized the GOP would always win. The GOP long ago crushed their center so don't have that problem.

Good luck.

[Valmy]

Democrats problem, from an outsiders view, is they're the party of last resort for both the center and the left. And both sides seem to kind of hate each other (but not as much as they hate the right). But you're screwed, both because you have a two party system and because if a third party materialized the GOP would always win. The GOP long ago crushed their center so don't have that problem.

Good luck.

Just want to clarify I don't hate centrists. I just question the existence of a centrist platform. If this existed, if there was actually a centrist plan I would eagerly go along. Hell I have gone along with these people despite them having no platform, no plan, and no will to act. Instead they just act complacent, half assed, and make excuses. What I wouldn't give for a centrist party that rose to the occasion and had a will and a plan. So instead I am a leftist because there is no center it is an illusion. If they ever want to show up and stand for something I will listen.

And the GOP constantly eats their own. They also don't really have principles so they fight over which band of thugs they support and purge the disloyal.

[Tonitrus]

Huh? Obama certainly had strong opposition out of the Senate with McConnell. The main example of a guy who wasn't an effective opponent is Schumer. A man feckless and weak.

As I said...Senator running for President is a different dynamic.  And he wasn't running against an incumbent...I don't think it is at all comparable to Gingrich/Clinton (which is a closer analog to the upcoming scenario).

And Reid was the (Dem) Senate majority leader at the time.  Obama was still a fairly new-ish Senator...not McConnell's (minority leader) main foil at the time.  The scenarios are not really comparable.

[crazy canuck]

The party without a President always has difficult articulating what they stand for. Under the American model there isn't one leader of the opposition. What the party stands for coalesces during every Presidential cycle after the Presidential candidate is chosen.  Until then it is a free for all of dissenting voices, and even after a Presidential candidate chosen there is still a kind of free for all.

As stated here a number of times, the one big advantage the Republicans have had over the years is they have historically been more disciplined about showing their differences in public.  But I think it is safe to say that level of discipline is cracking under the current regime.

[Valmy]

The party without a President always has difficult articulating what they stand for.

Well they failed completely during the 2024 Election and they had the President at the time.

However I am not asking for the Dems to articulate what they stand for. I am asking the centrist Dems what they stand for. I know what Bernie and Mamdani and people like that stand for.

[Tonitrus]

And that is exactly why I brought up the Gingrich/Contract with America model as a strategy that the Democrats should look at...that effort brought out Gingrich to the forefront as that "leader of the opposition".  And while he predictably was seen as disgusting to his opponents, it worked well for their base while also having a positive (something to vote "for") broad-based appeal that allowed the GOP to overcome their minority status...which at that time, had been to be the minority in the House for decades.

[Tonitrus]

The party without a President always has difficult articulating what they stand for.

Well they failed completely during the 2024 Election and they had the President at the time.

I would again chalk that up to the factor of being a Presidential election year.  The legislative side will almost always been seen as a distant secondary order of effect in those cases.

That being said...2016 (yes, even this one) might well be said to be the last "normal" Presidential election cycle for comparison.  2020 and 2024 had some pretty unique circumstances surrounding them, and I think will be looked at as outliers well into the future.

[crazy canuck]

And that is exactly why I brought up the Gingrich/Contract with America model as a strategy that the Democrats should look at...that effort brought out Gingrich to the forefront as that "leader of the opposition".  And while he predictably was seen as disgusting to his opponents, it worked well for their base while also having a positive (something to vote "for") broad-based appeal that allowed the GOP to overcome their minority status...which at that time, had been to be the minority in the House for decades.

As Valmy pointed out, the Dems have people who voice strong positions.  But they are at odds with others in the Democratic party.  Gingrich got exposure because of right wing talk radio hosts who amplified his message.  I would argue that the thing the Dems are missing is not the equivalent of their Gingrich, but the means of amplifying the message of an AOC or Mamdani in the same way.

And I would go further to argue that in the current competition in the attention economy we find ourselves in, there is really no way to replicate the Gingrich effect now.

[Tonitrus]

And that is exactly why I brought up the Gingrich/Contract with America model as a strategy that the Democrats should look at...that effort brought out Gingrich to the forefront as that "leader of the opposition".  And while he predictably was seen as disgusting to his opponents, it worked well for their base while also having a positive (something to vote "for") broad-based appeal that allowed the GOP to overcome their minority status...which at that time, had been to be the minority in the House for decades.

As Valmy pointed out, the Dems have people who voice strong positions.  But they are at odds with others in the Democratic party.  Gingrich got exposure because of right wing talk radio hosts who amplified his message.  I would argue that the thing the Dems are missing is not the equivalent of their Gingrich, but the means of amplifying the message of an AOC or Mamdani in the same way.

And I would go further to argue that in the current competition in the attention economy we find ourselves in, there is really no way to replicate the Gingrich effect now.

Don't disagree with your first point, but these two things can both be true at the same time.

On your second point...doesn't Trump himself counter your argument?

[crazy canuck]

Yes, Trump is the example of that for sure.  The question is what is "that". It is the ability to take all the attention.  And how does he do that?  Through the right wing media ecosystem that permeates your nation. What chance does an Mamdani or OAC have up against that multi-billion dollar message machine?

[Sheilbh]

AOC, Mamdani and Bernie also seem incredibly effective at getting their message out there and being heard.

The problem of being heard seems to be primarily an issue for "establishment" or more centrist Democrats. I think that's because the political skills they have learned and honed from the Clinton era to now don't work. In an attention economy, offending the fewest number of people and demonstrating message discipline are not virtues in the way that they once were. There are still too many radio politicians and consultants in the TV age.

You need to be interesting - and I think a lot of Democrats are deathly afraid of that (I think this is where I think "wokeness" and "cancel culture" did have a slightly inhibiting effect on the party). If 2024 was the podcast election were one of the tests was basically can you "hang" for two hours of unstructured chat - Trump absolutely can, I think Bernie and AOC and Mamdani could. I don't think Harris could and I'm not sure many other senior Democrats could either.

I think on Gingrich and Contract with America it's slightly tough to overstate the influence of Perot. It doesn't mention Republicans or Democrats, it doesn't mention Bill Clinton. A lot of it is boring congressional "reform" of the type Perot had promoted, plus a focus on tax and spending issues (like a balanced budget) - which was a huge part of Perot's appeal away from the emotive, divisive culture issues (not least because Perot was pro-choice). All of that packaged with a populist, post-political, reformist slant - you can question how he conducted his polling but Frank Luntz who was very involved in it framed it as all being "60% issues" by which he meant issues and ideas where you'd get 60% support (so not abortion).

I think the Perot bit is really important but also how of its moment it was - but also because I think it begs the questions of what that would look like now? On the one hand it seems very historically specific, but I've said before that given we have Gilded Era politics I'm not totally sure that the winning response isn't an old-school populist one (especially because it might mean confronting some sacred cows within the Democrats). No billionaires in government, no stock purchases by Congresspeople or their families, more accountability of the executive etc. Again, interestingly, in that reformist populist spot? But that's not where the party is institutionally - don't forget the DNC chair flying out to Silicon Valley early last year to reassure Democratic tech donors who were apparently outraged at how much influence Republican tech donors apparently had - and he's made a big pitch about "good billionaires".

The really interesting thing about it is, I think there is a sort of tension that it slightly unleashes for the right while I think Democrats keep it more contained. I think, and I think many have written about this, that politics nationalises in the 90s in the US - that's where I think the break with the regional coalitions is quite decisive. But the really interesting thing is that you've now got national politics with the still very local, very safe districts you start to have the forces emerge that push the GOP to the right (and keep doing so) - which I don't think exists in the same way for the Democrats or they've very successfully avoided it with a few exceptions like AOC. So Gingrich was repeatedly challenged from the right as too compromising, too willing to work with Clinton (I think this is the era when "RINO" emerges as a phrase) you have people like Helen Chenoweth mainlining conspiracy into the House - it's actually also how, say, Lindsey Graham started out.