> It was aimed at funneling anti-Trump sentiment into a push to replace Clinton/Obama liberalism with a new ideology.
I think this is wrong in a really, really important way. The new ideology was already being built into the Party infrastructure during Obama's second term. So really, a lot of the anti-Trump sentiment was funneled into consolidating the most off-putting and unpopular aspects of Obama's second term into the Party on a permanent basis.
"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, would that end racism?" That didn't come from the Bernie campaign or a Warren campaign that was four years in the future! It came from inside the house.
You can't win a battle if you refuse to acknowledge where the enemy is coming from.
"Infrastructure" is overrated. I would add to the list of overrated things "message discipline" and "priorities".
Liberals are just not going to agree on What Is Most Important, or all be on the same page as to what to say about it. Trump certainly wasn't, all traumatic memory and retconned history to the contrary.
I would argue a lot of the slow, lethargic response to Trump's shock and awe blitzkrieg against the American global order you're seeing out of congressional Democrats at the moment stems from a too-great obsession with "all of us being on the same page", or worse, "picking your battles".
Trump is certainly not picking his battles; he's going for Total Victory, Forever, On All Fronts. He's being augmented considerably by Elon's ability to sleep for three hours a day, seven days a week, for weeks at a stretch, but it's not like Trump is much less restless.
And wouldn't you know, voters seem to LIKE that, above and beyond any like or dislike they have for his actual policies or their actual results. Democrats need to take notes, and force themselves to be as restless, not use their shellacking as an excuse to be even more timid, fearful, paranoid about "making mistakes".
I am guessing most of those reading this comment, stung by their encounters with hard-leftists over the years, will disagree. It's a free country, at least for now.
I thought I'd made this comment earlier today, but apparently it didn't post or something because I don't see it -- it would have been nice to introduce "Indivisible" a bit instead of assuming the readers knew what it was. I mean, I'm here every single day, but I didn't immediately recognize what it was referring to. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (A search for "Indivisible" in the Slow Boring archive suggests that the last time Matt referenced it was September 2023 and that was a purely conclusory reference: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-spirit-of-2006?utm_source=publication-search )
Not that it is a big part of this post, but I really resent the framing of abortion as being about women’s rights or reproductive rights. It is not about rights. No one is against women’s rights - the only people who frame it that way are those who want to feel like they are fighting for women’s rights like it’s the 20s. It is about at what point you believe a fetus becomes a child.
I used to believe that. I now view it, in most cases, as an excuse.
Words are wind, actions speak louder. The pro-life movement, such as it exists right now at the all-time peak of its power, doesn't seem to care too much about ending abortion.
Stigmatizing it, perhaps. Driving it underground, for sure. Punishing its cultural enemies on its basis, no doubt.
But ending it? Not in the slightest. I presume they can read statistics as well as I can--specifically, the statistic about abortion being more prevalent in many countries that ban it, than those that don't.
I'm sure there are some people--some--out there who genuinely, deep down, are concerned about the moment a fetus becomes sentient, rather than using it as a rhetorical crutch. Alas, in the aggregate, humans are not nearly so on-the-level about these things as they like to claim, even to themselves.
I think it’s a fallacy to regard the alternative to the pro choice crowd as being the evangelical pro life people. They’re a pretty small group who doesn’t really speak for many outside themselves. That framing is what is flawed.
If you survey people you will find that in reality what differentiates people’s stances is the point at which, and conditions under which, abortion should be prohibited. Even the ‘pro choice’ crowd isn’t actually just categorically pro abortion. 95% of them do think that at a certain point abortion is wrong. There are not too many people supporting 8.5 month abortions when the mother and fetus are perfectly healthy.
I also think perhaps you conflate Republican politician with pro choice. True pro choice people, the evangelicals, are very much still against it. But Republican politicians know that isn’t winning politics right now so they don’t really throw much support behind them.
I get where MY is coming from here and I think it's important to not fall into the turnout delusion trap. With that said, one of the biggest self-owns in Democratic politics since 2013 has been allowing our field offices in Florida to dry up due to a lack of resources and attention. They helped Obama carry the state twice. (This is followed by deciding to shut down Time's Up at the same time it was producing wins for working class women at fast food employers.)
You offer some interesting thoughts on polling and the importance of neutral language.
Specific to guns, I think the Gallup group has been running a poll for many years with neutral language that asks "In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?" This to me is a well worded question.
The stricter cohort was very high when the poll started in 1990 at 70% and then declined to a low point of 43% in 2011 and then has risen consistently to its current 56% so it would qualify as a 55-45 issue, which is fairly strong in these partisan times, and up there with the Dems strongest margins on healthcare, environment, abortion, just as the Rs have that margin on crime, immigration, and taxes.
I would not compare guns to abortion, because the pro-gun people are much more passionate than the anti-gun people.
For the purpose of issue polling what really matters is the people who care strongly about an issue. Ds do much better with those people on abortion or health care than guns
I think that might have been true at one time, when you had conservative rural Democrats, a now largely extinct species, where the political game now is winning swing, largely suburban districts. I don't think there are many NRA supporters that would vote Democratic under any circumstances where you might find more Romney type Republicans that are swing voters and support modest gun control. Also the NRA is greatly diminished in power and influence. And the politics have shifted twelve points on this since 2011
MATT LACOMBE: "The advantage that Republicans used to have on this issue as a result of the fact that the pro-gun side cared a lot more about it than the gun control side, that has flipped in a way that maybe hasn't had the impact that reproductive rights has, but then nonetheless, sort of changes which constituencies of each party end up being most important electorally."
Trump carried 31 out of 50 states, Harris only 19. If you translate that to senate votes that gives Republicans 62 votes in the senate.
If Democrats want to be able to govern, they need to be able to speak to rural voters. That means either dropping gun control or only nibbling around the edges.
There is not one swing state that has a rural population of greater than 25% (MI is highest at 25%). One interesting fact is that the two most rural states in the country, VT and ME, are reliably Democratic voting and don't seem to care that much about the Dems being the gun control party.
Now, I am in complete agreement that the Senate apportionment should compel Democrats to have more of a platform that resonates in the heartland where clearly people find immigration, crime, taxes, inflation are the concerns, and should stop catering to the Identarian obsession of NY, MA, and CA, but I dont think guns are a big heartland issue, nor do I think the rural vote is nearly as critical as the suburban vote which tends to be pro gun control.
Bottom line, anyway, is that if you want to see what works politically, see what the parties put their money into. I couldnt find that, but what I heard from the GOP was crime, immigration, and transgenders, not gun rights.
I grew up in the Bay Area, my family/friends are 90% Democrats, and I've never met anyone who would list "gun control" as a top three issue. They care about abortion, they care about the welfare state, they care about climate change, they care about gays.
Unfortunately, that particular 55-45 issue has a uniquely impenetrable barrier in front of it, the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald vs. City of Chicago that incorporated the Second Amendment right that it found in Heller against the States. Until something is done about McDonald, both the States and the Federal Government have a very, very narrow window for enacting stricter gun laws, not that they shouldn't try. But if the Court can be convinced to reverse McDonald -- and this particular Court may be amenable to arguments in favor of States Rights and against Substantive Due Process -- then the way for better regulation would be open at the State level, so it would be worth the effort.
This is true as are a number of things where the door is shut until SCOTUS is more liberal, notably campaign finance given Citizens United and partisan gerrymandering given Rucho vs Common Cause. None the less, these things can have political significance if you are on the side that has the better public support.
>>If, in 2016, there had been pro-life Democratic senators representing southern states, where (unlike outside the south) abortion rights are less popular than the Democratic Party, they would almost certainly have voted to confirm Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, and women today would be better off.
I've been saying this since Dodd was handed down. Glad someone's finally listening.
Here's why you can't have a "Joe Rogan of the Left" - Rogan's schtick is "I'm not sayin', I'm just askin' questions," basically. Leftists don't like when you ask questions. Rogan is fundamentally a dissenter, and leftists don't tolerate dissent. A "Joe Rogan of the Left" would face unending demands for performances of progressive orthodoxy that would be off-putting to normal people.
In the NY Times: Ezra Klein interviews Congressman from MA Jake Auchincloss. They make MY-like points. Auchincloss brings up cost disease, biotech (he's in favor), social media (skeptical of the social effects), crypto (more favorable than I would be). Later in the interview, Auchincloss also advocates voting reform (independent redistricting, fully open primaries, contribution limits).
Contrary to MY, though, Auchincloss says to focus on how Trump is hurting voters' pockets *without* moderating on important controversies: "We shouldn’t give on immigration. We shouldn’t give on the rule of law. We shouldn’t give on climate action and gun violence prevention. I’ve been very clear about this. In fact, I’ve rejected this idea that we need to move radically to their side of the court on these issues. It’s that we can call it for what it is: This is illegal. This is a giveaway to the gun industry. Withdrawing from Paris is against our values about climate action and a clean energy transition. That can start the conversation. But the people for whom that is resonant largely are Democrats who are voting for Democrats. We also now need to then bring this back home and draw the contrast. It’s values, it’s policy prescription, and then it’s a contrast with the other side."
If I understand correctly, his strategic advice is to find politicians who can make voters feel that the politicians care about the same things the voters care about, but that this does not require giving up on progressive positions.
I like many of Auchincloss's ideas, but also find it interesting that Ezra chose him as an example of, as the title says, "a Democrat who is thinking differently." From skimming the interview, he did not strike me as heretical in any way. From Wikipedia, his background is also very elite -- Ivy League-educated, related to VIPs, whereas I want to say the humbler background of someone like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez helps her overperform in unfavorable terrain. Auchincloss was a Marine Corps officer, but it's hard for a Democrat to get credit from the voters for being a veteran. A Congressman from Massachusetts has to have some awareness of his own constituents, but they are not the median American.
I agree with you,Matt. The “Progressive” media infrastructure is strongly developed, but most of our Country has moved rightward. Kamala did a superb job in 100 days, but she was unable to moderate her message. “I will give you $50,000 to start a business.” was the wrong message people concerned about the deficit wanted to hear. Even near the end she made no mention of how corporations fuel our economy. Clearly the majority of people desire Law and Order in their lives. (I exempt those who idolize FT.) Obama gave clear messages to whiners to just pull up their socks and get to work. Recent Dem messages suggest people can just relax and the Government will take care of them. Today, when voters are finding basic expenses too high, Independents are looking for a caring message that still says you need to stand up for yourself. Our schools are not educating our citizens. Putting Sp. Needs kids in the same classroom as those who are ready to go ahead is a nightmare for the teachers and doesn’t reach our objectives. There might be a time in the future when voters bend to the Left again, but it doesn’t look like that is Now to me.
"Infrastructure" in this post is just an anodyne term for the strategy of "cutting people and groups we believe are hurting the Democrats' chances off at the knees."
This is such a baffling piece to read. So utterly divorced from reality.
It took less than one month of Trump governance to end the American constitutional system. Whatever comes next, whatever happens after 2026 or 2028 or what-have-you, it won't look like the Status Quo Ante. There's simply no world where we go back to how American politics was 10 years ago. The system is shattered, and without a functioning legislature it cannot ever be fixed. It's long passed time to talk about what comes next.
Why are we talking about 'Democrats getting elected in red states'? Without massive court packing and the destruction of the oligarchs, there will *never* be another free or fair election in any state currently controlled by the right again, at least in my lifetime. We know exactly how this looks - Jim Crow lasted almost a century.
Matt talking about how 'Democrats just need to think outside the box' is like a dispatch from another planet. A nicer one, to be sure, but not this one.
I wouldn’t be so glib. Yes, I am near 100% certain that elections will happen in 2028. Even Russia has elections after all. The real question is how free and fair they will be. For example: how confident are you that Democrats would be allowed to take power in an election where the Electoral College is extremely close a la 2020? How confident are you that Trump won’t use the Federal law enforcement apparatus to harass Democratic candidates? Etc.
I completely misunderstood your title. I thought you meant "Democrats should stop campaigning for more infrastructure, like solar panels and wind turbines and supporting infrastructure for all the extra homes for One Billion Americans" and I thought "that's a strange thing for Matt Y to say!"
"Democrats need to say and do some things that will make some people who voted for Donald Trump — in many cases two or three times — want to vote for Democrats instead."
Here's the key $64,000 question with a cherry on top: do you think that pushing the Common Sense Democratic Platform (with which I mostly agree) is enough to turn enough Trump voters in Democratic voters? Or do we have to go further right, and if so, how much further?
E.g., is it enough to say "DEI was a mistake, let's get back to the colorblind idea of judging a person by their character" or do we have to swing all the way to "competent white men should run all the important stuff, and women and colored folks should know their place"?
Is it enough to say "let's thoughtfully cut some red tape in a way that is a net-positive for society" or do we have to say "Let's destroy the entire regulatory apparatus and laugh over the wreckage while drinking from a mug of overeducated elitist tears"?
""competent white men should run all the important stuff, and women and colored folks should know their place"?"
this is actually NOT a position that 90%+ of Republicans would agree with.
Liberals already won the race war. They argued for a color blind merit based society. That vast VAST majority of conservatives and republicans now agree.
As for the admin state, talking about it wouldn't be enough. Democrats would have to demonstrate an actual ability to fix it. I suggest starting with blue strongholds like CA or Illinois. Make those places governable and efficient again. And maybe you get some traction
The "competent white men should run things" quote wasn't pulled out of my ass, it was something a member of the Musk Administration Xeeted out recently (I forget which one, it was reported on The Bulwark.) If there was a big outcry over this from GOP elected officials, I missed it.
One of President Musk's DOGEboys had previously Xeeted "Normalize Indian hate" and Congressman Ro Khanna (Indian-American) Xeeted at Vance, "Mr. VP, are you cool with this? I'm asking for both our kids' sakes" (Vance, of course, is married to an Indian-American, Usha, and their kids are biracial). And Vance got really pissy about it. Is Vance a racist? No (otherwise he wouldn't have married Usha and had kids with her.) Is he going to stand up to actual racists when doing so may jeopardize his standing with the MAGA base? Hell no.
Sure, most likely, if you were to poll non-online Americans, most would pay at least lip service to the colorblind ideal, but at the very least, there are outright racists and anti-Semites in the administration and neither the median GOP elected official nor the median Trump voter seems particularly bothered by it.
I strongly agree with you re: make big blue cities governable, both for political points and for the sake of people who live there. I love to see thriving cities!
I agree that there's a small share of actual racists and antisemites in both parties (more racists in the right and mainly antisemites in the left).
I also agree that there is a larger share that don't believe in that, but keep quite not to cause problems with their coalition.
But given only about 10% of people say be ok with a family member marrying someone of a different race I think it's clear where the majority of American stand!
Liberals were right about race in the 60's and they won that argument decisively
"In 2000, 31% of Americans said they would oppose an intermarriage in their family.12 That share dropped to 9% in 2002 but climbed again to 16% in 2008. It has fallen steadily since, and now one-in-ten Americans say they would oppose a close relative marrying someone of a different race or ethnicity."
It may not be enough to change the way that dyed-in-the-wool MAGA voters see the world, but it can do at least three important things:
1. Present common sense answers to problems that voters actually feel that they have, instead of to problems that Democrats tell them that they SHOULD believe that they have, so they feel heard, respected, and understood;
2. Take back patriotism for the Democratic Party. A lot of Democrats, including very influential officeholders, talk in a way that makes independent voters (speaking as an independent voter) read their attitude toward our country and the Constitution as spanning the entire range from indifference to contempt to disgust to outright hatred. This shouldn't be necessary to say but I'll say it anyway: you can't win elections that way, and certainly not in the United States.
3. Appeal to people's values, not their fears and prejudices. This is possible, but only if the Dems are successful at #2 above. The Civil Rights Movement didn't succeed either by trashing American values or even really by changing that many hearts and minds. It did it by being more American that the segregationists, by holding up American values in front of the whole country and saying, "WE believe in these, enough to put our lives on the line for them. You say that you believe in them too. If you do, shouldn't you be living up to them?"
Convincing Trump voters to be the version of themselves that they say they aspire to be should be a lot easier than convincing them to "stop being deplorables", but the message has to say that without equivocation and the messenger has to be credible. I don't know if MY's proposals get us there, but directionally they seem right to me.
Donald Trump and his merry band of arsonists have been doing/promising to do appallingly anti-American crap, including (deep breath) defunding government agencies and thereby ignoring the "power of the purse" that the Constitution assigns to Congress, cozying up to foreign dictators (how do you think Reagan would feel if he could see Trump kissing Putin's ass?), pardoning violent rioters who tried to overturn a fair election, Xeeting about how the President should be above the law (i.e. should be effectively an absolute monarch), calling people who disagree with them "scum and vermin," I could go on, but I'm on my lunch break and I haven't got all day.
Meanwhile, Kamala ran on "I want to be President of all Americans." I didn't see many of her campaign ads (I don't watch a lot of TV, and when I come across an ad on YouTube, I just mute it). But the few ads of hers that I saw were impeccably patriotic. They featured Americans of all ages, races, geographic locations, and socioeconomic classes, making sure to include members of the military and rural people, and always, always featuring an American flag proudly waving in the breeze.
So much for style; as for substance, you don't have to agree with everything Biden/Harris have done, but Kamala never wiped her backside with the US Constitution the way Trump did. She never Xeeted or talked or joked-but-not-really about how "I would be a dictator for a day" or "when the President does it, it's always right."
And it's the Democrats who are the unpatriotic ones, the ones who have to apologize to Real Americans(TM) for their "indifference and contempt" for America?
I just can't with this. I want to be patriotic, but I don't know the hell what patriotism even means anymore, since it clearly means something very different to the average Trump voter than it does to me.
You asked a question. I tried to answer it. The answer has nothing to say about Trump and his behavior for the good and sufficient reason (to me, anyway) that how the Democrats should respond to Trump, and how they should reach out to the voters are, as far as I’m concerned, two entirely different things, not interchangeable parts.
Sorry that it wasn’t the answer you were looking for. 🤷🏻♂️
The United States is a polity based on the belief that the Enlightenment concept of individual Liberty as described in the Declaration of Independence and defined in Article IV of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen can and should be the only organizing principle of our governments, and that the purpose of government is to protect that Liberty and provide the conditions for it to continue to expand. Patriotism in the American context, then, is faithfulness to that idea of expanding individual Liberty, protection of the governments, State and Federal, intended to advance it, and revision of those governments where they fall short.
George Washington in his Farewell Address provided the best maxims that I know about patriotism for Americans. They can be rephrased from their original 18th Century diction, but I don't think that they can be improved upon:
"Profoundly penetrated with this idea (i.e., gratitude for the support he had always received from the people in his conduct of their affairs), I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution which is the work of your hands may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it."
********
"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth ... it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
********
"[Y]ou have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."
The whole thing is worth reading: it's the textbook of American patriotism.
2. How should Democrats demonstrate patriotism?
Restate Washington's principles in terms that people today can understand, and remind the people of them. Always declare their loyalty to the principles, and show how any reforms that they propose fit with and further them. Expose how far short Trump and his minions fall from those same principles, and how destructive they are of them. Liberty is STILL a revolutionary principle, and Trump is a counter-revolutionary and should be called out as such.
Totally agree with Matt’s subtitle. More structure to create more conformity and more group think and more committee members is not what Democrats need. They need independent minded leaders that connect with a broad range of the American people. It’s more than the median voter theory. It’s being a real person who has views based on values and personal intuitions not polling and special interest groups.
> It was aimed at funneling anti-Trump sentiment into a push to replace Clinton/Obama liberalism with a new ideology.
I think this is wrong in a really, really important way. The new ideology was already being built into the Party infrastructure during Obama's second term. So really, a lot of the anti-Trump sentiment was funneled into consolidating the most off-putting and unpopular aspects of Obama's second term into the Party on a permanent basis.
"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, would that end racism?" That didn't come from the Bernie campaign or a Warren campaign that was four years in the future! It came from inside the house.
You can't win a battle if you refuse to acknowledge where the enemy is coming from.
Finally we agree on something.
"Infrastructure" is overrated. I would add to the list of overrated things "message discipline" and "priorities".
Liberals are just not going to agree on What Is Most Important, or all be on the same page as to what to say about it. Trump certainly wasn't, all traumatic memory and retconned history to the contrary.
I would argue a lot of the slow, lethargic response to Trump's shock and awe blitzkrieg against the American global order you're seeing out of congressional Democrats at the moment stems from a too-great obsession with "all of us being on the same page", or worse, "picking your battles".
Trump is certainly not picking his battles; he's going for Total Victory, Forever, On All Fronts. He's being augmented considerably by Elon's ability to sleep for three hours a day, seven days a week, for weeks at a stretch, but it's not like Trump is much less restless.
And wouldn't you know, voters seem to LIKE that, above and beyond any like or dislike they have for his actual policies or their actual results. Democrats need to take notes, and force themselves to be as restless, not use their shellacking as an excuse to be even more timid, fearful, paranoid about "making mistakes".
I am guessing most of those reading this comment, stung by their encounters with hard-leftists over the years, will disagree. It's a free country, at least for now.
Now I'm curious, who is Osborn and what are Osborn-style gimmicks? If they get Democrats a Senate majority, why is that a bad thing?
I thought I'd made this comment earlier today, but apparently it didn't post or something because I don't see it -- it would have been nice to introduce "Indivisible" a bit instead of assuming the readers knew what it was. I mean, I'm here every single day, but I didn't immediately recognize what it was referring to. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (A search for "Indivisible" in the Slow Boring archive suggests that the last time Matt referenced it was September 2023 and that was a purely conclusory reference: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-spirit-of-2006?utm_source=publication-search )
Not that it is a big part of this post, but I really resent the framing of abortion as being about women’s rights or reproductive rights. It is not about rights. No one is against women’s rights - the only people who frame it that way are those who want to feel like they are fighting for women’s rights like it’s the 20s. It is about at what point you believe a fetus becomes a child.
I used to believe that. I now view it, in most cases, as an excuse.
Words are wind, actions speak louder. The pro-life movement, such as it exists right now at the all-time peak of its power, doesn't seem to care too much about ending abortion.
Stigmatizing it, perhaps. Driving it underground, for sure. Punishing its cultural enemies on its basis, no doubt.
But ending it? Not in the slightest. I presume they can read statistics as well as I can--specifically, the statistic about abortion being more prevalent in many countries that ban it, than those that don't.
I'm sure there are some people--some--out there who genuinely, deep down, are concerned about the moment a fetus becomes sentient, rather than using it as a rhetorical crutch. Alas, in the aggregate, humans are not nearly so on-the-level about these things as they like to claim, even to themselves.
I think it’s a fallacy to regard the alternative to the pro choice crowd as being the evangelical pro life people. They’re a pretty small group who doesn’t really speak for many outside themselves. That framing is what is flawed.
If you survey people you will find that in reality what differentiates people’s stances is the point at which, and conditions under which, abortion should be prohibited. Even the ‘pro choice’ crowd isn’t actually just categorically pro abortion. 95% of them do think that at a certain point abortion is wrong. There are not too many people supporting 8.5 month abortions when the mother and fetus are perfectly healthy.
I also think perhaps you conflate Republican politician with pro choice. True pro choice people, the evangelicals, are very much still against it. But Republican politicians know that isn’t winning politics right now so they don’t really throw much support behind them.
Pretty ironic that even an organization called Indivisible couldn't stick to the playbook of maintaining an indivisible anti-Trump coalition.
I get where MY is coming from here and I think it's important to not fall into the turnout delusion trap. With that said, one of the biggest self-owns in Democratic politics since 2013 has been allowing our field offices in Florida to dry up due to a lack of resources and attention. They helped Obama carry the state twice. (This is followed by deciding to shut down Time's Up at the same time it was producing wins for working class women at fast food employers.)
You offer some interesting thoughts on polling and the importance of neutral language.
Specific to guns, I think the Gallup group has been running a poll for many years with neutral language that asks "In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?" This to me is a well worded question.
The stricter cohort was very high when the poll started in 1990 at 70% and then declined to a low point of 43% in 2011 and then has risen consistently to its current 56% so it would qualify as a 55-45 issue, which is fairly strong in these partisan times, and up there with the Dems strongest margins on healthcare, environment, abortion, just as the Rs have that margin on crime, immigration, and taxes.
I would not compare guns to abortion, because the pro-gun people are much more passionate than the anti-gun people.
For the purpose of issue polling what really matters is the people who care strongly about an issue. Ds do much better with those people on abortion or health care than guns
Yeah, abortion and health care are just obviously much more important.
I think that might have been true at one time, when you had conservative rural Democrats, a now largely extinct species, where the political game now is winning swing, largely suburban districts. I don't think there are many NRA supporters that would vote Democratic under any circumstances where you might find more Romney type Republicans that are swing voters and support modest gun control. Also the NRA is greatly diminished in power and influence. And the politics have shifted twelve points on this since 2011
I have hunted for some metrics on this and found none, but a few discussions, and from this article I quote from Matt Lacombe, author of "Firepower: How The NRA Turned Gun Owners Into A Political Force." (https://www.npr.org/2024/08/21/nx-s1-5068695/democrats-and-their-changing-views-on-gun-control )
MATT LACOMBE: "The advantage that Republicans used to have on this issue as a result of the fact that the pro-gun side cared a lot more about it than the gun control side, that has flipped in a way that maybe hasn't had the impact that reproductive rights has, but then nonetheless, sort of changes which constituencies of each party end up being most important electorally."
Trump carried 31 out of 50 states, Harris only 19. If you translate that to senate votes that gives Republicans 62 votes in the senate.
If Democrats want to be able to govern, they need to be able to speak to rural voters. That means either dropping gun control or only nibbling around the edges.
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/democrats-tricky-path-to-winning
Well I certainly wouldnt run heavy gun control in a rural state, but most states aren't rural and actually the fasting growing demographic is suburban. By this the rural population shrank from 16 to 14% where suburban increased from 53-55% and surveys show suburban voters are closer to urban than rural voters on gun control. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/
There is not one swing state that has a rural population of greater than 25% (MI is highest at 25%). One interesting fact is that the two most rural states in the country, VT and ME, are reliably Democratic voting and don't seem to care that much about the Dems being the gun control party.
Now, I am in complete agreement that the Senate apportionment should compel Democrats to have more of a platform that resonates in the heartland where clearly people find immigration, crime, taxes, inflation are the concerns, and should stop catering to the Identarian obsession of NY, MA, and CA, but I dont think guns are a big heartland issue, nor do I think the rural vote is nearly as critical as the suburban vote which tends to be pro gun control.
Bottom line, anyway, is that if you want to see what works politically, see what the parties put their money into. I couldnt find that, but what I heard from the GOP was crime, immigration, and transgenders, not gun rights.
I grew up in the Bay Area, my family/friends are 90% Democrats, and I've never met anyone who would list "gun control" as a top three issue. They care about abortion, they care about the welfare state, they care about climate change, they care about gays.
Yet among Republicans it tends to come up a lot.
imo polls of Democrats and Republicans are less meaningful then polls of Independents, who are the potential persuadable voters, not the partisans.
Actually, I find one poll that indicates guns are not that important issue for anybody and slightly more for Dems (3%) than Rs (15) and well behind most issues. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1398115/most-important-voter-issues-party-us/
As a conservative with many conservative family members and friends I concur.
Unfortunately, that particular 55-45 issue has a uniquely impenetrable barrier in front of it, the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald vs. City of Chicago that incorporated the Second Amendment right that it found in Heller against the States. Until something is done about McDonald, both the States and the Federal Government have a very, very narrow window for enacting stricter gun laws, not that they shouldn't try. But if the Court can be convinced to reverse McDonald -- and this particular Court may be amenable to arguments in favor of States Rights and against Substantive Due Process -- then the way for better regulation would be open at the State level, so it would be worth the effort.
This is true as are a number of things where the door is shut until SCOTUS is more liberal, notably campaign finance given Citizens United and partisan gerrymandering given Rucho vs Common Cause. None the less, these things can have political significance if you are on the side that has the better public support.
>>If, in 2016, there had been pro-life Democratic senators representing southern states, where (unlike outside the south) abortion rights are less popular than the Democratic Party, they would almost certainly have voted to confirm Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, and women today would be better off.
I've been saying this since Dodd was handed down. Glad someone's finally listening.
Here's why you can't have a "Joe Rogan of the Left" - Rogan's schtick is "I'm not sayin', I'm just askin' questions," basically. Leftists don't like when you ask questions. Rogan is fundamentally a dissenter, and leftists don't tolerate dissent. A "Joe Rogan of the Left" would face unending demands for performances of progressive orthodoxy that would be off-putting to normal people.
In the NY Times: Ezra Klein interviews Congressman from MA Jake Auchincloss. They make MY-like points. Auchincloss brings up cost disease, biotech (he's in favor), social media (skeptical of the social effects), crypto (more favorable than I would be). Later in the interview, Auchincloss also advocates voting reform (independent redistricting, fully open primaries, contribution limits).
Contrary to MY, though, Auchincloss says to focus on how Trump is hurting voters' pockets *without* moderating on important controversies: "We shouldn’t give on immigration. We shouldn’t give on the rule of law. We shouldn’t give on climate action and gun violence prevention. I’ve been very clear about this. In fact, I’ve rejected this idea that we need to move radically to their side of the court on these issues. It’s that we can call it for what it is: This is illegal. This is a giveaway to the gun industry. Withdrawing from Paris is against our values about climate action and a clean energy transition. That can start the conversation. But the people for whom that is resonant largely are Democrats who are voting for Democrats. We also now need to then bring this back home and draw the contrast. It’s values, it’s policy prescription, and then it’s a contrast with the other side."
If I understand correctly, his strategic advice is to find politicians who can make voters feel that the politicians care about the same things the voters care about, but that this does not require giving up on progressive positions.
Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jake-auchincloss.html?unlocked_article_code=1.x04.5vd0.NGZDfeAZKrFq&smid=url-share
I like many of Auchincloss's ideas, but also find it interesting that Ezra chose him as an example of, as the title says, "a Democrat who is thinking differently." From skimming the interview, he did not strike me as heretical in any way. From Wikipedia, his background is also very elite -- Ivy League-educated, related to VIPs, whereas I want to say the humbler background of someone like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez helps her overperform in unfavorable terrain. Auchincloss was a Marine Corps officer, but it's hard for a Democrat to get credit from the voters for being a veteran. A Congressman from Massachusetts has to have some awareness of his own constituents, but they are not the median American.
The interview is also on YouTube, for anyone who prefers video form, or just doesn't want to look at the NY Times layout. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tnQTEJKOeU
I agree with you,Matt. The “Progressive” media infrastructure is strongly developed, but most of our Country has moved rightward. Kamala did a superb job in 100 days, but she was unable to moderate her message. “I will give you $50,000 to start a business.” was the wrong message people concerned about the deficit wanted to hear. Even near the end she made no mention of how corporations fuel our economy. Clearly the majority of people desire Law and Order in their lives. (I exempt those who idolize FT.) Obama gave clear messages to whiners to just pull up their socks and get to work. Recent Dem messages suggest people can just relax and the Government will take care of them. Today, when voters are finding basic expenses too high, Independents are looking for a caring message that still says you need to stand up for yourself. Our schools are not educating our citizens. Putting Sp. Needs kids in the same classroom as those who are ready to go ahead is a nightmare for the teachers and doesn’t reach our objectives. There might be a time in the future when voters bend to the Left again, but it doesn’t look like that is Now to me.
"Infrastructure" in this post is just an anodyne term for the strategy of "cutting people and groups we believe are hurting the Democrats' chances off at the knees."
Which is good. Sign me up.
This is such a baffling piece to read. So utterly divorced from reality.
It took less than one month of Trump governance to end the American constitutional system. Whatever comes next, whatever happens after 2026 or 2028 or what-have-you, it won't look like the Status Quo Ante. There's simply no world where we go back to how American politics was 10 years ago. The system is shattered, and without a functioning legislature it cannot ever be fixed. It's long passed time to talk about what comes next.
Why are we talking about 'Democrats getting elected in red states'? Without massive court packing and the destruction of the oligarchs, there will *never* be another free or fair election in any state currently controlled by the right again, at least in my lifetime. We know exactly how this looks - Jim Crow lasted almost a century.
Matt talking about how 'Democrats just need to think outside the box' is like a dispatch from another planet. A nicer one, to be sure, but not this one.
"Without massive court packing and the destruction of the oligarchs"
Do you have a better solution for how to accomplish this than what Matt proposes?
"It took less than one month of Trump governance to end the American constitutional system"
Oh come on.
I certainly don't agree with all of what Trump's done. but I'm 99.99999% sure that come 2028 we will have elections again and life will go on
I wouldn’t be so glib. Yes, I am near 100% certain that elections will happen in 2028. Even Russia has elections after all. The real question is how free and fair they will be. For example: how confident are you that Democrats would be allowed to take power in an election where the Electoral College is extremely close a la 2020? How confident are you that Trump won’t use the Federal law enforcement apparatus to harass Democratic candidates? Etc.
There's almost certainly no courtpacking without Democrats getting elected in red states . . . .
I completely misunderstood your title. I thought you meant "Democrats should stop campaigning for more infrastructure, like solar panels and wind turbines and supporting infrastructure for all the extra homes for One Billion Americans" and I thought "that's a strange thing for Matt Y to say!"
"Democrats need to say and do some things that will make some people who voted for Donald Trump — in many cases two or three times — want to vote for Democrats instead."
Here's the key $64,000 question with a cherry on top: do you think that pushing the Common Sense Democratic Platform (with which I mostly agree) is enough to turn enough Trump voters in Democratic voters? Or do we have to go further right, and if so, how much further?
E.g., is it enough to say "DEI was a mistake, let's get back to the colorblind idea of judging a person by their character" or do we have to swing all the way to "competent white men should run all the important stuff, and women and colored folks should know their place"?
Is it enough to say "let's thoughtfully cut some red tape in a way that is a net-positive for society" or do we have to say "Let's destroy the entire regulatory apparatus and laugh over the wreckage while drinking from a mug of overeducated elitist tears"?
Etc.
""competent white men should run all the important stuff, and women and colored folks should know their place"?"
this is actually NOT a position that 90%+ of Republicans would agree with.
Liberals already won the race war. They argued for a color blind merit based society. That vast VAST majority of conservatives and republicans now agree.
As for the admin state, talking about it wouldn't be enough. Democrats would have to demonstrate an actual ability to fix it. I suggest starting with blue strongholds like CA or Illinois. Make those places governable and efficient again. And maybe you get some traction
The "competent white men should run things" quote wasn't pulled out of my ass, it was something a member of the Musk Administration Xeeted out recently (I forget which one, it was reported on The Bulwark.) If there was a big outcry over this from GOP elected officials, I missed it.
One of President Musk's DOGEboys had previously Xeeted "Normalize Indian hate" and Congressman Ro Khanna (Indian-American) Xeeted at Vance, "Mr. VP, are you cool with this? I'm asking for both our kids' sakes" (Vance, of course, is married to an Indian-American, Usha, and their kids are biracial). And Vance got really pissy about it. Is Vance a racist? No (otherwise he wouldn't have married Usha and had kids with her.) Is he going to stand up to actual racists when doing so may jeopardize his standing with the MAGA base? Hell no.
Sure, most likely, if you were to poll non-online Americans, most would pay at least lip service to the colorblind ideal, but at the very least, there are outright racists and anti-Semites in the administration and neither the median GOP elected official nor the median Trump voter seems particularly bothered by it.
Here's a fun article on an adjacent topic: https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/groyperfication
I strongly agree with you re: make big blue cities governable, both for political points and for the sake of people who live there. I love to see thriving cities!
I agree that there's a small share of actual racists and antisemites in both parties (more racists in the right and mainly antisemites in the left).
I also agree that there is a larger share that don't believe in that, but keep quite not to cause problems with their coalition.
But given only about 10% of people say be ok with a family member marrying someone of a different race I think it's clear where the majority of American stand!
Liberals were right about race in the 60's and they won that argument decisively
"In 2000, 31% of Americans said they would oppose an intermarriage in their family.12 That share dropped to 9% in 2002 but climbed again to 16% in 2008. It has fallen steadily since, and now one-in-ten Americans say they would oppose a close relative marrying someone of a different race or ethnicity."
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/2-public-views-on-intermarriage/
It may not be enough to change the way that dyed-in-the-wool MAGA voters see the world, but it can do at least three important things:
1. Present common sense answers to problems that voters actually feel that they have, instead of to problems that Democrats tell them that they SHOULD believe that they have, so they feel heard, respected, and understood;
2. Take back patriotism for the Democratic Party. A lot of Democrats, including very influential officeholders, talk in a way that makes independent voters (speaking as an independent voter) read their attitude toward our country and the Constitution as spanning the entire range from indifference to contempt to disgust to outright hatred. This shouldn't be necessary to say but I'll say it anyway: you can't win elections that way, and certainly not in the United States.
3. Appeal to people's values, not their fears and prejudices. This is possible, but only if the Dems are successful at #2 above. The Civil Rights Movement didn't succeed either by trashing American values or even really by changing that many hearts and minds. It did it by being more American that the segregationists, by holding up American values in front of the whole country and saying, "WE believe in these, enough to put our lives on the line for them. You say that you believe in them too. If you do, shouldn't you be living up to them?"
Convincing Trump voters to be the version of themselves that they say they aspire to be should be a lot easier than convincing them to "stop being deplorables", but the message has to say that without equivocation and the messenger has to be credible. I don't know if MY's proposals get us there, but directionally they seem right to me.
"Take back patriotism for the Democratic Party."
[IFeelLikeImTakingCrazyPills.gif]
Donald Trump and his merry band of arsonists have been doing/promising to do appallingly anti-American crap, including (deep breath) defunding government agencies and thereby ignoring the "power of the purse" that the Constitution assigns to Congress, cozying up to foreign dictators (how do you think Reagan would feel if he could see Trump kissing Putin's ass?), pardoning violent rioters who tried to overturn a fair election, Xeeting about how the President should be above the law (i.e. should be effectively an absolute monarch), calling people who disagree with them "scum and vermin," I could go on, but I'm on my lunch break and I haven't got all day.
Meanwhile, Kamala ran on "I want to be President of all Americans." I didn't see many of her campaign ads (I don't watch a lot of TV, and when I come across an ad on YouTube, I just mute it). But the few ads of hers that I saw were impeccably patriotic. They featured Americans of all ages, races, geographic locations, and socioeconomic classes, making sure to include members of the military and rural people, and always, always featuring an American flag proudly waving in the breeze.
So much for style; as for substance, you don't have to agree with everything Biden/Harris have done, but Kamala never wiped her backside with the US Constitution the way Trump did. She never Xeeted or talked or joked-but-not-really about how "I would be a dictator for a day" or "when the President does it, it's always right."
And it's the Democrats who are the unpatriotic ones, the ones who have to apologize to Real Americans(TM) for their "indifference and contempt" for America?
I just can't with this. I want to be patriotic, but I don't know the hell what patriotism even means anymore, since it clearly means something very different to the average Trump voter than it does to me.
I love the term “Xeeting,” as it looks like you’re describing an obscene bodily function, which is pretty close to the truth
You asked a question. I tried to answer it. The answer has nothing to say about Trump and his behavior for the good and sufficient reason (to me, anyway) that how the Democrats should respond to Trump, and how they should reach out to the voters are, as far as I’m concerned, two entirely different things, not interchangeable parts.
Sorry that it wasn’t the answer you were looking for. 🤷🏻♂️
A recurring theme since the 2024 election:
Me: what should Democrats do to win in the future?
SB commenter: Democrats should embrace xyz
Me: but Trump won by doing the exact opposite of xyz! #MakeItMakeSense
SB commenter: I’m talking about what Democrats should do, not what Trump is doing
Me: [screams into pillow]
But in the interest of constructive discussion, I would be sincerely grateful if you told me:
1. What is patriotism?
2. How should Democrats demonstrate patriotism in a way that is convincing/appealing to the marginal Trump voter?
Thank you.
1. What is patriotism?
The United States is a polity based on the belief that the Enlightenment concept of individual Liberty as described in the Declaration of Independence and defined in Article IV of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen can and should be the only organizing principle of our governments, and that the purpose of government is to protect that Liberty and provide the conditions for it to continue to expand. Patriotism in the American context, then, is faithfulness to that idea of expanding individual Liberty, protection of the governments, State and Federal, intended to advance it, and revision of those governments where they fall short.
George Washington in his Farewell Address provided the best maxims that I know about patriotism for Americans. They can be rephrased from their original 18th Century diction, but I don't think that they can be improved upon:
"Profoundly penetrated with this idea (i.e., gratitude for the support he had always received from the people in his conduct of their affairs), I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution which is the work of your hands may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it."
********
"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth ... it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
********
"[Y]ou have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."
The whole thing is worth reading: it's the textbook of American patriotism.
2. How should Democrats demonstrate patriotism?
Restate Washington's principles in terms that people today can understand, and remind the people of them. Always declare their loyalty to the principles, and show how any reforms that they propose fit with and further them. Expose how far short Trump and his minions fall from those same principles, and how destructive they are of them. Liberty is STILL a revolutionary principle, and Trump is a counter-revolutionary and should be called out as such.
Totally agree with Matt’s subtitle. More structure to create more conformity and more group think and more committee members is not what Democrats need. They need independent minded leaders that connect with a broad range of the American people. It’s more than the median voter theory. It’s being a real person who has views based on values and personal intuitions not polling and special interest groups.