1, speaking as a certified Geezer, I think Bill Clinton showed how Democrats can win elections and lead the country in positive directions.
2, Self-interested political fundraisers are effective at achieving their aim, to raise money (including money to pay their salaries). Sadly, this goal has become disconnected from the goal we imagined, to win elections.
"These organizations not only shape policy and advocacy but also reinforce a cohesive Republican brand."
I think this is the biggest problem. What is the brand of the Democratic Party? What should it be. When you fail to define yourself, your opponents brands you the party of Woke.
Then why the FUCK do you obsess over the electoral viability of the Democratic party in every single comment? I hope you learn to be less of an obnoxious, compulsively argumentative debate bro before you irritate the wrong person and get punched in the throat.
Bro I played in coed leagues growing up. You can't convince me this is a real issue outside of the highest levels of competition lol. Seems like the real problem is the number of fat, pasty nerds who never played sports and grew up to be overly protective helicopter parents.
Same with immigration. Lot of migrants got bussed to Chicago especially Pilsen where I live. There were a bunch of migrants walking up and down the street trying to sell people candy bars... that's it. Genuinely what "crisis"? When did everyone get so fucking soft?
I'm willing to compromise and vote for the lesser of two evils if I have to, but you cannot get me to stop rolling my eyes and making sarcastic remarks whenever someone panics about these two things. I simply do not care.
First off, Greg Schulz's description of the coherence of the Republican party seems to mostly be more a description of the party under Romney in 2012 rather than current party of Trump cultists and sycophants where what the Don wants dictates what the party stands for. Granted there is still some long term strategy and planning by certain special interests like the club for Growth and the Federalist Society, the only coherence beyond that is White grievance and xenophobia while in actuality favoring the .01 percent financially. Seth Moulton went out of his way to draw criticism and split the party in the way he stated that he didn't want his daughters run over by men or former men rather than using a less inflammatory wording or maybe even admitting hat the issue is a complex one and that the issue may depend on the specific sport involved rather than being a one size fits all.
The Democratic party would benefit from more long term strategy and planning in terms of the judicial system corresponding to the way the Federalist Society has on the right, and in looking toward an abundance agenda rather than from preventing the government from being able to build and achieve things. Also, more of a focus on state and local governments to strengthen the party in all states would strengthen the future success of the party.
I would note 'split the party' is not the same as 'lose ground with the electorate' --Voters want democrats to sound like normal people...not like talking point machines
Thank you for this column. I realize it will be hard, and will take some time, to turn the ship around, but this is a good start. Checking all boxes reduces the potential lanes to appeal to voters.
Remember Schultz will be remembered by those he associates with. Tied to Joe Biden in 2020 ?? Schultz is just another who KNEW Biden was impaired and therefore he is part of the coverup. Why look the other way? Is personal career more important than the good of the nation. Even though intelligent, he lakes character. Having relativist scruples, he’s likely to say anything to support
yep, proudly tied to Biden in 2020! Did not work with him or his team after that, but happy to strongly and enthusiastically defend my support and association with Biden when I worked with and for him directly from 2013-2020
As I said in another comment, I can really get behind the three points Schultz summarizes at the end.
Also, this idea needs field testing outside of Slow Boring. Matt's audience is reportedly 80% male, and I'm going to guess overwhelmingly white. I personally feel insulted when people poo-poo identity politics, because I translate that to mean, "Shut up about your women's equality crap." It signals a denial about issues of identity at all. These are the people who say, "We're not hostile to women, the reason there aren't any women in tech is that women don't like math as much." 20/30 years ago, it was because women weren't as good at math.
But I'm just one person. How do OTHER non-white-males feel about tossing out identity politics? We need data.
I agree with it overall and it's consistent with what many others have written. One thing I disagree with is his description of the Republican Party's infrastructure as not being a problem. When it was a big influence in 2012, the Koch network pushed for laissez-faire economics. It played a role in pushing Republicans way out into right-field during the Obama years right up until Trump came along. The Heritage Foundation is the source of Project 2025, which Trump did everything he could to not be associated with.
The logical problem here is that Heritage and the Federalist Society don’t help Republicans win. Most voters disapproved of Project 2025. Most voters don’t approve of Dobbs or Citizens United. Candidates win elections by speaking to voters and being willing to kick these groups to the side as Trump did. Why invest in more of what the Dems don’t need—groups? Recruit effective candidates and back them even if they take heterodox stands as long as they embrace three principles. Sadly, I don’t know which three, but they should not be anything that precludes you from winning a Senate seat in any state.
The Democratic Party keeps losing ground not because Americans have shifted radically right, but because Democrats are increasingly out of step with the majority. They’ve become preoccupied with fringe priorities and luxury beliefs, issues that matter most to elite circles but are disconnected from the everyday concerns of working and middle-class voters.
Most Americans, regardless of party, care about their family’s security, economic mobility, and the freedom to build a better life. But the DNC has built a platform around symbolism, moral posturing, and cultural debates that feel alien, or even hostile, to the broad middle.
Until Democrats return to common sense and start championing the priorities of the majority—affordability, safety, opportunity—they’ll keep losing. This isn’t about moving left or right. It’s about grounding politics in real-life needs, not abstract ideology.
This excellent analysis reminds me of that Ronald Reagan quote, that probably has been used by many middle of the road Democrats who don't feel comfortable with the Party lately: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. It left me."
And there's an equally or even more apt Reagan quote that holds in it the seeds of the Democratic Party's revival, if they'll just embrace it: “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
Have to chuckle reading your reply. I have been told by some Democratic activists in Santa Fe that I am not a real Democrat, because I fit that description well.
@Khal Spencer, the GOP disciplines its rank and file using the "RINO" label and threats of right wing primaries even more aggressively than the left. Cable TV is full of Bush era Republicans who now support Dems.
“Instead, it serves entrenched interests that pull the party away from broad-based strategies and toward ideological extremes…”
Which party would you think this was about?
I completely disagree that the Republican Party is a bastion of popular themes or more strategic messaging. Rs support incredibly unpopular positions and still have regular success, more than should be anticipated.
Amen to winning, being strategic, moderating, avoiding extreme positions that don’t make sense. Yes to all. But suggesting that Rs do this better is just inaccurate. It’s their turn behind an unfortunately-just-popular-enough President and the narrowest of House margins. It will be the Ds turn again soon.
I am yet to be convinced that this kind of political strategy could be implemented or would be successful. Good for a Substack piece though, I guess.
Nothing we do top down via think tanks and astroturf entities will make any difference. The only way is to meet real people on the ground doing 'normal' stuff in their churches, gun clubs, sports bars, farm festivals and so on and welcome them to run in the Democratic party or as independents.
I like Greg Schultz's idea on personal liberty, but I would love to hear Greg Schultz's opinion on where school choice fits into that. People have different opinions on education, and those opinions include differences on pedagogy, curricular emphasis, rigor, as well as differences on cultural issues. However, the Democratic ideal is a one-sized-fits-all school system, led by "experts," where alternatives are available only to a few rich people and middle-class people who will make large sacrifices to afford alternatives. (further embarrassing the Democrats is that their top politicians, including Biden, the Clintons, and Obama send their own kids to ultra-elite private schools).
Regarding LBGTQ+ ... I think there's a large swath of people who see themselves as pro-gay and even pro-trans, but who believe that medical interventions can be too young, that transgirls should not be able to play against physically smaller cis-girls, and that some spaces (from spas to prisons) should be reserved for XX women. I think this population includes a lot of gays & lesbians, and even some trans people (eg, Buck Angel, Caitlyn Jenner).
Drew Westen had talked about many of these concepts in his 2007 book, The Political Brain. Democrats appear stubbornly committed to remain in a politically induced coma, living in a myopic bubble, and refusing to look critically inward.
The points Greg Schultz makes are prescient and accurate. We predictably snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I think you make excellent points. Two comments:
1, speaking as a certified Geezer, I think Bill Clinton showed how Democrats can win elections and lead the country in positive directions.
2, Self-interested political fundraisers are effective at achieving their aim, to raise money (including money to pay their salaries). Sadly, this goal has become disconnected from the goal we imagined, to win elections.
the whole political-industrial-consultant-donor-complex is a real thing and once again, mis-aligned incentives show up!
Excellent piece.
"These organizations not only shape policy and advocacy but also reinforce a cohesive Republican brand."
I think this is the biggest problem. What is the brand of the Democratic Party? What should it be. When you fail to define yourself, your opponents brands you the party of Woke.
I would say take a look at this list: https://dccc.org/dccc-announces-members-of-2026-frontline-program/ and pick any of them... and whatever their brand is would be a great starting point for what the broader 'brand' should be
Then why the FUCK do you obsess over the electoral viability of the Democratic party in every single comment? I hope you learn to be less of an obnoxious, compulsively argumentative debate bro before you irritate the wrong person and get punched in the throat.
Bro I played in coed leagues growing up. You can't convince me this is a real issue outside of the highest levels of competition lol. Seems like the real problem is the number of fat, pasty nerds who never played sports and grew up to be overly protective helicopter parents.
Same with immigration. Lot of migrants got bussed to Chicago especially Pilsen where I live. There were a bunch of migrants walking up and down the street trying to sell people candy bars... that's it. Genuinely what "crisis"? When did everyone get so fucking soft?
I'm willing to compromise and vote for the lesser of two evils if I have to, but you cannot get me to stop rolling my eyes and making sarcastic remarks whenever someone panics about these two things. I simply do not care.
First off, Greg Schulz's description of the coherence of the Republican party seems to mostly be more a description of the party under Romney in 2012 rather than current party of Trump cultists and sycophants where what the Don wants dictates what the party stands for. Granted there is still some long term strategy and planning by certain special interests like the club for Growth and the Federalist Society, the only coherence beyond that is White grievance and xenophobia while in actuality favoring the .01 percent financially. Seth Moulton went out of his way to draw criticism and split the party in the way he stated that he didn't want his daughters run over by men or former men rather than using a less inflammatory wording or maybe even admitting hat the issue is a complex one and that the issue may depend on the specific sport involved rather than being a one size fits all.
The Democratic party would benefit from more long term strategy and planning in terms of the judicial system corresponding to the way the Federalist Society has on the right, and in looking toward an abundance agenda rather than from preventing the government from being able to build and achieve things. Also, more of a focus on state and local governments to strengthen the party in all states would strengthen the future success of the party.
I would note 'split the party' is not the same as 'lose ground with the electorate' --Voters want democrats to sound like normal people...not like talking point machines
Thank you for this column. I realize it will be hard, and will take some time, to turn the ship around, but this is a good start. Checking all boxes reduces the potential lanes to appeal to voters.
You're impossible, dude.
Remember Schultz will be remembered by those he associates with. Tied to Joe Biden in 2020 ?? Schultz is just another who KNEW Biden was impaired and therefore he is part of the coverup. Why look the other way? Is personal career more important than the good of the nation. Even though intelligent, he lakes character. Having relativist scruples, he’s likely to say anything to support
yep, proudly tied to Biden in 2020! Did not work with him or his team after that, but happy to strongly and enthusiastically defend my support and association with Biden when I worked with and for him directly from 2013-2020
As I said in another comment, I can really get behind the three points Schultz summarizes at the end.
Also, this idea needs field testing outside of Slow Boring. Matt's audience is reportedly 80% male, and I'm going to guess overwhelmingly white. I personally feel insulted when people poo-poo identity politics, because I translate that to mean, "Shut up about your women's equality crap." It signals a denial about issues of identity at all. These are the people who say, "We're not hostile to women, the reason there aren't any women in tech is that women don't like math as much." 20/30 years ago, it was because women weren't as good at math.
But I'm just one person. How do OTHER non-white-males feel about tossing out identity politics? We need data.
I agree with it overall and it's consistent with what many others have written. One thing I disagree with is his description of the Republican Party's infrastructure as not being a problem. When it was a big influence in 2012, the Koch network pushed for laissez-faire economics. It played a role in pushing Republicans way out into right-field during the Obama years right up until Trump came along. The Heritage Foundation is the source of Project 2025, which Trump did everything he could to not be associated with.
The logical problem here is that Heritage and the Federalist Society don’t help Republicans win. Most voters disapproved of Project 2025. Most voters don’t approve of Dobbs or Citizens United. Candidates win elections by speaking to voters and being willing to kick these groups to the side as Trump did. Why invest in more of what the Dems don’t need—groups? Recruit effective candidates and back them even if they take heterodox stands as long as they embrace three principles. Sadly, I don’t know which three, but they should not be anything that precludes you from winning a Senate seat in any state.
The Democratic Party keeps losing ground not because Americans have shifted radically right, but because Democrats are increasingly out of step with the majority. They’ve become preoccupied with fringe priorities and luxury beliefs, issues that matter most to elite circles but are disconnected from the everyday concerns of working and middle-class voters.
Most Americans, regardless of party, care about their family’s security, economic mobility, and the freedom to build a better life. But the DNC has built a platform around symbolism, moral posturing, and cultural debates that feel alien, or even hostile, to the broad middle.
Until Democrats return to common sense and start championing the priorities of the majority—affordability, safety, opportunity—they’ll keep losing. This isn’t about moving left or right. It’s about grounding politics in real-life needs, not abstract ideology.
This excellent analysis reminds me of that Ronald Reagan quote, that probably has been used by many middle of the road Democrats who don't feel comfortable with the Party lately: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. It left me."
And there's an equally or even more apt Reagan quote that holds in it the seeds of the Democratic Party's revival, if they'll just embrace it: “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
Have to chuckle reading your reply. I have been told by some Democratic activists in Santa Fe that I am not a real Democrat, because I fit that description well.
@Khal Spencer, the GOP disciplines its rank and file using the "RINO" label and threats of right wing primaries even more aggressively than the left. Cable TV is full of Bush era Republicans who now support Dems.
I'm too old to be and I live abroad besides, but I hope that you're the future of the Democratic Party.
Thank you!
“Instead, it serves entrenched interests that pull the party away from broad-based strategies and toward ideological extremes…”
Which party would you think this was about?
I completely disagree that the Republican Party is a bastion of popular themes or more strategic messaging. Rs support incredibly unpopular positions and still have regular success, more than should be anticipated.
Amen to winning, being strategic, moderating, avoiding extreme positions that don’t make sense. Yes to all. But suggesting that Rs do this better is just inaccurate. It’s their turn behind an unfortunately-just-popular-enough President and the narrowest of House margins. It will be the Ds turn again soon.
I am yet to be convinced that this kind of political strategy could be implemented or would be successful. Good for a Substack piece though, I guess.
Its one thing to support unpopular positions (both parties do), its quite another to be loud and strident in your support of unpopular positions.
Nothing we do top down via think tanks and astroturf entities will make any difference. The only way is to meet real people on the ground doing 'normal' stuff in their churches, gun clubs, sports bars, farm festivals and so on and welcome them to run in the Democratic party or as independents.
I like Greg Schultz's idea on personal liberty, but I would love to hear Greg Schultz's opinion on where school choice fits into that. People have different opinions on education, and those opinions include differences on pedagogy, curricular emphasis, rigor, as well as differences on cultural issues. However, the Democratic ideal is a one-sized-fits-all school system, led by "experts," where alternatives are available only to a few rich people and middle-class people who will make large sacrifices to afford alternatives. (further embarrassing the Democrats is that their top politicians, including Biden, the Clintons, and Obama send their own kids to ultra-elite private schools).
Regarding LBGTQ+ ... I think there's a large swath of people who see themselves as pro-gay and even pro-trans, but who believe that medical interventions can be too young, that transgirls should not be able to play against physically smaller cis-girls, and that some spaces (from spas to prisons) should be reserved for XX women. I think this population includes a lot of gays & lesbians, and even some trans people (eg, Buck Angel, Caitlyn Jenner).
Drew Westen had talked about many of these concepts in his 2007 book, The Political Brain. Democrats appear stubbornly committed to remain in a politically induced coma, living in a myopic bubble, and refusing to look critically inward.
The points Greg Schultz makes are prescient and accurate. We predictably snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.