Coming from the school of "words matter," I'd humbly suggest to Matt that he should retire his use of "moderate" and "moderation" as the platonic objective of candidates' demeanor and policy outlines.
Moderation is a process, and "being moderate" is a sort of a signal that you're willing to compromise to get stuff done, which, demeanor-wise, is what a lot of normies do prefer in candidates.
However, there are two issues with this:
1. Normies who are struggling or in pain are not in any mood to compromise. If you're working 2 jobs just to pay rent and an unexpected health bill puts you into debt, you're not looking for compromise -- you're looking for someone who is dead-set on making your situation better.
2. Talking about policy prescriptions as moderate I'd argue is a category error: policies aren't moderate -- it's the politician's reasonable temperament that is able to lead to reasonable outcomes is what a lot of normies who are not in pain will vote for.
For both of these reasons, I respectfully ask Matt to do a cognitive search for the idea of "moderate" and replace it with "attractive/reasonable/compelling" instead. Any of these adjectives are better. If I had to pick, I'd pick attractive, as attractive policies and attractive politicians are cognitively linked to the laws of attraction, which is one of the most powerful emotional connections to human decision-making that exists.
Let's level-up the language game so that we can level up the discourse.
On the ChatGPT, empirical evidence thing... cmon man, do better. Chatgpt can say whatever. I used your exact question, but for progressives, and then had ChatGPT pick one, and it was even: https://chatgpt.com/share/684b29ab-2878-8006-b9fc-ab114c047d7c
Well from what I can tell from who Sanders and AOC are endorsing for the NYC Major election, they clearly haven't learned their lesson about choosing people who will get the widest support to win an election, and people that have policies that they will be able to put in place. Just like how Republicans who voted for Trump still haven't felt enough pain yet, I feel the same way about the far left as well. They clearly haven't lost or been hurt enough yet to get off their moral grandstanding to care about winning elections. Maybe when we are having this conversation in a few months regarding Virginia or next year 6 months before the midterms their tune will change...
Bob Casey's loss has been underplayed because of Kamala's loss but it was genuinely terrible. He was for a long time considered a conservative Democrat and then just... dropped any right wing opinions he had - I guess in 2016? He just became another replacement level Dem senator and underperformed Kamala to a pretty bad opponent. I really want people to think about the trajectory of his career and whether it's worth not having an additional senator in PA.
I yearn for a world where my moderate, right-leaning preferences and Matt's moderate, left-leaning preferences are the big political fight of the day. I want to argue over top rate marginal tax rates, healthcare costs (efficiencies vs cuts), and tax incentives (loopholes).
Full agreement from here in Wyoming. Every year a third of the state wastes their vote on Democrats with no hope of winning. Why? Now that the Freedom Caucus has taken control of the Republican Party, there are plenty of Republicans open to alternatives. In some red states maybe the Democrats should join the Republican Party and change it from within?
With you 90% of the way — the shot at the Krugman take (really, ones like it) is bad.There are some fights about democracy and norms worth picking (politically) and that must be picked (morally).
The reason this *will not cost* us politically — to the extent that we view moral necessities strictly as political costs — is that most people who we need to flip aren't watching right now. This isn't the campaign message; it's a necessary fight for leaders to fight. Let's make tradeoffs when we actually have to.
Finally, I also think that the right, charismatic political leader could unite people's material interest with democracy (at election time, for low-info voters) — but that's circumstantial and depends on rhetorical talent. It's not a party-wide strategy.
Increasingly, I feel Matt’s theory of politics (to use a term people hate) is wrong. Yes, getting candidates that span Democrats and local voter values is important. But you also have to go where the energy is and that’s with immigration right now. Persuadable voters are more likely to have shallow support for anti-immigration raids. When their economic issues become more real for them, they’ll have a place to go. A powerful place full of people who aren’t making crazy left demands but basic human decency ones. That’s a protest they can join. And when they join, they’ll movement will be more inviting to persuadables. This is a play to the base strategy. It’s skating to where the puck is going.
I think Matt would argue that the LA stuff and the No Kings protests and whatnot may be lowering Trump's popularity but isn't increasing the popularity of the Democratic Party nor any Democrat candidates in the contested Senate states.
Admittedly it is still early days but the polls I've seen still put the Democratic Party at 32% approval rating, far below Trump.
He can argue that. I’ve stopped buying it. Matt’s argued against replaying the last election. Ignoring where the energy is and is going is the same problem. Ignoring millions in the street would be a huge own-goal
Democratic Party approval is up since 2023. It crashed between 2021 and 2023. What specific wimpy things did they do during that period? And how have they been stronger since 2023?
Here's a sobering fact. Let's assume the GOP wins every state in 2026 that was decided by a single-digit margin. How many seats do they end up with? SIXTY.
We need a Dem Party that is much more broadly appealing to culturally conservative voters to change this harsh reality. And it may already be too late.
2026 will be an anti-incumbent year with a Dem turn out advantage. If you consistently run Dan Osborne types, i.e., people who can talk to a townhall filled with rural hard hats and not come across as clueless, we can overperform and maybe not lose more or even gain a couple of seats. This is assuming the GOP cuts Medicaid and 10 year interest rates stay elevated as Trump blows a gigantic budget hole. Otherwise it's not looking good.
Yeah - the optimistic case is a more Blue Dog-ified party with Osborne style candidates. Then *maybe* we can compete by running a relentlessly disciplined campaign against Medicaid cuts (a rare issue where the public agrees with us and opposes Trump).
But the pessimistic case is that Trump's theatrical punishment of immigrants and protesters yields a post-9/11-like midterm environment for the GOP. Then it's welcome to permanent right-wing supermajority.
The median case is probably 56 GOP Senators after 2026 and the worst case is 60+.
I am not too worried about a post 9-11 type scenario based on what we have seen so far because it is clear that Trump is causing more chaos than needed even as people largely approve of his overall goals. Even if there is a significant terror attack, the country is more polarized now and Trump will be blamed for incompetence. Any rally to the flag effect will be less muted but still maybe enough to give the GOP a good midterm.
We'll see. I am kinda worried about a 2002-esque (or worse) midterm because given Dems' current approval ratings we can (and will, if nothing changes) get blown out in potentially lopsided fashion. Swing voters won't even *consider* voting Dem because they find us too culturally alienating. And that's frankly the fault of people like me - college-educated urban technical experts or as the median voter calls us, libtards.
Rough possible outcomes for 2026:
- Median case - R+1-5, expanded R House majority and ~56 R Senators (if the election were tomorrow I think this is what would happen)
- Worst case - some dramatic event (like last week's protest) lets Trump posture as a tough guy beating up unpopular targets. R+5-10, really big R House majority, and 60+ R Senators
- Best case - contingent upon a much more Blue Dog-ified Dem Party that succeeds in making the election about Medicaid. D+1-5, potential D House majority ... but probably still a wash in the Senate unless Dems drastically expand the map as this piece urges us to do.
Went to the march on Saturday just to add to crowd count - when it comes to protests, size does matter - and wasn't psyched about all the anti-I.C.E. signs. Here we Dems* are again looking like our most passionate cause is the right of illegal immigrants to stay this country (and get services and etc etc).
Loudly opposing arguably illegal deportations - deportations without due process, deportations of people here legally - is right and important. Highlighting really heartless deportations is potentially politically helpful, as is, asking the obvious: what are we going to do about the incontrovertible fact that some industries are totally dependent on immigrant labor? (an argument not against deportation but for making that labor legal) Instead our message is what? That it's wrong to deport people who are living here illegally? Is this like "defund"? ("When we say 'defund' we don't actually mean 'defund,' duh.")
To be clear, I don't like what I.C.E. is doing! Just that we really, really suck at messaging.
*Increasingly confused as to whether Dems and "the left" are the same thing. I'm a liberal Democrat but don't at all consider myself to be part of "the left" - or even a "progressive"
Solidarity rooted in identity is a double edged sword and poses fundamental dilemmas to liberals. That is why we suck at messaging.
Out-groups facing discrimination (lack of due process) from the majority group often rely on identity based solidarity to build power because often they are being discriminated against on the basis of said identity. Liberals are sympathetic to this. But the same identity based solidarity will sometimes lead some out-group members to make additional claims like flying the Mexican flag (which can be perceived as a claim against US sovereignty) or a right to immigrate without following the law which will annoy the majority and may be illiberal. This creates a problem for liberals and we are living through that.
I do not want you in the government because you are just another detached beltway neoliberal consultant. The things you say in this piece are so tone deaf, so out of touch with those on the ground, that you should instead compete for a celebrity anchor job at MSNBC. Here is a paragraph that says it all: "
But the final, related, reason that I’m not “sounding the alarm” more is the same reason I’m leery of anti-ICE protests and a lot of other activity happening on the left: I am profoundly obsessed with the Senate map."
Perhaps you should be obsessed with the fact that since its inception ICE has been a rogue agency trampling the rights of immigrants and refugees and is now being used as Trump's Gestapo. You're "leery" of anti-ICE protests? So is Trump. So are the Republicans. Like the majority of Democrats today, your obsession with electoral maps aligns you with the vast majority of Democrats who are now George W Bush Republicans.
And your readers don't even care, because as long as Democrats win elections they could care less if a million Palestinians are massacred with our bombs or every refugee is denied their right to asylum.
You are part of the "liberal" movement that prioritizes party over people and maps over morality. Your elitist punditry and political expediency are exposed by this as well:
"These contradictory messages, combined with a growing swirl of scandal around Clinton and her years of negative press coverage and the fact that she’d voted for the Iraq War, created a weird confluence of circumstances in which Sanders would arguably have been the stronger general election candidate."
The "weird confluence of circumstances" was not Clinton's negative press coverage (much of it warranted for a pathological liar) or even her Iraq War vote (Biden was stumping for invading Iraq years before George W Bush invented a reason and liberals love him), but that Americans understood that both parties were failing them miserably and wanted an alternative. Sanders was authentic in his fight for organized labor, a national health care system, a $15 minumum wage, lifting of the cap on Social Security taxes and so many other things that people actually want.
There is so much propaganda within this piece that I am going to use it in my next article covering the Democratic Party's reaction to these shootings and the cuffing of Alex Padilla.
You don't think there might need to be tradeoffs in order to keep people like Trump out of office? A lot of my son's friends voted for Jill Stein this time. To what end? Now they sit and watch what Trump's doing and just feel righteous. It's kind of nauseating to me.
I don’t get the Democrat’s hysteria about democracy. The night Obama won the election, I said, I guess Obama’s going to be President. The next morning I woke up and went to my job at the nuclear bomb factory. It never occurred to me to put on pink pussy hats or whine like the little b’ches I see at the No Kings rallies. I’m reminded of the saying about Republicans think D’s are stupid and D’s think we’re evil.
Please update me on the time Obama took thinly veiled bribes on his $BARRYO crypto coin or attacked the rule of law by deporting white people he didn’t like to El Salvador
But, see, we don't think that demanding the President not exceed his Constitutional authority, that he respect due process and the rule of law, that he not use his position as President to enrich himself, and that he not turn the civil service and the military into partisan organs of the President is "whining."
This was why it was such a mistake not to replace Sotomayor. It could be a decade, or even longer, before Democrats control both the Senate and presidency.
Suppose the next Presidential election were in 2026. Also suppose the almost un-supposable: the Democratic candidate is well known, supports mostly or almost completely the same policies as Trump, but is known by "everyone" (almost all the voters) to very strongly favor a strong democracy, an Executive seen by just about everyone as not going beyond what the Constitution says, and a strong Legislature.
Coming from the school of "words matter," I'd humbly suggest to Matt that he should retire his use of "moderate" and "moderation" as the platonic objective of candidates' demeanor and policy outlines.
Moderation is a process, and "being moderate" is a sort of a signal that you're willing to compromise to get stuff done, which, demeanor-wise, is what a lot of normies do prefer in candidates.
However, there are two issues with this:
1. Normies who are struggling or in pain are not in any mood to compromise. If you're working 2 jobs just to pay rent and an unexpected health bill puts you into debt, you're not looking for compromise -- you're looking for someone who is dead-set on making your situation better.
2. Talking about policy prescriptions as moderate I'd argue is a category error: policies aren't moderate -- it's the politician's reasonable temperament that is able to lead to reasonable outcomes is what a lot of normies who are not in pain will vote for.
For both of these reasons, I respectfully ask Matt to do a cognitive search for the idea of "moderate" and replace it with "attractive/reasonable/compelling" instead. Any of these adjectives are better. If I had to pick, I'd pick attractive, as attractive policies and attractive politicians are cognitively linked to the laws of attraction, which is one of the most powerful emotional connections to human decision-making that exists.
Let's level-up the language game so that we can level up the discourse.
The problem with being a deficit hawk is that then you have to promise to tax someone.
On the ChatGPT, empirical evidence thing... cmon man, do better. Chatgpt can say whatever. I used your exact question, but for progressives, and then had ChatGPT pick one, and it was even: https://chatgpt.com/share/684b29ab-2878-8006-b9fc-ab114c047d7c
Well from what I can tell from who Sanders and AOC are endorsing for the NYC Major election, they clearly haven't learned their lesson about choosing people who will get the widest support to win an election, and people that have policies that they will be able to put in place. Just like how Republicans who voted for Trump still haven't felt enough pain yet, I feel the same way about the far left as well. They clearly haven't lost or been hurt enough yet to get off their moral grandstanding to care about winning elections. Maybe when we are having this conversation in a few months regarding Virginia or next year 6 months before the midterms their tune will change...
Bob Casey's loss has been underplayed because of Kamala's loss but it was genuinely terrible. He was for a long time considered a conservative Democrat and then just... dropped any right wing opinions he had - I guess in 2016? He just became another replacement level Dem senator and underperformed Kamala to a pretty bad opponent. I really want people to think about the trajectory of his career and whether it's worth not having an additional senator in PA.
I yearn for a world where my moderate, right-leaning preferences and Matt's moderate, left-leaning preferences are the big political fight of the day. I want to argue over top rate marginal tax rates, healthcare costs (efficiencies vs cuts), and tax incentives (loopholes).
Full agreement from here in Wyoming. Every year a third of the state wastes their vote on Democrats with no hope of winning. Why? Now that the Freedom Caucus has taken control of the Republican Party, there are plenty of Republicans open to alternatives. In some red states maybe the Democrats should join the Republican Party and change it from within?
With you 90% of the way — the shot at the Krugman take (really, ones like it) is bad.There are some fights about democracy and norms worth picking (politically) and that must be picked (morally).
The reason this *will not cost* us politically — to the extent that we view moral necessities strictly as political costs — is that most people who we need to flip aren't watching right now. This isn't the campaign message; it's a necessary fight for leaders to fight. Let's make tradeoffs when we actually have to.
Main generalizable idea is that the lesson of Kamala at the Elipse is not *never* talk about democracy.
It's *don't pitch democracy as the main reason low-info voters should vote for you at election time.*
Finally, I also think that the right, charismatic political leader could unite people's material interest with democracy (at election time, for low-info voters) — but that's circumstantial and depends on rhetorical talent. It's not a party-wide strategy.
Increasingly, I feel Matt’s theory of politics (to use a term people hate) is wrong. Yes, getting candidates that span Democrats and local voter values is important. But you also have to go where the energy is and that’s with immigration right now. Persuadable voters are more likely to have shallow support for anti-immigration raids. When their economic issues become more real for them, they’ll have a place to go. A powerful place full of people who aren’t making crazy left demands but basic human decency ones. That’s a protest they can join. And when they join, they’ll movement will be more inviting to persuadables. This is a play to the base strategy. It’s skating to where the puck is going.
I think Matt would argue that the LA stuff and the No Kings protests and whatnot may be lowering Trump's popularity but isn't increasing the popularity of the Democratic Party nor any Democrat candidates in the contested Senate states.
Admittedly it is still early days but the polls I've seen still put the Democratic Party at 32% approval rating, far below Trump.
He can argue that. I’ve stopped buying it. Matt’s argued against replaying the last election. Ignoring where the energy is and is going is the same problem. Ignoring millions in the street would be a huge own-goal
A decent chunk of that disapproval is currently form Democrat's who feel like the party are wimps not fighting for them.
Democratic Party approval is up since 2023. It crashed between 2021 and 2023. What specific wimpy things did they do during that period? And how have they been stronger since 2023?
Excellent and extremely important piece!
Here's a sobering fact. Let's assume the GOP wins every state in 2026 that was decided by a single-digit margin. How many seats do they end up with? SIXTY.
We need a Dem Party that is much more broadly appealing to culturally conservative voters to change this harsh reality. And it may already be too late.
2026 will be an anti-incumbent year with a Dem turn out advantage. If you consistently run Dan Osborne types, i.e., people who can talk to a townhall filled with rural hard hats and not come across as clueless, we can overperform and maybe not lose more or even gain a couple of seats. This is assuming the GOP cuts Medicaid and 10 year interest rates stay elevated as Trump blows a gigantic budget hole. Otherwise it's not looking good.
Yeah - the optimistic case is a more Blue Dog-ified party with Osborne style candidates. Then *maybe* we can compete by running a relentlessly disciplined campaign against Medicaid cuts (a rare issue where the public agrees with us and opposes Trump).
But the pessimistic case is that Trump's theatrical punishment of immigrants and protesters yields a post-9/11-like midterm environment for the GOP. Then it's welcome to permanent right-wing supermajority.
The median case is probably 56 GOP Senators after 2026 and the worst case is 60+.
I am not too worried about a post 9-11 type scenario based on what we have seen so far because it is clear that Trump is causing more chaos than needed even as people largely approve of his overall goals. Even if there is a significant terror attack, the country is more polarized now and Trump will be blamed for incompetence. Any rally to the flag effect will be less muted but still maybe enough to give the GOP a good midterm.
We'll see. I am kinda worried about a 2002-esque (or worse) midterm because given Dems' current approval ratings we can (and will, if nothing changes) get blown out in potentially lopsided fashion. Swing voters won't even *consider* voting Dem because they find us too culturally alienating. And that's frankly the fault of people like me - college-educated urban technical experts or as the median voter calls us, libtards.
Rough possible outcomes for 2026:
- Median case - R+1-5, expanded R House majority and ~56 R Senators (if the election were tomorrow I think this is what would happen)
- Worst case - some dramatic event (like last week's protest) lets Trump posture as a tough guy beating up unpopular targets. R+5-10, really big R House majority, and 60+ R Senators
- Best case - contingent upon a much more Blue Dog-ified Dem Party that succeeds in making the election about Medicaid. D+1-5, potential D House majority ... but probably still a wash in the Senate unless Dems drastically expand the map as this piece urges us to do.
I haven't even read the article yet but how sad is it that it has to be written. Like come on.
Thanks for this. I sent it to my lefty friends.
Went to the march on Saturday just to add to crowd count - when it comes to protests, size does matter - and wasn't psyched about all the anti-I.C.E. signs. Here we Dems* are again looking like our most passionate cause is the right of illegal immigrants to stay this country (and get services and etc etc).
Loudly opposing arguably illegal deportations - deportations without due process, deportations of people here legally - is right and important. Highlighting really heartless deportations is potentially politically helpful, as is, asking the obvious: what are we going to do about the incontrovertible fact that some industries are totally dependent on immigrant labor? (an argument not against deportation but for making that labor legal) Instead our message is what? That it's wrong to deport people who are living here illegally? Is this like "defund"? ("When we say 'defund' we don't actually mean 'defund,' duh.")
To be clear, I don't like what I.C.E. is doing! Just that we really, really suck at messaging.
*Increasingly confused as to whether Dems and "the left" are the same thing. I'm a liberal Democrat but don't at all consider myself to be part of "the left" - or even a "progressive"
Solidarity rooted in identity is a double edged sword and poses fundamental dilemmas to liberals. That is why we suck at messaging.
Out-groups facing discrimination (lack of due process) from the majority group often rely on identity based solidarity to build power because often they are being discriminated against on the basis of said identity. Liberals are sympathetic to this. But the same identity based solidarity will sometimes lead some out-group members to make additional claims like flying the Mexican flag (which can be perceived as a claim against US sovereignty) or a right to immigrate without following the law which will annoy the majority and may be illiberal. This creates a problem for liberals and we are living through that.
I do not want you in the government because you are just another detached beltway neoliberal consultant. The things you say in this piece are so tone deaf, so out of touch with those on the ground, that you should instead compete for a celebrity anchor job at MSNBC. Here is a paragraph that says it all: "
But the final, related, reason that I’m not “sounding the alarm” more is the same reason I’m leery of anti-ICE protests and a lot of other activity happening on the left: I am profoundly obsessed with the Senate map."
Perhaps you should be obsessed with the fact that since its inception ICE has been a rogue agency trampling the rights of immigrants and refugees and is now being used as Trump's Gestapo. You're "leery" of anti-ICE protests? So is Trump. So are the Republicans. Like the majority of Democrats today, your obsession with electoral maps aligns you with the vast majority of Democrats who are now George W Bush Republicans.
And your readers don't even care, because as long as Democrats win elections they could care less if a million Palestinians are massacred with our bombs or every refugee is denied their right to asylum.
You are part of the "liberal" movement that prioritizes party over people and maps over morality. Your elitist punditry and political expediency are exposed by this as well:
"These contradictory messages, combined with a growing swirl of scandal around Clinton and her years of negative press coverage and the fact that she’d voted for the Iraq War, created a weird confluence of circumstances in which Sanders would arguably have been the stronger general election candidate."
The "weird confluence of circumstances" was not Clinton's negative press coverage (much of it warranted for a pathological liar) or even her Iraq War vote (Biden was stumping for invading Iraq years before George W Bush invented a reason and liberals love him), but that Americans understood that both parties were failing them miserably and wanted an alternative. Sanders was authentic in his fight for organized labor, a national health care system, a $15 minumum wage, lifting of the cap on Social Security taxes and so many other things that people actually want.
There is so much propaganda within this piece that I am going to use it in my next article covering the Democratic Party's reaction to these shootings and the cuffing of Alex Padilla.
The sickness of the pundit class that you evidence here is what enabled Trump to rise to power, You have no clue what the people really need or want nor evidently do you care. https://barryjkaufmando.substack.com/p/the-empire-strikes-backat-itself
You don't think there might need to be tradeoffs in order to keep people like Trump out of office? A lot of my son's friends voted for Jill Stein this time. To what end? Now they sit and watch what Trump's doing and just feel righteous. It's kind of nauseating to me.
I don’t get the Democrat’s hysteria about democracy. The night Obama won the election, I said, I guess Obama’s going to be President. The next morning I woke up and went to my job at the nuclear bomb factory. It never occurred to me to put on pink pussy hats or whine like the little b’ches I see at the No Kings rallies. I’m reminded of the saying about Republicans think D’s are stupid and D’s think we’re evil.
Please update me on the time Obama took thinly veiled bribes on his $BARRYO crypto coin or attacked the rule of law by deporting white people he didn’t like to El Salvador
But, see, we don't think that demanding the President not exceed his Constitutional authority, that he respect due process and the rule of law, that he not use his position as President to enrich himself, and that he not turn the civil service and the military into partisan organs of the President is "whining."
This was why it was such a mistake not to replace Sotomayor. It could be a decade, or even longer, before Democrats control both the Senate and presidency.
Suppose the next Presidential election were in 2026. Also suppose the almost un-supposable: the Democratic candidate is well known, supports mostly or almost completely the same policies as Trump, but is known by "everyone" (almost all the voters) to very strongly favor a strong democracy, an Executive seen by just about everyone as not going beyond what the Constitution says, and a strong Legislature.
Would that candidate beat Trump?