Now Is The Time For All Good Men…

...who have never run (much less won) a national campaign to come and complain about the Democrats.

A few thoughts from the conversations I’ve been having and hearing over the last week:

The hard question isn’t the 2 points that would’ve decided the election. It’s how to build a Democratic Party that isn’t always 2 points away from losing to Donald Trump — or worse.

The Democratic Party is supposed to represent the working class. If it isn’t doing that, it is failing. That’s true even even if it can still win elections.

Democrats don’t need to build a new informational ecosystem. Dems need to show up in the informational ecosystems that already exist. They need to be natural and enthusiastic participants in these cultures. Harris should’ve gone on Rogan, but the damage here was done over years and wouldn’t have been reversed in one October appearance.

Building a media ecosystem isn’t something you do through nonprofit grants or rich donors (remember Air America?). Joe Rogan and Theo Von aren’t a Koch-funded psy-op. What makes these spaces matter is that they aren’t built on politics. (Democrats already win voters who pay close attention to politics.)

That there’s more affinity between Democrats and the Cheneys than Democrats and the Rogans and Theo Vons of the world says a lot.

Economic populism is not just about making your economic policy more and more redistributive. People care about fairness. They admire success. People have economic identities in addition to material needs.

Trump — and in a different way, Musk — understand the identity side of this. What they share isn’t that they are rich and successful, it’s that they made themselves into the public’s idea of what it means to be rich and successful.

Policy matters, but it has to be real to the candidate. Policy is a way candidates tell voters who they are. But people can tell what politicians really care about and what they’re mouthing because it polls well.

Governing matters. If housing is more affordable, and homelessness far less of a crisis, in Texas and Florida than California and New York, that’s a *huge* problem.

If people are leaving California and New York for Texas and Florida, that’s a *huge* problem.

Democrats need to take seriously how much scarcity harms them. Housing scarcity became a core Trump-Vance argument against immigrants. Too little clean energy becomes the argument for rapidly building out more fossil fuels. A successful liberalism needs to believe in *and deliver* abundance of the things people need most.

That Democrats aren’t trusted on the cost of living harmed them much more than any ad. If Dems want to “Sister Soulja” some part of their coalition, start with the parts that have made it so much more expensive to build and live where Democrats govern.

More than a “Sister Soulja” moment, Democrats need to rebuild a culture of saying no inside their own coalition.

Democrats don’t just have to move right or left. They need to better reflect the texture of worlds they’ve lost touch with and those worlds are complex and contradictory.



The most important question in politics isn’t whether a politician is well liked. It’s whether voters think a politician — or a political coalition — likes them.

— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) November 11, 2024

Here, let me annotate that: 

A few thoughts from the conversations I’ve been having and hearing over the last week:

 Not exactly big, strong men with tears in their eyes 😭, but at least Very Serious Thinkers, I’m sure.*

The hard question isn’t the 2 points that would’ve decided the election. It’s how to build a Democratic Party that isn’t always 2 points away from losing to Donald Trump — or worse. 

“Always” is a very heavy word for such an unsupported conclusion. This is the first time in three tries that Trump won the popular vote. The only question right now is: why? What changed that gave Trump that much support? Did Harris lose? Or did Trump win? That’s the question.

The Democratic Party is supposed to represent the working class. If it isn’t doing that, it is failing. That’s true even if it can still win elections. 

There was a time, Ez (granted, probably before you were born, but still within living memory) when Democrats represented the working class and the racist South. Things change. 

Democrats don’t need to build a new informational ecosystem. Dems need to show up in the informational ecosystems that already exist. They need to be natural and enthusiastic participants in these cultures. Harris should’ve gone on Rogan, but the damage here was done over years and wouldn’t have been reversed in one October appearance. 

“Democrats need to be more like Republicans.” Been there, heard that. It got us Bill Clinton, and a balanced budget. Al Gore still lost to Shrub.

Building a media ecosystem isn’t something you do through nonprofit grants or rich donors (remember Air America?). Joe Rogan and Theo Von aren’t a Koch-funded psy-op. What makes these spaces matter is that they aren’t built on politics. (Democrats already win voters who pay close attention to politics.) 

Building a media ecosystem isn’t a non-profit enterprise, period. But it may have escaped your notice that the ecosystem you’re referring to is built on outrage. People who are outraged by systemic poverty and racism tend not to draw large crowds who are outraged with them. It’s a cliche that “liberals” are upset by such things, anyway.

 That there’s more affinity between Democrats and the Cheneys than Democrats and the Rogans and Theo Vons of the world says a lot. 

“Politics makes strange bedfellows.” I’m old enough to remember that LBJ, not unlike Biden, was rejected because of his position on Vietnam (for Biden it’s Israel). What he did for the nation was so ignored it still is, yet he did more for the country in 5 years than FDR did in 9.

Economic populism is not just about making your economic policy more and more redistributive. People care about fairness. They admire success. People have economic identities in addition to material needs. 

I don’t know. When we actually redistribute wealth, it’s pretty damned popular. We did it in the ‘50’s, which is one reason the middle class boomed. My father went to college on the GI Bill after WWII and became a professional instead of a used car salesman, like his father. I went to college and didn’t pay more than $150.00 a semester in tuition. The same state school today costs more than that for one semester hour.

Check your privileges at the door, Ez.

Trump — and in a different way, Musk — understand the identity side of this. What they share isn’t that they are rich and successful, it’s that they made themselves into the public’s idea of what it means to be rich and successful. 

Like the robber barons? John D. hired a publicist who taught him to handout nickels to children, to prove he was a nice guy (he still wasn’t). Carnegie built libraries and told his wealthy brethren to turn their wealth to charity, not inheritance. (They didn’t listen.) Oddly, the rich weren’t all that admired during the Depression. Opinions change.

 Policy matters, but it has to be real to the candidate. Policy is a way candidates tell voters who they are. But people can tell what politicians really care about and what they’re mouthing because it polls well. 

Which doesn’t explain Trump’s success at all. You realize that, right?

 Governing matters. If housing is more affordable, and homelessness far less of a crisis, in Texas and Florida than California and New York, that’s a *huge* problem. 

California is the most populous state in the union, which has a lot to do with housing prices. Thanks to NYC, New York has some of the greatest population density in the country. Should we redistribute the people? Or convince the Republicans to work with Democrats in Congress to solve the problem, by making Democrats more like Republicans? And then, won’t they agree to ignore the problem because “free market”? 

Why do I think you haven’t thought this through?

If people are leaving California and New York for Texas and Florida, that’s a *huge* problem. 

Especially for Texas and Florida. Those CA transplants are driving up housing prices here. And because of that, they’re moving back to California. Try to keep up, will ya?

 Democrats need to take seriously how much scarcity harms them. Housing scarcity became a core Trump-Vance argument against immigrants. Too little clean energy becomes the argument for rapidly building out more fossil fuels. A successful liberalism needs to believe in *and deliver* abundance of the things people need most. 

By redistributing wealth? By building more government housing? How, exactly, are immigrants working entry level jobs buying $500,000 (median price in Houston) houses? (Much more of that cost is due to California than to South America.)

 That Democrats aren’t trusted on the cost of living harmed them much more than any ad. 

Trump lies. And that Democrats were not trusted probably had A LOT to do with Covid. Gone, but not really forgotten.

If Dems want to “Sister Soulja” some part of their coalition, start with the parts that have made it so much more expensive to build and live where Democrats govern. 

 More than a “Sister Soulja” moment, Democrats need to rebuild a culture of saying no inside their own coalition. 

More than anything, you need a new metaphor. That was over 30 years ago, and wasn’t that important then.

 Democrats don’t just have to move right or left. They need to better reflect the texture of worlds they’ve lost touch with and those worlds are complex and contradictory.  

“Complex and contradictory”? Do you imagine for one minute that’s the world Trump understands? That he cleverly and thoughtfully manipulates his supporters’ fears of complexity (i.e., change, like black women running for President? By the way, why doesn’t your analysis ever touch on the problem of race, especially since Trump and Vance ran such a blatantly racist campaign? Should the Democrats do something similar, so they can win?) is that what you’re saying? Because I want to see the evidence for it.

The most important question in politics isn’t whether a politician is well liked. It’s whether voters think a politician — or a political coalition — likes them.

Trump likes angry white men who like him. Is that why he won?

🤦‍♂️ 

*It occurs to me that Trump scares Very Serious Thinkers like Ezra, because it doesn’t matter what he says. For reasons no one can satisfactorily explain, people vote for him even though he babbles like an old man in his dotage, makes racist claims, and clearly hasn’t the first clue, still, about what government does, or what a President is for.

My guess is Trump’s success is due to the national situation, though I can’t put my metaphysical finger on the practical cause producing this absurd effect. Pundits like Ezra like things to be predictable, and Trump upsets the order of their universe. Easier to tell the Democrats what they’re doing wrong (without really saying anything) than to grapple with why Trump wins again after running one of the clumsiest campaigns possible, a campaign more unapologetically racist than George Wallace’s attempt in 1968 (sad to say, Wallace would probably do better today). Rather than address the situation they can’t do anything about, they address the losing party because they cannot praise the winner. Or understand why he won. Not without looking into the abyss, anyway.