The failure to communicate
A new study shows Democrats spent more but reached fewer people.
In the wake of the 2024 election, Democrats are in the midst of a period of self-reflection, trying to figure out what went wrong. The book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson about Joe Biden’s infirmities and the administration’s attempt to keep them under wraps is rehashing old news and giving us new sordid details. Catalist, the Democratic data firm, presented a report that gave a look at how key groups of the electorate shifted toward Republicans. More reports are coming and the party may go through a period of reckoning.
One report in particular caught my attention. A group called Higher Ground Labs issued a report on the party’s tech infrastructure. One section noted that Democrats failed to match Republicans’ organic reach, specifically in digital media.
“Democrats substantially outspent Republicans in digital advertising, and 2024 marked the first cycle in which influencer marketing became a widespread and institutionally adopted practice. Yet, conservative media achieved significantly greater organic reach across platforms—revealing a critical gap in resource allocation and strategic prioritization within our media approach.”
Since the early 2000s, Democrats have built a communication infrastructure that is centrally controlled and based on paid advertising. Conservatives have built a broad, decentralized infrastructure across mediums that reaches communities all day, every day whether an election is pending or not.
Conservatives increasingly control the means of communication. They’ve bought radio stations, newspapers, televisions stations, and digital properties. These properties have become the filter through which information reaches communities.
Conservatives seem to have instinctively understood the way communication was shifting. The late conservative media personality Andrew Breitbart famously declared, “Politics is downstream of culture.” Conservatives moved into cultural spaces of the digital universe while progressives largely stayed in political ones.
Joe Rogan was a former comedian and mixed martial arts commentator who built a huge following based on his interviews and observations, not his politics. Dave Portnoy started Barstool Sports as an irreverent media property that thumbed its nose at polite society. Their influence is based on entertainment value, not their political leanings, but their political opinions carry weight with their audiences.
And it’s not just national shows. Conservatives have been building infrastructure for decades. In North Carolina, AM radio stations like WPTF in Raleigh and WBT in Charlotte are dominated by conservative commentators whose perspectives both reflect and influence cultural perceptions. Programming is not just political commentary.
North State Media, which is owned by a group of conservative leaders and donors, has been buying up small-town newspapers around the state for years. Other conservative-leaning media outfits own more newspapers in the state. They aren’t just dominating editorial pages; they are controlling how news is covered.
Sinclair Broadcasting Group owns television stations in Asheville, the Triangle, the Triad, and eastern North Carolina. They influence what is covered and how its covered. During the first Trump administration, Sinclair required its local outlets to run commentary by Trump advisors.
Progressives have failed to understand the decentralization of communication and the interactive nature of the digital universe. They are still predominantly talking at people instead of to or with them. They have built a political infrastructure based on force-feeding target audiences messages through paid advertising. They’ve established non-profit entities designed to engage the base or run press operations to attract the attention of traditional media outlets. Unfortunately, a lot of those outlets are no longer trusted by the people progressives need to reach.
I started PoliticsNC, in part, in response to what I felt was a failure to effectively communicate. Over the years, I’ve put together several proposals for what I called a communications hub. The main premise of the proposals never changed: Progressives need to be engaging in more places and on more platforms with more voices.
While the proposals got a lot of interest, none received funding. Higher Ground’s report on the the state of the progressive digital media environment makes those proposals feel relevant again. The problems that existed in 2013 are even more apparent today. Maybe it’s time to dust them off and trot them out again.
Progressives need to retool and overhaul their communications infrastructure to bring it up to date. Over the past decade, they lost the ability to communicate with whole swaths of the country, especially in rural communities. Even if their ideas might resonate with people in those areas, progressives are never reaching them. Meanwhile, conservatives have figured out how to reach and influence groups that Democrats consider their base—young people, African Americans, Hispanics.
There’s a lot of commentary now about progressives finding their own Joe Rogan. That’s close, but not quite right. They won’t change the dynamics with one or two trusted influencers. They need to establish multiple networks of influencers talking about relevant topics, not just politics. Many of those influencers should be local with hundreds or thousands of listeners instead of millions.
Podcasters are emerging as modern daily newspapers. They cover a variety of topics, sports, culture, current events, etc. What’s relevant is how they talk about these topics, not just what they discuss. Give people a lens through which to view the topics at hand. Discuss the subjects people want to hear and learn about. Cover local sports, North Carolina history, food, the arts, music, and, yes, local politics.
The digital space is still wide open and still evolving. The communication environment is dynamic, not static. While podcasts dominate the media environment right now, they may be passé in a few years. New and emerging technology might change the way we get information again.
The progressive political leaders and organizations need to re-engage and better understand how the modern media landscape influences people. I suspect it will take new voices from people willing to challenge the old gatekeepers. The future is less about controlling the narrative through talking points than trying to shape it through offering perspectives that resonate.
I’ve seen several pundits and consultants on the left fret about “messaging” and the need for “a leftist Joe Rogan” and doing endless handwringing about audience numbers of right-wing versus left-wing politically-oriented talk influencers.
My background is in studying media history and, frankly, I think that’s hogwash that is just a knee-jerk reaction to what’s appearing on the surface.
If you look back over the past few decades, politically oriented talk shows have never found an audience with the left. Anyone remember Air America? It was a well-funded and produced left-oriented radio talk network that was supposed to be the answer to Rush Limbaugh and the proliferation of extremist right-wing talk on the airwaves. It just died after five or six years because it just couldn’t get listeners.
There are liberal talkers that can get an audience, like Rachel Maddow, but I think there’s a fundamental difference, probably based on psychology and philosophy, that separates the media consumption habits of self-identified liberals and conservatives.
Right-wing influencers are really based around a very specific world-view based on victim-hood and affinity with people that are like themselves. It’s about feeling good about being white, or male, or “traditional values”, or Christianity or a conspiracy theorist. It’s a kind of “secret handshake” club where you can get validation for being a bigot or a racist or extremist and seeing everyone else as an enemy. Right-wing talk, whether it’s Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, or evangelical types is the center point for reinforcing your world view.
And the media the right-wing shows interest in branches out from that. If you’re a “bro” and get into Rogan, you’ll probably watch MMA and other sports and be interested in areas like sports-betting. If you’re evangelical, you’re going to be interested in religious shows or those faith-based movies that flood cineplexes from outfits like Angel Studios.
Liberals and progressives are much more diffuse as an audience, reflecting a wider range of interests and curiosity about the world. If you’re a woman, or LGBTQ, or Black, you’ll be attracted to talk shows about your affinity group. But, outside of that, you’re going to get your news and entertainment from a wider range of sources - everything from Marvel movies to British “cozy” mysteries to rap or hip hop and pop music or horror movies or popular rom-coms or science shows.
Generally, I think you could demonstrate, with some research, that conservatives are focused on the self and see the outside world as a threat and that liberals see themselves as part of a community and world and have empathy and curiosity about others.
The right wants to exist in a long-gone world that doesn’t exist anymore (or never existed at all) and see that world in very limited ways (themselves, their immediate family, their church, etc). Liberals and progressives want to actively shape the future and world they live in and make it better for themselves, their kids, their neighbors, and the country or world.
There can never be a “Joe Rogan of the left” - the left is too diverse and interested in the outside world for something like that to work. And I don’t think leftists showing up on right-wing talk will go anywhere - it’s just an opportunity to give right-wing audiences an “other” to get angry about.
Just advertising to the left isn’t going to work either - people on the left are generally more educated and skeptical about the media and advertising. They look at multiple sources for news and opinion and can spot “fake” or pandering a mile away.
What would work, in my opinion, is some hard work to reach out to the many influencers that are already out there producing non-political content for left-leaning audiences and to look at ways to be a more natural part of the conversations that are going on.
That also means listening to affinity groups and progressives, looking at their interests and needs, and not just pumping out talking points from “on high”.
Unfortunately, the Democrats are still trapped in the Bill Clinton era, looking at mass media advertising and “messaging” as the be-all and end-all of motivating voters. We haven’t lived in that world for thirty years.
The right-wing engaged with and listened to their grassroots and have responded by catering to their every whim and giving them a feedback loop of what they want to hear.
The left needs to look at engagement as an ongoing process that makes the grassroots feel a part of the process.
To me, the engagement, diversity, and involvement of a wide range of liberals during the Democratic National Convention was a starting point for the kind of “many voices”/positive future that can work to bring liberals and progressives together and working together towards change.
Even though Trump’s victory was extremely narrow, the lessons of the Harris campaign and the DNC have been swept aside by pundits and consultants in favor of attitudes and approaches of the past that just have no relevance anymore. And that's a huge mistake.
Success is within reach, but it depends on electing a leader who tackles the nation's challenges with intelligence and foresight. The term "woke" has been co-opted as a political tool, diverting attention from the real issue—effective governance. Under Biden, the economy flourished, the stock market remained strong, and unemployment among active job seekers was a mere 2.1%. By contrast, under Trump’s leadership, that rate has surged to 4.2%, leaving many frustrated with his decisions and their consequences.
Countless Americans have seen their 401(k)s diminish, international relations are strained, and most economists warn of an impending major recession this summer—triggered by Trump's reckless tariff policies. Any attempt to pin these economic struggles on Biden is a distortion of reality, propagated by those unwilling to face the facts. As Proverbs 12:15 states, "The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice."
James Carville’s famous declaration, "It's the economy, stupid," still holds true today. Market volatility and plummeting retirement accounts reveal dwindling confidence in Trump’s economic leadership. The recent downgrade of the U.S. credit rating from Aaa to Aa1 underscores concerns over mounting national debt and financial instability. Trump's proposal to add $2 trillion to the debt—primarily benefiting billionaires through tax breaks—threatens to further strain the country’s economic foundation.
Beyond fiscal concerns, significant questions linger over his handling of classified information, cryptocurrency dealings, and dubious real estate transactions in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers remain divided over budget negotiations, highlighting deep fractures within the party. Those committed to constitutional values must unite behind a leader capable of steering the nation through these challenges. This election isn’t about preference, it’s about necessity.