19 Comments
User's avatar
R. Riddle's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Doug's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
James Bengel's avatar

Couldn't agree more, but the DNC, and its media arm(s) will never get it. They've failed to get it for a decade (or more) and don't seem especially inclined to overcome that inertia. The thing that made Trump successful wasn't smarts, or even brass. It was his ability to make people believe he saw them, cared about them, even when all evidence points to the contrary. I recently met a guy in the waiting room of the lab at Basnight Cancer Hospital at UNC. He was waiting for his wife, I think, but there he sat, a veteran missing a foot in a wheelchair, and telling me that he believed in everything Trump was doing, even though at that moment he was (by proxy) dismantling every federal agency this guy probably depends on for his healthcare, and leave in what was still standing a smoking ruin. But he believed that it had to be done; that the government needed tearing down and rebuilding. And while I might agree with that in principle, what he missed was the part where Fat Donny Two-Times is all about the tearing it down part, not so much about rebuilding it.

This started back in the 90s, possibly even earlier. The Reagan "Revolution", followed by whatever you name you want to hang on the Clinton Administration (because there's no shortage of culprits in this crime saga) killed the businesses that our rural Democrats depended on of their living. The family farm was plowed under by Big Ag, the furniture factories were displaced by IKEA, and Walmart would move into town drive all the way local merchants under, then skip town when the money ran out. (The last part is still ongoing. There's a Walmart right inside the Chatham County line on 15-501 because (a) the taxes are substantially lower in Chatham County, and (b) Orange cCounty wouldn't permit the construction project.) But 100 years of majorities in both houses of the General Assembly, and a virtual monopoly on the Council of State made the NCDP lazy, and to a degree entitled. But the pitchfork were already coming out, and in 2010 the party got an object lesson in what happens when you ignore the hand that feeds you. And by the 2014 midterms, the national party had lost the plot. That's also when they lost me to Unaffiliated status.

And maybe it's the Independents who turn the tide. They don't have the baggage of a party affiliation, so they can just speak to the issues without prejudgement. And the truth has a liberal bias, because "movement conservatism" is a lie, and MAGA is a high amplitude, in-your-face lie.

Expand full comment
Elizabeth Blackmore's avatar

Ahhh. But you seem to have forgotten the radio program that came out in response to George Busch's elected in 2000 by the SCOTUS. Remember Air America? It launched many a Progressives career? Pissed off Liberals can come together and make a difference. Maybe the Meidas Podcast is the latest version. Let's hope so.

Expand full comment
Wolfy Jack's avatar

There may be a useful prescription here for election management, but in the grand scheme of helping the party rise from the current national 38% approval rating of the Democratic party, (historically low and 5 point below the less worse GOP), what the party really needs is self reflection and course correction, not just some technical fix.

I remember one piece Thomas did after the election that dealt with that, an honest assessment of how we failed to attract a majority of voters but then virtually every other article since, as I also see on most every Democratic forum, is just endless calling out the enemy.

It is not out of any fondness for the GOP that I urge my party to stop from the continuous rage against the right to look in the mirror, but the necessity of winning, for which self examination and correction is infinitely more valuable than self righteousness.

There are two pieces I urge you to consider. First is the new book Original Sin which clearly outlines how to a certain extent the party was duped into ignoring Biden's infirmities with the result that it was too late to hold a primary. Whatever malfeasance was committed by Biden's staff, the more troubling thing to me was the groupthink that infests the party, and I am not immune, that even after the debate it took enormous effort to get Biden to leave. Bernie Sanders had a NYT op ed two days before calling those who wanted him out a circular firing squad. In the same way that Trump's devotees had been ignoring his dishonesty for years, people refused to both see Biden's imminent loss (no incumbent has recovered from 40% approvals in the last year being Ford, Carter, Bush Sr, and Trump) and his obvious cognitive decline visible at the debate, where he was so incoherent that it made Trump sound like the normal candidate. So I am more worried about the groupthink that infects the party than offering up his staff as a sacrificial lambs.

Where the GOP has become the anarchy party, we have morphed to the "go along" party. I argued at length after the debate with my Dem national rep who was a Biden delegate and I felt like I was treated like an apostate and that friendly criticism was treated as disloyalty. I was early for Dean Phillips who was summarily dismissed by everybody and was the only Democrat willing to point out the emperor sans clothes other than the wingnuts running like RFK Jr.. And the party moving up the SC primary was clearly an effort to prevent a challenge as opposed to NH which is where mavericks are born.

The second part is that Ezra Klein's interview with David Shor in the NYT "Democrats Need to Face Why Trump Won" should be required reading for all Democrats. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-david-shor.html ) It points out that voters prefer the GOP on all the issues that they rate as the most important. Not that Dems are not favored eg on environment, education, healthcare, abortion, but that on crime, immigration, taxes, inflation they favored the GOP and those were all rated as more important. To ignore that and continue with the same border policy and not counter the perception that we favor social justice more than public safety is a way of staying minority. And just arguing that well Biden never supported 'defund the police' is not enough. We need to explicitly counter the people like Alvin Bragg and Chesa Boudin that earn the public perception that Dems are soft on crime and also won't secure the border (which we did in June 2024 recognizing the politics was killing us but never admitting that the prior lax enforcement was a reason why the Rs have their largest margin of 20% on border security).

So in the grand scheme of things, yes, we could improve our logistics, but with likely millions spent on campaign research it isn't like there is some easy way that nobody has considered. The real issue is to understand those policies that we are out of sync with the American public on and self correct. I almost think that Dems can only win, at least in swing districts and states, by opposing some of the stances of the national party, or at least some of the stances of the more extreme Democrats like ignoring the border, defunding the police, transgender women in sports. If you want to look at our weakness, look at Trump's campaign. If we don't play defense he will land those punches again and again.

Expand full comment
Beverly Falls's avatar

Appreciate this commentary.

Certainly the far right outlets, talk radio, Fox "Entertainment" (it's NOT News), and QAnon propaganda have shaped the narrative for decades. They focus on inflaming emotions rather than thoughtful analysis (fear and anger being the most reactive).

The GOP and Heritage Foundation have coordinated talking points, planting "catch phrases," "earworms," and "sound bites."

People associate negative impressions even when they don't understand and cannot define the terms themselves. "Liberal," "woke," "DEI," "illegal alien" churn the algorithms.

Never mind the incessant lies from the malignant narcissist's Tweets, "Truth Social" posts, "rallies," Oval Office ambushes, and pressers.

Now, the major news outlets are owned, controlled and swayed by billionaires such as Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc. In addition, vexatious attacks and threats to overturn Sullivan vs New York are aggressively trying to silence all opposition.

The TRUTH is being attacked by ongoing lies, rewriting of history.

Question I have for reaching pro-democracy voters: can we assess the rise in relational organizing? Examples include groups such as Red, Wine & Blue, and apps used to GOTV such as Neighbor2Neighbor.

And perhaps starting each message delivered to the population with the Constitutional clause with which to appropriately frame the coverage and explanation?

Instead of reporting on the Executive Orders Donald Trump has signed (most of which were Project 2025 action plans awaiting his Sharpie crayon or any other conservative individual in the seat), why are we not repeating they are predominantly illegal and un-Constitutional?

Expand full comment
Wolfy Jack's avatar

Every time Dems or GOP lose, that side blames the media. It is a useless argument because the media is not going to change and Clinton, Obama, and Biden 2020 also had that media and figured out how to win.

I hear the same from the right every time they lose. It is just a rationalization and detracts from the real necessity of understanding why people dislike your brand, and currently the Dems at 38% approvals are at their lowest historical level which is the reason a not very popular grifter just won the presidency. People don't like Trump beyond his cult, but enough like Democrats less that he won.

What is so hard to understand about "illegal alien". It is a non citizen who enters the country illegally ie without a visa or refugee status. Most voters understand this and the Democratic position to pretend there is no such thing, is one of the reasons that in polls asking voters which party they prefer on various issues, border security is the issue where the GOP has the largest margin of 20%.

Expand full comment
Eric Smith's avatar

Thomas overlooks one important strategy, Democratic spokespeople need to enter the conservative media space. It seems to be true that politics follow culture, so folks turn to the rightwing media because it tends to confirm their world view. That does not mean that they will not listen to an alternative paradigm if it is convincingly presented. Pete Buttigieg has mastered the art of going on Fox where he more than holds his ground. Gavin Newsom the same. Kamala Harris should have done more hostile interviews in conservative spaces than she did, but she only had 100 days to get comfortable with her talking points while she also found it difficult to answer questions about the positions that she advocated during the 2020 Democratic primary. I can't blame Harris for being cautious about her media exposure. When she was fully prepared, she was amazing as with her one debate with Trump.

We could set up more progressive media platforms as Thomas suggests but who would sign on to them? The folks who already have liberal biases. We have three progressive late night hosts, Colbert, Fallon, Kimmel. Not to mention Seth Meyers and the Daily Show. Yet, who watches them? Likely not the people who are tuned into Fox. Perhaps if more of our guys went on conservative media, they could encourage those audiences to check out the kinds of liberal information sources that Thomas propounds.

Expand full comment
Wolfy Jack's avatar

Good thoughts. I agree Newsome is sensing Democratic weakness and is not only hosting conservatives, which is great. but discarding some of the unpopular Dem orthodoxies like transgender women in sports and getting rid of homeless encampments.

I do think it is more policy, or the perception of policy that hurts us the most. You can't out media the GOP if your policies are disliked by most Americans as is the Dem views on border security, crime, taxes, hormone blockers for teens.

I think when Harris went on FOX, very late in the game after being down in the polls, she was unable to distance herself from the unpopular Biden. I find emblematic of her problems the fact that when the FOX host asked her if she would have done anything different, her answer was "I Can't think of anything".

imo that inability to separate yourself from the more unpopular aspects of the party is our weakness, and Buttigieg I like for looking at that, as did Obama.

That the biggest edge the GOP has on any issue of 20% is border security, which is also rated as more important to voters than almost all the issues that they prefer Dems on (environment, education, abortion) would have been an opportunity for Harris to do a mea culpa on the record number of asylum claimants admitted up until June 2024 when Biden initiated stay in Mexico for claimants. It made no sense to try to defend that earlier position since we abandoned it, yet she could find nothing to distance herself from the Biden administration whose approvals were in the guaranteed loss level.

Expand full comment
Eric Smith's avatar

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I believe that Kamala's "I can't think of anything" faux pas occurred on The View (ABC) and not on Fox. Her most effective response to such questions was: I am clearly NOT Joe Biden, which served to separate herself from the incumbent without falling into the trap of criticizing the Biden admin of which she was a part. Harris did that strong interview (along with Tim Walz) with Bret Baier on Fox. Harris had an effective talking on the border when she highlighted the tough bipartisan border bill that Biden was eager to sign but that Trump killed. Perhaps she could have noted that Obama deported more undocumented folks than Trump. As we were discussing, the problem is that the Democratic arguments are not presented objectively in conservative media.

MAGA Republicans demagogue Democrats on stuff like crime and trans issues. They tried to attach the Defund the Police movement to Biden in 2020. They claimed that Dems are tolerant of ghetto rioting. And they try to associate Dems with the most extreme positions on trans rights. Our positions are more nuanced. I am LGBT myself, and I would be OK if the Dems back off on the trans stuff to some degree, such as being absolutist on trans women participating in competitive athletics. Democratic positions get overly simplified and misrepresented in conservative media. Therein lies the problem, which is why are best people should be brave and go on Fox and Joe Rogan.

Expand full comment
Wolfy Jack's avatar

Yes, The View, but it shows how she was unable to make distance from Biden whose approvals had sunk below 40%, non winnable by all historic approvals from Truman on.

I dont think she had an effective argument with the Lankford bill on the Border and regardless if you think it was a good argument the public didn't and gave the GOP the largest edge of any issue on border security with a 20% margin. It was a comeback but it did not acknowledge the record number of entrants prior to June 2024 when Biden closed the border (and hard to rationalize with Lankford when he could do that without the bill). She was in charge of the border and the huge surge in crossings was very unpopular that she should have taken a mea culpa.

If the argument was that Obama deported more then it only highlights that Biden departed from that. And blaming media which the losing side always does is like blaming the sunrise. Neither liberal or conservative media will give a fair hearing, and you can't expect success to come from FOX helping you out. It didn't stop the Dems that won. The only solvable problem is changing your unpopular positions, not changing Joe Rogan.

The only way not to be associated with the more extreme issues on your side is to denounce them, Trump did that better than Harris. You'd think he was Bernie Sanders with his no taxes on tips, and allegiance to Social Security. On the D side, they hammered Harris on taxpayer funded transgender surgery for prisoners, a position she had endorsed, and might sell well in CA but not in Georgia.

Expand full comment
Holly Kerfoot's avatar

Do y'all think the Meidas Network will have any affect in the future? Also, if you believe Mr. Mills to be correct, it seems to me that more people ought to become active in local Democratic Party chapters and, perhaps, try to climb the ladder so as to have influence on the national level.

Expand full comment
Mark Rodin's avatar

Decentralized communication is the key. As the saying goes, all politics are local. Communication should be from the bottom up, not the top down

Expand full comment
LuEllen  Huntley's avatar

At the moment, nearing halfway into 2025, institutions as we've known them are ending in real time. At light speed. I wonder how long our US Democratic Party will be stuck. The Republican Party has kept moving in ways cited in this dispatch. Yet it is not the Republican Party, principled in Republican Party ways we understand/recognize. Maybe we will continue to use the term; but its former entity, gone elsewhere. I do not think the principles of the Democratic Party have disappeared in the same ways, but it's difficult to get up to speed from a stuck place. An image of a scaffold comes to mind. As an example to communicate included in this dispatch, podcasts. These have superseded newspapers but as mentioned probably will lead the way to something else. First things first.... Really working to get an image of being at the beginnings of many endings and being at the beginnings of what's next. I must work further on this.

Expand full comment
Bill Nasso's avatar

Until the cabal of consultants who appear to own the DNC and Democrats’ messaging are disbanded, I don’t see us making much progress in changing the Party’s communication paradigm.

Folks like us have been pleading for what you advocate for years.

Expand full comment
Robert Mullis's avatar

I think democrats are missing the point. Trust is broken and the answer seems to be to embrace the absurd while shouting down and crushing ideas. The middle political base is disenfranchised. It feels like you care only about power at all cost and frankly when any one from the democrat party speeks it seems like pandering and virtuesignaling. Speaking louder and more often isn't going to change that. Messaging and political rhetoric from the outside, looks centralized and nonorganic. I can't tell what your plan is from the actions being taken. Brutal truths make hard medicines. But until you face reality, nothing is going to change. America needs the Democrat party to balance. I hope something changes.

Expand full comment
Ruth Bromer's avatar

It's the Democratic Party.

Expand full comment
Bill Nasso's avatar

I have seen the enemy and it is us.

Expand full comment
Holly Kerfoot's avatar

But it doesn't have to be, particularly if the party would stop looking back at failures, except to find what did work, and innovate in the future.

Expand full comment
ErrorError