Maybe I'm looking at it with rose-colored glasses, but here in Texas we are rebuilding a Democratic party which has been moribund for twenty years. We can innovate without stepping on any toes except perhaps the national Democratic party. But, who cares about them? It's not like they ever did anything for us except blow in and extract donor money to spend outside Texas.
I have no idea whatsoever if the Texas Democratic party is on the same page as Will. But, Will makes total sense. I remember the olden days of politicians who physically mingled in their district. They showed up at high school football games, school carnivals, the stock show, etc. You ran into them in the grocery store. Jake Pickle was ubiquitous around Austin when I was a kid.
Using digital media is necessary, but it is not sufficient. I note that Magyar beat Orban's propaganda stranglehold online by getting out and talking to people face to face. Democrats have got to do this because at least where I am Republicans are not doing it. They are relying on their online presence. I sense they have gotten complacent about that.
I agree with Cynthia's comments - and kinda Will's. Relational organizing takes time. But we also can't just be out there willy-nilly. We need to be in places and seeing people who have become disengaged and need a reminder that Dems are on their side. We can't ask a bunch of disabled people to vote for us in October. We need to be going to fundraisers, cookouts, policy meetings, advocating for them all the time. We are their team. But we need to be showing up consistently. And posting on social media about the issues that impact their lives.
We don't need the DNC or our state parties to tell us what to talk about. We live in our communities and we know the struggles and the challenges. That's why grassroots messengers are so much more effective. We are a known commodity. Our neighbors already trust us. And when we show up in our communities, the trust grows. That takes time. But it doesn't take the party infrastructure to build it.
Local organization from recognizing voter needs and support structures. Locally targeted emphasis on issues and then tying them to specific state and national issues.
This is excellent. What is harder to square is how to break down the structures where people make so much money. Look at VA. Most of the money went to two media firms and a polling firm partially owned by an Emirati sovereign wealth fund. Read this on Friday. https://www.levernews.com/the-new-democratic-machine-and-the-billionaires-behind-it/
I am uncertain whether we need to decentralize the money or find new money sources to build competing structures. We cant afford to keep losing and hope things change
The Right-wing Republicans spent decades building their infrastructure that has given them solid advantages at all levels of society and government. We cannot just depend on charismatic candidates, though they are very important. Will Robinson's analysis is correct.
This article talks down to democrat voters. It’s the one thing that you’d identified as a big problem. Many progressive dems are not waiting and are already adapting. Look what happened to David Hogg. That’s an example of your party’s inability to change. Hogg is the future. Your intransigent leader guys within the dnc are the problem and they are blowing it again.
Your party is about to split because you could not divorce yourself from corporate money. Now you’ll see why that greed will cost your constituents. watch populism surround and destroy the democrats. Grahm Platner in Maine is the future abd you guys are about to be handed the end of your dynasty the same way the maga remade the gop.
I think a lot of the reticence to move away from late spending and traditional media is still about message strategy. We still see centrists democrats trying to massage message to get to 50+1 with microtargeting and rhetorical flourishes. Discovering margins are razor thin after early voting has already started and dumping tons of money into late media as they realize a simple enthusiasm gap will be the end of them.
With economic inequality at historic highs, the effects of climate change at our doors, and endless wars gobbling up our futures before our eyes, a party of the working class, reasonable climate actions, and less aggressive military thinking should be beating convicted felons by 10 or 20 points with policies starting at 60% and moving to 70% with good messaging. Instead democrats keep aiming to win by a couple points while protecting policies that can't get agreement from 30% of their base, let alone inspire actual enthusiasm. And when a year of trying to engage their base online with pop culture references and scripted moments they turn to print and broadcast only to realize it can't save them.
The tentpole of any campaign should have 80% of your base and 60% of the general electorate. start there and champion it to 90-70. otherwise you are not building a movement, you are digging a hole.
This is an essential breakdown of the changes the Dems need to make structurally, but misses the foundational piece: embracing (and then actually enacting) policies that will fundamentally improve life for all Americans as well as the rest of the planet. Climate change, gun CONTROL, universal healthcare, campaign finance reform, humane immigration reform, anti-genocide, income inequality, structural racism and sexism, massive investment in PUBLIC education, etc., etc., etc. The Dems need to reclaim the legacy of the Roosevelts (FDR AND Eleanor and throw in Teddy for good measure). Communication strategy is hollow if it’s based on the same old policies and power preferences that got us here in the first place.
This is how people talked about the Democratic Party after the 1928 election, which Hoover won in a landslide, actually with only 58% of the vote. But a funny thing happened on the way to 1932. There was an economic catastrophe. In 2026, we are on the cusp of a similar economic catastrophe. When Roosevelt won in 1932, it was pretty clear that a reasonably qualified dog catcher nominated by the Democratic Party would have won. He spent the whole campaign, making sure there were no gaffes. That’s likely to be the case in 2026 and 2028. If you click on my name, you can see what I’ve written about it so far.
One thing I think Democrats still underestimate is how much modern political communication is now about narrative coherence rather than policy density.
People can tolerate disagreement, complexity, even bad news. What they struggle to process is fragmentation — dozens of disconnected messages, priorities, and frames competing simultaneously without a clear organizing story about what the party believes, who it is fighting for, and what kind of future it is trying to build.
A coalition can be broad without sounding incoherent. But coherence has to be constructed intentionally now because the information environment no longer does it automatically.
This is great and I wholeheartedly agree with both the diagnosis and the treatment. The DNC has become a prohibitive obstacle to electing Democrats. I wrote about this too. Thanks for sharing!!
This is exactly what innovating for the public Goode is trying to do. Understand long-term innovation in many arenas. My thinking is that we need a 2032 lens given what’s going to happen to the composition of the country’s change after the census. Our investments need to reflect power building for the long-term as well as realizing short-term gains.
Maybe I'm looking at it with rose-colored glasses, but here in Texas we are rebuilding a Democratic party which has been moribund for twenty years. We can innovate without stepping on any toes except perhaps the national Democratic party. But, who cares about them? It's not like they ever did anything for us except blow in and extract donor money to spend outside Texas.
I have no idea whatsoever if the Texas Democratic party is on the same page as Will. But, Will makes total sense. I remember the olden days of politicians who physically mingled in their district. They showed up at high school football games, school carnivals, the stock show, etc. You ran into them in the grocery store. Jake Pickle was ubiquitous around Austin when I was a kid.
Using digital media is necessary, but it is not sufficient. I note that Magyar beat Orban's propaganda stranglehold online by getting out and talking to people face to face. Democrats have got to do this because at least where I am Republicans are not doing it. They are relying on their online presence. I sense they have gotten complacent about that.
I agree with Cynthia's comments - and kinda Will's. Relational organizing takes time. But we also can't just be out there willy-nilly. We need to be in places and seeing people who have become disengaged and need a reminder that Dems are on their side. We can't ask a bunch of disabled people to vote for us in October. We need to be going to fundraisers, cookouts, policy meetings, advocating for them all the time. We are their team. But we need to be showing up consistently. And posting on social media about the issues that impact their lives.
We don't need the DNC or our state parties to tell us what to talk about. We live in our communities and we know the struggles and the challenges. That's why grassroots messengers are so much more effective. We are a known commodity. Our neighbors already trust us. And when we show up in our communities, the trust grows. That takes time. But it doesn't take the party infrastructure to build it.
Well said. I think a case can be made that this is exactly what Mamdani has been and is trying to do
You are exactly right.
Local organization from recognizing voter needs and support structures. Locally targeted emphasis on issues and then tying them to specific state and national issues.
Bottom to to top the cream rises.
Couldn't agree more. Obama had it...and Republicans woke up and we went to sleep.
This is excellent. What is harder to square is how to break down the structures where people make so much money. Look at VA. Most of the money went to two media firms and a polling firm partially owned by an Emirati sovereign wealth fund. Read this on Friday. https://www.levernews.com/the-new-democratic-machine-and-the-billionaires-behind-it/
I am uncertain whether we need to decentralize the money or find new money sources to build competing structures. We cant afford to keep losing and hope things change
The Right-wing Republicans spent decades building their infrastructure that has given them solid advantages at all levels of society and government. We cannot just depend on charismatic candidates, though they are very important. Will Robinson's analysis is correct.
This article talks down to democrat voters. It’s the one thing that you’d identified as a big problem. Many progressive dems are not waiting and are already adapting. Look what happened to David Hogg. That’s an example of your party’s inability to change. Hogg is the future. Your intransigent leader guys within the dnc are the problem and they are blowing it again.
Your party is about to split because you could not divorce yourself from corporate money. Now you’ll see why that greed will cost your constituents. watch populism surround and destroy the democrats. Grahm Platner in Maine is the future abd you guys are about to be handed the end of your dynasty the same way the maga remade the gop.
I think this is an appropriate level discussion to have and we are getting good feedback. Let me know what you disagree with / thanks
I think a lot of the reticence to move away from late spending and traditional media is still about message strategy. We still see centrists democrats trying to massage message to get to 50+1 with microtargeting and rhetorical flourishes. Discovering margins are razor thin after early voting has already started and dumping tons of money into late media as they realize a simple enthusiasm gap will be the end of them.
With economic inequality at historic highs, the effects of climate change at our doors, and endless wars gobbling up our futures before our eyes, a party of the working class, reasonable climate actions, and less aggressive military thinking should be beating convicted felons by 10 or 20 points with policies starting at 60% and moving to 70% with good messaging. Instead democrats keep aiming to win by a couple points while protecting policies that can't get agreement from 30% of their base, let alone inspire actual enthusiasm. And when a year of trying to engage their base online with pop culture references and scripted moments they turn to print and broadcast only to realize it can't save them.
The tentpole of any campaign should have 80% of your base and 60% of the general electorate. start there and champion it to 90-70. otherwise you are not building a movement, you are digging a hole.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment
This is an essential breakdown of the changes the Dems need to make structurally, but misses the foundational piece: embracing (and then actually enacting) policies that will fundamentally improve life for all Americans as well as the rest of the planet. Climate change, gun CONTROL, universal healthcare, campaign finance reform, humane immigration reform, anti-genocide, income inequality, structural racism and sexism, massive investment in PUBLIC education, etc., etc., etc. The Dems need to reclaim the legacy of the Roosevelts (FDR AND Eleanor and throw in Teddy for good measure). Communication strategy is hollow if it’s based on the same old policies and power preferences that got us here in the first place.
I agree on policies - but policies that matter to real people - you’ve listed many of them….
Agree. Want to keep sharing the bejesus out of the Corporate Dems? Dsausa.org
Well done, Will. I have shared with state and local Dem Party executives.
Thank you - and thanks for the subscription!
I'm Mesquite -- Libby
This is how people talked about the Democratic Party after the 1928 election, which Hoover won in a landslide, actually with only 58% of the vote. But a funny thing happened on the way to 1932. There was an economic catastrophe. In 2026, we are on the cusp of a similar economic catastrophe. When Roosevelt won in 1932, it was pretty clear that a reasonably qualified dog catcher nominated by the Democratic Party would have won. He spent the whole campaign, making sure there were no gaffes. That’s likely to be the case in 2026 and 2028. If you click on my name, you can see what I’ve written about it so far.
I will read!
One thing I think Democrats still underestimate is how much modern political communication is now about narrative coherence rather than policy density.
People can tolerate disagreement, complexity, even bad news. What they struggle to process is fragmentation — dozens of disconnected messages, priorities, and frames competing simultaneously without a clear organizing story about what the party believes, who it is fighting for, and what kind of future it is trying to build.
A coalition can be broad without sounding incoherent. But coherence has to be constructed intentionally now because the information environment no longer does it automatically.
This is great and I wholeheartedly agree with both the diagnosis and the treatment. The DNC has become a prohibitive obstacle to electing Democrats. I wrote about this too. Thanks for sharing!!
https://hmeltonfox.substack.com/p/pro-democracy-coalition-must-dump?r=4cg543&utm_medium=ios
Good stuff. I'm interested in ten possible prompts for talking to friends and neighbors.
This is exactly what innovating for the public Goode is trying to do. Understand long-term innovation in many arenas. My thinking is that we need a 2032 lens given what’s going to happen to the composition of the country’s change after the census. Our investments need to reflect power building for the long-term as well as realizing short-term gains.
The 2030 census And electoral vote shift will make winning more difficult in 32