Americans, including swing voters, see the Republican Party as 20 points more extreme than Democrats — and the Democrats as weak and ineffective. So why would the *Democrats* moderate?
Weakness is decided by who wins power or not. Strength is determined by number of seats in the House and Senate. If the Democratic party were stripped away only to the 100 House members and 20 Senate members with the "strongest" most extreme rhetoric, they would be in actuality far far weaker than they are today, and would likely be rated as such.
Rhetoric cannot substitute for peoples' eyes and ears. They can literally observe that the Democratic party has less seats than Republicans and thus cannot pass policy and is thus weaker.
The only real answer to overcoming weakness is winning back seats. Full stop. That means studying and learning from the people who have actually flipped Republican seats or held seats in otherwise Republican districts.
My take on this analysis is that you cannot affect perceptions of strong/weak without winning seats, whereas the party can actually change policy platforms and reject the unpopular extreme parts. So if your back of the envelop math shows that moderation gives the same benefit as "looking strong" then let's do the thing that is actually possible.
Economic issues are the ones people really care about. Here in CA, we have Gov. Newsom fighting against the billionaires tax that would help fund health care for working people and the lower classes in general. But much of the Democratic establishment is firmly in the pocket of the wealthy, and many are wealthy themselves.
Real strength would come from implementing policies that the public, according to Mr. Elliott's polling, already support. Income redistribution, by whatever means, beats violence, which is where society may end up if present trends continue unchecked.
Real strength comes from winning elections (so you can implement policies that the public support). Not from rhetoric.
The largest input into the perception of strength is actual strength. That's what's missing from this analysis. You can't just talk your way into being stronger without having the seats and votes to back it up.
As an independent I've always felt that Democrats tack toward moderation always felt like weakness. Watching Newsom trade barbs with Trump just to turn around and tack toward the 'center' seems slimy. I don't agree with a lot of AOC (or Bernie's) politics but I admire their willingness to be ideologically consistent even if sometimes unnecessarily hostile toward successful people. I suspect what Americans want is someone principled and honest in their convictions, not someone constantly trying to triangulate off of polls (which is to say nothing of people nakedly pursuing power and profit).
Assertiveness Training was much in vogue in the 1980s, and perhaps it is time to bring that back for Democratic candidates. The idea behind assertiveness was not to become an attack dog but to hold the line firmly in order not to be bulldozed by the manipulations and aggression of the other side. That is what I would like to see from Democrats.
Fascinating. And far more complete than anything else I’ve seen. Democratic leadership up and down the line have been weak and feckless They are throwing away a huge opportunity
Part of the problem is that some shows of strength do not translate into items that get media coverage. Schumer did a good job pushing through Biden's judicial nominees to the federal courts. It's a wonky accomplishment that rarely gets credit, but given McConnell's previous stacking of the courts it is significant.
That said, the first shutdown attempt was a disaster for the Democrats. As for the second one, I would have liked for the Democrats to have held out longer last November on the government shutdown, at least until the Supreme Court would have had to decide on the emergency appeal that the Trump administration had to pay out the SNAP money it was withholding as pressure to end the shutdown. Two more days, people! However, even with the vote to end that shutdown, the point was made: Republicans do not care if people starve. The Republicans did make some quiet concessions, and some money for some programs has been reinstated since then.
With this third shutdown for parts of DHS, I do not believe there should be any moderation. Fund the Coast Guard and TSA by all means, but not one penny more for DHS to waste in other ways.
Don’t disagree with your points re the shut downs. I’m much happier with where we are now. Do disagree with your points about Schumer. Yes fighting the judge issues is important but the entire leadership unwillingness to take the orange person on hard has cost us time and has hurt our brand. We knew by last March exactly what this regime was
Rs consider trump to be strong because he talks like a dead-end kid and commits lawless acts. But what does strong mean in the political sense to the people polled? Time in front of a media camera? Bills passed? Pugnacious discourse? Distaste for bipartisanship?
When Dems want their elected officials to be strong, what does that look like?
Strong means recognition of what this regime is; saying it; being very clear that there will be accountability; being implacable in opposition Between Schumer now and Churchill in 1940 I’d take Churchill
I wish there had been polling tracking weak and strong over time. I would apply the same ratings to the parties, but I think that has only been true for 10 years or so. I wonder when the shift was.
It probably tracks very closely to winning elections. Actual strength and weakness matters much more than rhetoric in terms of perceived strength and weakness.
I consider the orange goon a plague, an enormous opportunity cost to our future prosperity, and I'm as anxious as anyone to see his illiberal depredations reined in. But a caution here...the problem with progressivism is that it too easily veers into a populism of the left, with unsustainable economic policy among the usual simple solutions to the complex policy answers necessary for successful governing (Mamdani will and already is discovering this in NYC).
Winning is one thing, maybe the easiest thing; governing effectively is another thing entirely.
In other words, do not make promises that cannot be delivered? Mandami has delivered on childcare, with support from Governor Hochul. I agree that other parts of his program may not be deliverable as outlined. We shall see. In the 2020 election, the Democratic party talked too much about student loan forgiveness when it did not have the votes to enact it in the Congress. That led to Biden making two tries to do it through the executive branch, with both failing at the Supreme Court. The failure to deliver on student loan relief or forgiveness made the Democrats look weak.
Looking weak is one thing, but the actual weakness came from not having enough Senators in support of student loan forgiveness. That's the real thing that needs to be fixed.
"First, they should treat any newsworthy confrontation with the Trump administration as a campaign opportunity, rather than a risk. Democrats may need to rethink their strategy in and out of Congress to orient around toughness. "
A big part of the problem with looking "tough" and "strong" is that Dems don't have a majority in the House or Senate, and the current Republican party walk in lockstep with their dictator boss, so it's far easier for them to look "strong" and "tough".
That said, I do love these deep data dives.
If we can just prevent Trump from rigging the 2026 midterms, we have a great chance of taking back the House and evening up the Senate. THEN we will have ample opportunities of going on offense to produce results for average American voters on all the issues Trump has mucked up.
Weakness is decided by who wins power or not. Strength is determined by number of seats in the House and Senate. If the Democratic party were stripped away only to the 100 House members and 20 Senate members with the "strongest" most extreme rhetoric, they would be in actuality far far weaker than they are today, and would likely be rated as such.
Rhetoric cannot substitute for peoples' eyes and ears. They can literally observe that the Democratic party has less seats than Republicans and thus cannot pass policy and is thus weaker.
The only real answer to overcoming weakness is winning back seats. Full stop. That means studying and learning from the people who have actually flipped Republican seats or held seats in otherwise Republican districts.
My take on this analysis is that you cannot affect perceptions of strong/weak without winning seats, whereas the party can actually change policy platforms and reject the unpopular extreme parts. So if your back of the envelop math shows that moderation gives the same benefit as "looking strong" then let's do the thing that is actually possible.
This feels very informative as to what’s happening in the Maine-Sen primary.
Economic issues are the ones people really care about. Here in CA, we have Gov. Newsom fighting against the billionaires tax that would help fund health care for working people and the lower classes in general. But much of the Democratic establishment is firmly in the pocket of the wealthy, and many are wealthy themselves.
Real strength would come from implementing policies that the public, according to Mr. Elliott's polling, already support. Income redistribution, by whatever means, beats violence, which is where society may end up if present trends continue unchecked.
Real strength comes from winning elections (so you can implement policies that the public support). Not from rhetoric.
The largest input into the perception of strength is actual strength. That's what's missing from this analysis. You can't just talk your way into being stronger without having the seats and votes to back it up.
"Out of touch? Effete? Moi?!" -- Sen. Schumer
"Warning: the rest of this section is pretty wonky!"
Suggest that positive reframing is warranted, what about:
"Icing on the cake!"
Invaluable.
As an independent I've always felt that Democrats tack toward moderation always felt like weakness. Watching Newsom trade barbs with Trump just to turn around and tack toward the 'center' seems slimy. I don't agree with a lot of AOC (or Bernie's) politics but I admire their willingness to be ideologically consistent even if sometimes unnecessarily hostile toward successful people. I suspect what Americans want is someone principled and honest in their convictions, not someone constantly trying to triangulate off of polls (which is to say nothing of people nakedly pursuing power and profit).
Assertiveness Training was much in vogue in the 1980s, and perhaps it is time to bring that back for Democratic candidates. The idea behind assertiveness was not to become an attack dog but to hold the line firmly in order not to be bulldozed by the manipulations and aggression of the other side. That is what I would like to see from Democrats.
Fascinating. And far more complete than anything else I’ve seen. Democratic leadership up and down the line have been weak and feckless They are throwing away a huge opportunity
Part of the problem is that some shows of strength do not translate into items that get media coverage. Schumer did a good job pushing through Biden's judicial nominees to the federal courts. It's a wonky accomplishment that rarely gets credit, but given McConnell's previous stacking of the courts it is significant.
That said, the first shutdown attempt was a disaster for the Democrats. As for the second one, I would have liked for the Democrats to have held out longer last November on the government shutdown, at least until the Supreme Court would have had to decide on the emergency appeal that the Trump administration had to pay out the SNAP money it was withholding as pressure to end the shutdown. Two more days, people! However, even with the vote to end that shutdown, the point was made: Republicans do not care if people starve. The Republicans did make some quiet concessions, and some money for some programs has been reinstated since then.
With this third shutdown for parts of DHS, I do not believe there should be any moderation. Fund the Coast Guard and TSA by all means, but not one penny more for DHS to waste in other ways.
Don’t disagree with your points re the shut downs. I’m much happier with where we are now. Do disagree with your points about Schumer. Yes fighting the judge issues is important but the entire leadership unwillingness to take the orange person on hard has cost us time and has hurt our brand. We knew by last March exactly what this regime was
Rs consider trump to be strong because he talks like a dead-end kid and commits lawless acts. But what does strong mean in the political sense to the people polled? Time in front of a media camera? Bills passed? Pugnacious discourse? Distaste for bipartisanship?
When Dems want their elected officials to be strong, what does that look like?
Strong means recognition of what this regime is; saying it; being very clear that there will be accountability; being implacable in opposition Between Schumer now and Churchill in 1940 I’d take Churchill
I think this is an example of weak:
Pathetic: Maryland Democrats Have Surrendered on Gerrymandering
Maryland could easily have added one Democratic House district, but the state Senate president—a Democrat—wouldn’t let it happen.
https://newrepublic.substack.com/p/pathetic-maryland-democrats-have
Well, that is one Democrat, although unfortunately a key one.
This is ass-kickingly good analysis. Just puts to shame any idea that Dems "getting tough" is only an opinion. It's provable. Great work!
I wish there had been polling tracking weak and strong over time. I would apply the same ratings to the parties, but I think that has only been true for 10 years or so. I wonder when the shift was.
It probably tracks very closely to winning elections. Actual strength and weakness matters much more than rhetoric in terms of perceived strength and weakness.
I consider the orange goon a plague, an enormous opportunity cost to our future prosperity, and I'm as anxious as anyone to see his illiberal depredations reined in. But a caution here...the problem with progressivism is that it too easily veers into a populism of the left, with unsustainable economic policy among the usual simple solutions to the complex policy answers necessary for successful governing (Mamdani will and already is discovering this in NYC).
Winning is one thing, maybe the easiest thing; governing effectively is another thing entirely.
In other words, do not make promises that cannot be delivered? Mandami has delivered on childcare, with support from Governor Hochul. I agree that other parts of his program may not be deliverable as outlined. We shall see. In the 2020 election, the Democratic party talked too much about student loan forgiveness when it did not have the votes to enact it in the Congress. That led to Biden making two tries to do it through the executive branch, with both failing at the Supreme Court. The failure to deliver on student loan relief or forgiveness made the Democrats look weak.
Looking weak is one thing, but the actual weakness came from not having enough Senators in support of student loan forgiveness. That's the real thing that needs to be fixed.
"First, they should treat any newsworthy confrontation with the Trump administration as a campaign opportunity, rather than a risk. Democrats may need to rethink their strategy in and out of Congress to orient around toughness. "
A big part of the problem with looking "tough" and "strong" is that Dems don't have a majority in the House or Senate, and the current Republican party walk in lockstep with their dictator boss, so it's far easier for them to look "strong" and "tough".
That said, I do love these deep data dives.
If we can just prevent Trump from rigging the 2026 midterms, we have a great chance of taking back the House and evening up the Senate. THEN we will have ample opportunities of going on offense to produce results for average American voters on all the issues Trump has mucked up.