I talked to NPR for a few mins earlier about the progressive critiques of how we're running campaigns, and not sure I really got across (with any nuance) what I wanted to say, but here it is: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/11/12/progressives-democrats-election

Maybe I should write something longer, but some expanded points that have less to do with progressive v moderates on policy than the fact that strategy for Dems is dictated heavily in federal races by moderates with an established paradigm about how to message:

Dem messaging tends to be very top down, and when messaging for a bluer district leans more progressive, there's backlash. You're seeing this now with complaints that Rs are weaponizing antipathy towards socialism and police reform.

But you don't see the reverse. If a candidate tacks right and loses because voters can't differentiate between R and D candidates or the D message wasn't compelling enough to mobilize a low engagement voter, you don't see complaints.

And part of this is because Rs can more easily weaponize progressive messages *because* they focus on things the R base has built its opposition around: shared responsibilities, inclusivity, spending on infrastructure and people.

But this does NOT mean it makes sense to build campaigns around what Rs can and can't wield in bad faith. This wrongly assumes that Rs have the ability to persuade Dems or would-be Dems in a way that... Dems don't themselves.

And look at how the wins happened this cycle. Voter reg surged with the BLM protests. Biden is not a progressive but he ran a more progressive campaign than any Dem candidate in recent history. Stacy Abrams' efforts in GA were not built around reacting to R talking points.

(Any Dem presidential nominee, that is!)

As a party, we are too reactionary. Too convinced that we expand by tacking right more than we do by cultivating the huge portion of the population that doesn't vote or is low engagement and would lean D organically.

And we only think in terms of this cycle, which we invariably think looks exactly like the last cycle. If we had longer term deep voter contact we could get in front of electoral shifts and be more responsive to voters, increase turnout over the long term.

Candidates cannot do this. They are talking to voters for the length of a cycle. We rely on them too much to convey too much over too short a time period.

Some of this is also about money in politics, btw. Candidates backload messaging and voter contact as close to the election as possible because fundraising isn't totally predictable and you don't want to start early and not be able to sustain the messaging financially.

This is another reason why it doesn't make sense to only cultivate voters in the context of specific electoral races--particularly if you think there are independents who are persuadable. Persuasion takes time and you can't just throw money at it at the last minute.

Note that these are not really problems that are ideological in nature. They're endemic to how campaigns are run structurally, and who has the power to determine that and allocate resources.

And btw, there's a line of argument from The People Who Run ThingsTM that this longer term deep work is already being done by activists, c4 orgs, etc. and it's not the job of the party. I just think that's wrong. (And hey, the people who run things don't listen to me anyway!)

I would prefer that we not pants it so much, that we do more capacity building, and if that means carving out money from short term imperatives at some risk, I think we have to do it.

(Also, I have a whole other thing about utterly burning digital channels long term with user/voter unfriendly tactics, but a lot of progressives are terrible about that, too. Politics problem, generally.)