Transcript: Why Democratic Leadership Is Clueless About Politics
Litman: They’re going to have to go through a full rebranding exercise the way the Democrats had to do after Obama and we saw how that works. It doesn’t go that well when you don’t have the unifying figure who can bring together unique parts of the coalition you need.
Bacon: I see.
Litman: I’m not saying that means that Democrats will absolutely win. You need a person on the other side who can be that unifying figure. But especially when you think about congressional races, local races, state legislative stuff—yeah, a party is a heuristic that people use when they go to the polls if they’re not quite sure who to vote for, but ideally we can empower candidates to have enough of a personal relationship with voters that they can supersede the party brand. I also think on a more practical level, there’s not going to be money for any of that shit. So it’s a silly—it’s not a silly hypothetical. All hypotheticals are worth exploring, but there’s not going to be money for that stuff.
Bacon: And I assume, Elliott—I guess I’ll be honest and I’ll end here: I like institutions. I like the idea of a party representing in the same way that The New York Times exists, even if I have concerns about what it does. So I think in a certain way I probably prefer a more institutionalized solution. ’Cause right now, anytime Gavin Newsom something does something good, all of my friends are like, I will not vote for him in 2028, and it’s because he did his thing. Is every moment part of the 2028 primary? My worry is if candidates matter, which I agree with, doesn’t that make every day part of the 2028 Democratic primary, which is not helpful? I would argue in this: We’re trying to fight fascism. Can we debate whether Andy Beshear or Pritzker or Newsom or AOC is better in December 2027? And my answer to the question, I was like, Yes, but you’re hinting that these individuals matter so much so maybe we should be debating the individual merits all the time. I guess the question I’ll finish with Amanda is, Does it take us too much into this primary? Does the individualization have some negatives? And then for Elliott, do we think parties, brands still should matter even if they don’t matter?
Litman: I don’t think—is it good? No, probably not. But it’s where we are. It’s where we are. And I do think one of the things that the pundit class, the chattering class [have to do is] we actually have to actively refrain ourselves from applying everything through the lens of the 2028 primary. That’s on us. That’s our responsibility.
Bacon: My friends are doing it now. I would expect it’s not just—
Litman: We got to pull them back. That’s the thing with the elites. Part of the reason that being able to wield attention right now matters is because we want to set the narrative playing ground that the 2026 midterms will be on. So the more that you have people right now who can break through and talk about fighting and actually wield power in any meaningful way or can make it about the issues we want the 2026 election to be about, the better. That’s what the attention matters for this moment and that’s why conflict gets attention. So that’s why fighting is—one of the reasons why along with morally it’s so important in this moment.
Bacon: OK. Elliott?
Morris: House elections now are predicted by previous presidential performance in a district more than they’ve ever been before. Though, there’s fewer crossover districts than there’s ever been. That tells me that how people feel about presidential candidates and parties is more important than ever to their voting behavior at a local level. And that is mainly a consequence of national media coverage, of politics, and also of a perpetual focus on the next presidential election, including the primary. It seems to me that we do now have a really good way out of that trap, which is social media, direct communication with voters on their phones. As much as I hate phones, that’s probably good for democracy if we can kill those stranglehold that corporate media has over politics ’cause it hasn’t gone well in general. If Democrats are able to increase the profile of personal candidates over party brand, that’s exactly what they need to be going for to win the Senate long-term—and also probably House races if gerrymandering is going to keep going the way that it’s gone the last four months.
Bacon: And with that, this has been a great conversation. I’ve a lot of new thoughts to have. I appreciate you guys joining me. This was very good, very substantive chat—a little deeper than those I’ve had recently. So thanks for joining me. And then thanks everybody who watched us, and hopefully you’ll join us next time here on Right Now. Bye-bye.
Morris: Thanks, Perry.
Litman: Thank you.
