Thanks, this was interesting. I'm curious about your perspective on Biden's post-primary shift to the left - was this an intentional strategy for coalition management or just a side effect of hiring more people from campaigns of leftier candidates (also, why did they hire those staffers?)
Great article Stef. Really appreciate your perspectives.
I'm wondering though - do you think the ability to say "no" to interest groups depends a bit on the candidate? For Biden, the downsides to not answering a questionnaire are probably more limited than for another candidate - he was a known commodity with a long track record and was one of the higher-tier candidates in the race.
I can imagine for an upstart candidate with lower name recognition, endorsements can be a real legitimizer in a way that an established candidate like Biden wouldn't need. Maybe this is more true for congressional/state/local races though.
Would love to read your thoughts on how Dems can rebuild federal capacity, and quickly, in the future!
Thanks for reading! You could be right. It is easy to forget, though, how for a good chunk of the primary it seemed like a real possibility Biden was not going to win - so we did need the endorsements that came with funding and organizing. The campaign almost went broke before we made it to South Carolina.
Definitely working on thoughts regarding rebuilding federal capacity. Stay tuned.
Dems lost because they hitched their wagon to a horrible candidate, Harris couldn't garner a single delegate in 2020 and she was a disaster as VP, but they didn't want to have a primary? The American people want competence in their President and that's something Harris was sorely lacking. Things may have been different had Biden selected Keisha Lance Bottoms as his VP.
For better or worse elections really come down to a candidate's likability and no one liked Harris. If Dems want to win, they better stop limiting themselves with their candidates based on race and sex and go with the candidate that gives them best chance to win.
I find you know your values and let these values inform your policies to be compelling.
To want extent does interest fit in? As in there are some aspects of life and issues that a leader has thought long and hard about, had discussions, been formulating policies. And other aspects of life and issues that leaders haven’t been interested in for one reason or another. Are those just issues that you avoid “the questionnaire” on? What should a candidate do if it’s becoming one of the defining issues of the campaign?
Isn’t part of the problem the staffers (not you)? Clearly, by reading this, the average staffer is more left-leaning than any normal person. We saw the stories regarding the Harris campaign and the staff threatening to revolt if she went on Rogan. “Don’t platform him,” they said, even though Rogan has been the number 1–4 podcast for the entire 2020s.
Now, the fact that the average Democratic staffer is very judgy and gets mad at the average person who doesn’t want to do the nonsensical pronoun check-in or the cringe diversity HR video (that apparently only Pete Buttigieg is allowed to criticize). I was in the Vote Save America Slack; I wanted to blow my brains out. They were your very stereotypical leftists, and I’m like, I’m not doing this. I’m a person in the 80% on every 80/20 issue that these staffers (not you) want to die on the 20, and because of that, they’re like, “You don’t belong.” And scream nazi you’re maga etc.
Yes, huge problem that I hope to write about in the future. Ultimately though, the responsibility lies with the candidate to hire leadership that will, in turn, hire staff that understand their job is to advance the candidate's values, not their own values.
Now, this is going to be the other issue. Let’s be real: the media and Biden’s spokespeople have been denying the obvious truth since 2022—that the economy was struggling. Instead, they kept pointing to nonsensical metrics to say, “No, you’re wrong.” Then there’s the age issue. Anyone with eyes could see that Biden is a man who should never run for office again, and anyone who said as much got blacklisted.
Take the Dean Phillips situation, which will obviously be mentioned in Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper’s upcoming book. It’s clear that Biden’s cognitive decline began accelerating sometime in 2022. Meanwhile, Democratic parties in several states outright canceled their primaries—even though, at the time, RFK Jr. and Dean Phillips were polling between 10–20% in most states. Whether you agree with them or not they polled high enough to be considered "Real" candidates unlike Williamson
The party that claims to “defend democracy” certainly wasn’t promoting it.
Moving unions + big tech to the side for a moment, wasn’t part of the way Biden could be “left” on trans and guns was because it was part of a worldview and set of universal appeals that positioned him in the mainstream? The trans stuff was basic non-discrimination support + no-bullshit tolerance (or all bullshit tolerance) for everyone ranging to racists like segregationist senators to trans people. And guns came as part of his tough on crime posture? COPS, VAWA, gun control—it was historically part of a tough on crime approach?
“Struggled to distance herself from [her 2019] far-left positions” like the enormously popular Medicare for All, unquestioned support for abortion, and maybe the most glaring omission of all—a principled opposition to the massacre in Gaza. With Democrats like you, who needs Republicans? Mind you, these common sense positions are broadly supported across the aisle, but you all just don’t want to break free from your consultant operatives and big money donors. By all means, please continue campaigning with the Cheneys and telling your politicians to refrain from calling out Republicans for being the weirdos they are.
First Democrats became paralyzed by polls and so other than abortion Kamala stood for nothing and fought for nothing. Preferring to twist herself into knots explaining her fracking flip flop than speak the unspeakable forbidden words Climate Crisis. She beclowned herself attempting to portray herself as a gun enthusiast. As to taxpayer funded sex changes the answer should have been that as in any other medical treatment if medically necessary as determined by a doctor then yes if a vanity project then no. How many of these are we talking about anyway? Democrats need to embrace the fact that the hard sell issues fall to them and sell them. If you take a stand and stick to it people will respect you even if they disagree.
Second she like all Democrats remain shackled to the They Go Low We Go High mantra. Accepting the blame for inflation when the blame clearly lies with Insane Clown's clownish pandemic response was nothing short of political malpractice (Biden made that point in his disastrous debate but it got lost amidst all the stumbling and bumbling). Also Accepting the blame for Afghanistan when it was Insane Clown who effectively surrendered by releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners and reducing troop levels from 13,000 to 2,500. And allowing Insane Clown's Project 25 disavowal to stand and not forcing him to take ownership. Insane Clown had so much surface area for attack with his treasonous criminal acts and his plea for immunity, and his 4 years of non-stop clowning culminating in the clownish pandemic response. Never a mumbling word about any of this.
Insane Clown was eminently and easily beatable. All anyone wanted from Kamala was any show of strength. Instead they got a joyous pom pom waving Barbie Doll. To be fair I think the entire Democratic Party is afflicted with a relentless will to lose and no one would have done any better.
Thanks, this was interesting. I'm curious about your perspective on Biden's post-primary shift to the left - was this an intentional strategy for coalition management or just a side effect of hiring more people from campaigns of leftier candidates (also, why did they hire those staffers?)
Great question! Stay tuned for this week's post. Thanks for reading.
Great article Stef. Really appreciate your perspectives.
I'm wondering though - do you think the ability to say "no" to interest groups depends a bit on the candidate? For Biden, the downsides to not answering a questionnaire are probably more limited than for another candidate - he was a known commodity with a long track record and was one of the higher-tier candidates in the race.
I can imagine for an upstart candidate with lower name recognition, endorsements can be a real legitimizer in a way that an established candidate like Biden wouldn't need. Maybe this is more true for congressional/state/local races though.
Would love to read your thoughts on how Dems can rebuild federal capacity, and quickly, in the future!
Thanks for reading! You could be right. It is easy to forget, though, how for a good chunk of the primary it seemed like a real possibility Biden was not going to win - so we did need the endorsements that came with funding and organizing. The campaign almost went broke before we made it to South Carolina.
Definitely working on thoughts regarding rebuilding federal capacity. Stay tuned.
Thanks for reading!
Interesting read!
Dems lost because they hitched their wagon to a horrible candidate, Harris couldn't garner a single delegate in 2020 and she was a disaster as VP, but they didn't want to have a primary? The American people want competence in their President and that's something Harris was sorely lacking. Things may have been different had Biden selected Keisha Lance Bottoms as his VP.
For better or worse elections really come down to a candidate's likability and no one liked Harris. If Dems want to win, they better stop limiting themselves with their candidates based on race and sex and go with the candidate that gives them best chance to win.
Thank you for writing.
I find you know your values and let these values inform your policies to be compelling.
To want extent does interest fit in? As in there are some aspects of life and issues that a leader has thought long and hard about, had discussions, been formulating policies. And other aspects of life and issues that leaders haven’t been interested in for one reason or another. Are those just issues that you avoid “the questionnaire” on? What should a candidate do if it’s becoming one of the defining issues of the campaign?
Isn’t part of the problem the staffers (not you)? Clearly, by reading this, the average staffer is more left-leaning than any normal person. We saw the stories regarding the Harris campaign and the staff threatening to revolt if she went on Rogan. “Don’t platform him,” they said, even though Rogan has been the number 1–4 podcast for the entire 2020s.
Now, the fact that the average Democratic staffer is very judgy and gets mad at the average person who doesn’t want to do the nonsensical pronoun check-in or the cringe diversity HR video (that apparently only Pete Buttigieg is allowed to criticize). I was in the Vote Save America Slack; I wanted to blow my brains out. They were your very stereotypical leftists, and I’m like, I’m not doing this. I’m a person in the 80% on every 80/20 issue that these staffers (not you) want to die on the 20, and because of that, they’re like, “You don’t belong.” And scream nazi you’re maga etc.
Yes, huge problem that I hope to write about in the future. Ultimately though, the responsibility lies with the candidate to hire leadership that will, in turn, hire staff that understand their job is to advance the candidate's values, not their own values.
Now, this is going to be the other issue. Let’s be real: the media and Biden’s spokespeople have been denying the obvious truth since 2022—that the economy was struggling. Instead, they kept pointing to nonsensical metrics to say, “No, you’re wrong.” Then there’s the age issue. Anyone with eyes could see that Biden is a man who should never run for office again, and anyone who said as much got blacklisted.
Take the Dean Phillips situation, which will obviously be mentioned in Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper’s upcoming book. It’s clear that Biden’s cognitive decline began accelerating sometime in 2022. Meanwhile, Democratic parties in several states outright canceled their primaries—even though, at the time, RFK Jr. and Dean Phillips were polling between 10–20% in most states. Whether you agree with them or not they polled high enough to be considered "Real" candidates unlike Williamson
The party that claims to “defend democracy” certainly wasn’t promoting it.
Moving unions + big tech to the side for a moment, wasn’t part of the way Biden could be “left” on trans and guns was because it was part of a worldview and set of universal appeals that positioned him in the mainstream? The trans stuff was basic non-discrimination support + no-bullshit tolerance (or all bullshit tolerance) for everyone ranging to racists like segregationist senators to trans people. And guns came as part of his tough on crime posture? COPS, VAWA, gun control—it was historically part of a tough on crime approach?
“Struggled to distance herself from [her 2019] far-left positions” like the enormously popular Medicare for All, unquestioned support for abortion, and maybe the most glaring omission of all—a principled opposition to the massacre in Gaza. With Democrats like you, who needs Republicans? Mind you, these common sense positions are broadly supported across the aisle, but you all just don’t want to break free from your consultant operatives and big money donors. By all means, please continue campaigning with the Cheneys and telling your politicians to refrain from calling out Republicans for being the weirdos they are.
Kamala lost in 2024 for 2 reasons.
First Democrats became paralyzed by polls and so other than abortion Kamala stood for nothing and fought for nothing. Preferring to twist herself into knots explaining her fracking flip flop than speak the unspeakable forbidden words Climate Crisis. She beclowned herself attempting to portray herself as a gun enthusiast. As to taxpayer funded sex changes the answer should have been that as in any other medical treatment if medically necessary as determined by a doctor then yes if a vanity project then no. How many of these are we talking about anyway? Democrats need to embrace the fact that the hard sell issues fall to them and sell them. If you take a stand and stick to it people will respect you even if they disagree.
Second she like all Democrats remain shackled to the They Go Low We Go High mantra. Accepting the blame for inflation when the blame clearly lies with Insane Clown's clownish pandemic response was nothing short of political malpractice (Biden made that point in his disastrous debate but it got lost amidst all the stumbling and bumbling). Also Accepting the blame for Afghanistan when it was Insane Clown who effectively surrendered by releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners and reducing troop levels from 13,000 to 2,500. And allowing Insane Clown's Project 25 disavowal to stand and not forcing him to take ownership. Insane Clown had so much surface area for attack with his treasonous criminal acts and his plea for immunity, and his 4 years of non-stop clowning culminating in the clownish pandemic response. Never a mumbling word about any of this.
Insane Clown was eminently and easily beatable. All anyone wanted from Kamala was any show of strength. Instead they got a joyous pom pom waving Barbie Doll. To be fair I think the entire Democratic Party is afflicted with a relentless will to lose and no one would have done any better.