Follow the money. One of the biggest problems, hinted at here, is the amount of money in politics. Not just because of the time and soul-selling it takes to raise it, and the influence it can buy, but with how it’s spent. There is an entire industry of consultants who suck up that money developing “messaging” and running ads. They sell manipulation not real communication and empathy. How do you make money on the hard work of folks getting out in their neighborhoods building real relationships? You don’t. Stop listening to these consulting firms and get your ass into your neighborhoods. This book you so wonderfully pull apart is actually just an advertising packet for these leaches.
Thanks for the glimpse into the belly of the beast. The playbook has all the excitement of soggy, cold, plain noodles.
You saved the best for last - your suggestions: "...investing in developing trusted messengers (friends, family, coworkers, community figures), building relationships in non-political contexts (churches, union halls, barbershops, child care centers, youth sports), repeated contact over years (not just a last-minute blitz), material aid, and cultural presence..." and, "...fighting for some big-picture things that could dramatically improve people’s lives (or save them from corporate predators and rightwing thugs) enough that such voters would feel a bigger stake in politics rather than being alienated by political moneyball."
Maybe instead of hunkering down in a conference room with calculators and legal pads and spreadsheets (the cover illustration for the article was pretty good!), the democratic brain trust should've been on the streets of Minneapolis handing out hot chocolate. I guess we'll find out in November...
Micah: Yeoman work, as always. Thank you for exposing the Swiss cheese of consultant thinking that's riddled with holes driven by non-wholistic perspectives. Let's leave this linear, Flatland thinking behind.
Republicans and Democrats approach elections very differently. At the start of every election, Republicans viciously smear Democratic candidates to try to "disqualify" them in the minds of swing voters. Meanwhile Democrats try to identify a few popular issues that will push us over 50%.
In both cases, the ideology of the Democratic candidate doesn't really matter. Republicans smear Democrats equally regardless of their "moderation," while Democrats of all ideologies run on the most popular issues in that cycle.
That's why G. Elliott Morris found that ideological "moderation" had a small effect in 2024 - maybe 1-1.5%.
What's way more important than the ideology of our candidates is the size of the wave in each cycle, which is all about the approval rating of the President. In 2024, Biden's approval was 40% so we lost the White House and the Senate. In 2026, Trump's approval is 40% so we should win the House (subject to gerrymandering). If Trump's approval drops to 35% we can win the Senate.
Thanks for your detailed analysis! It's so refreshing after reading so many hot takes by both centrist and progressive pundits trying to juice up their numbers by inciting conflict within the party. Your points about the incoherence of the "moderate voter" and the importance of organizing are vital.
Not just the last war, but the same damned playbook (never mind updating the terminology) for the last thirty years. The playbook that lost so consistently, so dramatically, that we’re in the mess we’re in.
A party that encourages members to disagree with it and side with fascists for a fantasy of electoral benefit can never be an opposition party, only an enabler. No wonder people loath centrist Dems as much as they do.
However, one tantalizing use for the playbook would be as a way to identify candidates who need to be primaried. That would actually provide some value.
Deeply appreciative of this critique, Micah. Thank you for naming the gap between what gets funded and celebrated versus what actually works.
This playbook is the result of what happens when you treat politics like a machine instead of a complex adaptive system, and you attempt to find solutions with stale templates. You can’t simply extract a tactic from the ecosystem that made it effective and expect it to perform exactly the same elsewhere. There are different variables involved. “Moderates over-perform” meant something when there was a Culinary Union doing year-round relationship building. Without that substrate, you’re just telling candidates to demobilize their own base.
And we need to stop promoting the paid media hockey stick lie. That finding came from a completely different media and information environment. Today’s landscape doesn’t work the same way. There are longer cycles, year-round and more nuanced targeting, algorithmic manipulation, semantic interference, platform capture. But the myth persists because it conveniently justifies late-cycle spending sprees while the opposition has been shaping the information environment for months.
Lastly, I think it’s time we really adopt a different model for knowledge share and stop listening to the consultant class. The people doing the work are getting results. They’re the ones we should be learning from. Instead, they get overlooked while the consultant class benefits from knowledge they absorbed from practitioners and repackaged as their own.
Re Harry Reid, I did a case study for a grantmakers’ affinity group on immigrants and refugees about the role of unions in the casinos. Interviewed housekeepers, saw the uniform laundry, found out how much time they had to clean a room trashed by heavy rollers. They had middle class lives because of the strength of their unions! And their unions and Reid were totally allied.
Oh, fer chrissakes. Way back when I became aware of reports about the far right written by opposition researchers, I remember thinking how glad I was that they took it upon themselves to do that necessary work, but how supremely depressing it must be to do it. Reading this, I think you’re our oppo researcher now. And as glad as I am that you’re doing this necessary work, I also think about how depressing it must be to drench yourself in these details. About the Democratic Party.
To the extent the W.A.R. playbook is discounting the importance of relationship organizing in favor of a focus on television advertising, then I agree it's flawed. You have totally convinced me on the importance of that approach to campaigning.
But to the extent that it supports moderate over progressive candidates in battleground states and districts, it's obviously right. In fact, it's a little bit stunning to me that otherwise intelligent people disagree.
And I say that not because of the "W.A.R. stats." I've read the back and forth in the links you have provided, and I think the reality is that every election is so distinct in terms of demographics, incumbency, relationships, etc. that there is no way to "prove" anything. Ultimately, either side can always cite confounding factors and people will just see what they want to see.
But for me, the need for moderate rather than progressive candidates in battlegrounds states and districts (and for the national brand of the Democratic Party to be seen as moderate) is just common sense. There is no evidence that progressive candidates are systemically able to boost turnout in significant ways, which means that elections are almost always won by getting the sections of the electorate that waffle between the parties to vote for your side. And of course, moderate candidates are in a better position to do so.
Also, it's clear that the Democrats lost the last election because of inflation, immigration, and socio-cultural issues (trans/DEI/crime). Inflation was to some degree outside of their control (it was obviously a world wide phenomenom) and to also the result of prioritizing keeping unemployment low, which i think both sides moderates and progressives reported.
But the insanity of not doing more to prevent abuse of the asylum system and supporting transwomen in women sports, the uselessness and abuses of DEI, and the craziness of focusing criminal justice reform only on keeping criminals out of jail (versus focusing on reducing the folks in jail by reducing crime) were all progressive own goals that have screwed the Democratic Party brand. Democrats aren't going to win consistently, and will never win in states necessary to reclaim the Senate, until the Democratic Party brand is no longer associated with those positions (which means more moderates and fewer progressives).
As for the ICE debate, despite all the abuses of ICE (which everyone outside of MAGA recognizes), the Republicans are still more trusted on immigration than the Democrats. And calls for abolishing ICE are obviously just going to make that worse. Democrats have to have a clear position that the public will support before focusing on that issuee.
I'm sorry to say this but Anat Shenker-Osorio is the very person who (in my humble opinion) tends to rely on her own focus groups rather than encouraging politicians to express values and promote policies that will help everyone. And even when the focus groups say: "we want more left wing policies" somehow that doesn't follow through to her recommendations.
Follow the money. One of the biggest problems, hinted at here, is the amount of money in politics. Not just because of the time and soul-selling it takes to raise it, and the influence it can buy, but with how it’s spent. There is an entire industry of consultants who suck up that money developing “messaging” and running ads. They sell manipulation not real communication and empathy. How do you make money on the hard work of folks getting out in their neighborhoods building real relationships? You don’t. Stop listening to these consulting firms and get your ass into your neighborhoods. This book you so wonderfully pull apart is actually just an advertising packet for these leaches.
Thanks for the glimpse into the belly of the beast. The playbook has all the excitement of soggy, cold, plain noodles.
You saved the best for last - your suggestions: "...investing in developing trusted messengers (friends, family, coworkers, community figures), building relationships in non-political contexts (churches, union halls, barbershops, child care centers, youth sports), repeated contact over years (not just a last-minute blitz), material aid, and cultural presence..." and, "...fighting for some big-picture things that could dramatically improve people’s lives (or save them from corporate predators and rightwing thugs) enough that such voters would feel a bigger stake in politics rather than being alienated by political moneyball."
Maybe instead of hunkering down in a conference room with calculators and legal pads and spreadsheets (the cover illustration for the article was pretty good!), the democratic brain trust should've been on the streets of Minneapolis handing out hot chocolate. I guess we'll find out in November...
Micah: Yeoman work, as always. Thank you for exposing the Swiss cheese of consultant thinking that's riddled with holes driven by non-wholistic perspectives. Let's leave this linear, Flatland thinking behind.
Republicans and Democrats approach elections very differently. At the start of every election, Republicans viciously smear Democratic candidates to try to "disqualify" them in the minds of swing voters. Meanwhile Democrats try to identify a few popular issues that will push us over 50%.
In both cases, the ideology of the Democratic candidate doesn't really matter. Republicans smear Democrats equally regardless of their "moderation," while Democrats of all ideologies run on the most popular issues in that cycle.
That's why G. Elliott Morris found that ideological "moderation" had a small effect in 2024 - maybe 1-1.5%.
What's way more important than the ideology of our candidates is the size of the wave in each cycle, which is all about the approval rating of the President. In 2024, Biden's approval was 40% so we lost the White House and the Senate. In 2026, Trump's approval is 40% so we should win the House (subject to gerrymandering). If Trump's approval drops to 35% we can win the Senate.
Thanks for your detailed analysis! It's so refreshing after reading so many hot takes by both centrist and progressive pundits trying to juice up their numbers by inciting conflict within the party. Your points about the incoherence of the "moderate voter" and the importance of organizing are vital.
Not just the last war, but the same damned playbook (never mind updating the terminology) for the last thirty years. The playbook that lost so consistently, so dramatically, that we’re in the mess we’re in.
A party that encourages members to disagree with it and side with fascists for a fantasy of electoral benefit can never be an opposition party, only an enabler. No wonder people loath centrist Dems as much as they do.
However, one tantalizing use for the playbook would be as a way to identify candidates who need to be primaried. That would actually provide some value.
Deeply appreciative of this critique, Micah. Thank you for naming the gap between what gets funded and celebrated versus what actually works.
This playbook is the result of what happens when you treat politics like a machine instead of a complex adaptive system, and you attempt to find solutions with stale templates. You can’t simply extract a tactic from the ecosystem that made it effective and expect it to perform exactly the same elsewhere. There are different variables involved. “Moderates over-perform” meant something when there was a Culinary Union doing year-round relationship building. Without that substrate, you’re just telling candidates to demobilize their own base.
And we need to stop promoting the paid media hockey stick lie. That finding came from a completely different media and information environment. Today’s landscape doesn’t work the same way. There are longer cycles, year-round and more nuanced targeting, algorithmic manipulation, semantic interference, platform capture. But the myth persists because it conveniently justifies late-cycle spending sprees while the opposition has been shaping the information environment for months.
Lastly, I think it’s time we really adopt a different model for knowledge share and stop listening to the consultant class. The people doing the work are getting results. They’re the ones we should be learning from. Instead, they get overlooked while the consultant class benefits from knowledge they absorbed from practitioners and repackaged as their own.
Re Harry Reid, I did a case study for a grantmakers’ affinity group on immigrants and refugees about the role of unions in the casinos. Interviewed housekeepers, saw the uniform laundry, found out how much time they had to clean a room trashed by heavy rollers. They had middle class lives because of the strength of their unions! And their unions and Reid were totally allied.
Oh, fer chrissakes. Way back when I became aware of reports about the far right written by opposition researchers, I remember thinking how glad I was that they took it upon themselves to do that necessary work, but how supremely depressing it must be to do it. Reading this, I think you’re our oppo researcher now. And as glad as I am that you’re doing this necessary work, I also think about how depressing it must be to drench yourself in these details. About the Democratic Party.
With what’s happening in our country, this crap is immoral. And so dumb, too.
Depressing but necessary read. Don't see an upside in in the next 4 years despite what the democratic hopefuls keep pushing.
To the extent the W.A.R. playbook is discounting the importance of relationship organizing in favor of a focus on television advertising, then I agree it's flawed. You have totally convinced me on the importance of that approach to campaigning.
But to the extent that it supports moderate over progressive candidates in battleground states and districts, it's obviously right. In fact, it's a little bit stunning to me that otherwise intelligent people disagree.
And I say that not because of the "W.A.R. stats." I've read the back and forth in the links you have provided, and I think the reality is that every election is so distinct in terms of demographics, incumbency, relationships, etc. that there is no way to "prove" anything. Ultimately, either side can always cite confounding factors and people will just see what they want to see.
But for me, the need for moderate rather than progressive candidates in battlegrounds states and districts (and for the national brand of the Democratic Party to be seen as moderate) is just common sense. There is no evidence that progressive candidates are systemically able to boost turnout in significant ways, which means that elections are almost always won by getting the sections of the electorate that waffle between the parties to vote for your side. And of course, moderate candidates are in a better position to do so.
Also, it's clear that the Democrats lost the last election because of inflation, immigration, and socio-cultural issues (trans/DEI/crime). Inflation was to some degree outside of their control (it was obviously a world wide phenomenom) and to also the result of prioritizing keeping unemployment low, which i think both sides moderates and progressives reported.
But the insanity of not doing more to prevent abuse of the asylum system and supporting transwomen in women sports, the uselessness and abuses of DEI, and the craziness of focusing criminal justice reform only on keeping criminals out of jail (versus focusing on reducing the folks in jail by reducing crime) were all progressive own goals that have screwed the Democratic Party brand. Democrats aren't going to win consistently, and will never win in states necessary to reclaim the Senate, until the Democratic Party brand is no longer associated with those positions (which means more moderates and fewer progressives).
As for the ICE debate, despite all the abuses of ICE (which everyone outside of MAGA recognizes), the Republicans are still more trusted on immigration than the Democrats. And calls for abolishing ICE are obviously just going to make that worse. Democrats have to have a clear position that the public will support before focusing on that issuee.
I'm sorry to say this but Anat Shenker-Osorio is the very person who (in my humble opinion) tends to rely on her own focus groups rather than encouraging politicians to express values and promote policies that will help everyone. And even when the focus groups say: "we want more left wing policies" somehow that doesn't follow through to her recommendations.
That’s not been my experience with Anat’s work.