Is this why Dem’s Approval Rating Polls are so bad?

[Centerpiece]

From Robert Reich:
“Some leading Democrats are now engaged in what’s being called the “Great Un-awokening.”

• Former Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel calls Democrats “weak and woke.”
• Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who is Black, vetoes a bill passed by his Democratic-dominated state legislature that took steps toward reparations.
• Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom calls it “unfair” to allow transgender athletes to participate in female college and youth sports.
• Michigan’s Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin says the party needs more “alpha energy.”
• Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg removes his pronouns from his social media bio.

“Hello? None of this gives the Democrats a message for the future. None responds to the central issues Americans care about.”

I’m not sure I understand where Reich is coming from. Is he complaining that the aforementioned Dems are arguing trivial matters and that’s why he says “none responds to the central issues”? Or is Reich’s problem with these folks and these issues is he thinks that the Dems should continue to fight and die on those hills, and that these politicians are abandoning core Dem beliefs and abandoning key items that will help win elections?

There may be good reasons why Dems are tanking in their approval rankings in the various polls. They don’t seem to be fighting Trump too hard on capital hill. They’ve decided the best course is to give Trump enough rope and he’ll hang himself, so “let’s be quiet and hopefully the courts will stop him.” How’s that working out? Could this be one of the reasons they’re tanking?

Is Reich correct in lambasting Rahm, Pete and Gavin for throwing in the towel on those issues? (Pronouns is now a hill they should die on, according to Reich? Really?)

Could it be the Dems have indeed gone too far left, they’re too “woke” and that’s the main reason they’re tanking? If so, then Reich is WRONG, and Pete, Rahm, Gavin et.al. are correct.

Maybe the Dems do need more “alpha energy”. I don’t know… Reich doesn’t seem to think so.

(Yes, I know there is another thread based solely on polling… but that’s a catch all thread and includes Trumps approval/disapproval shite. This topic is only about Dems and their pitiful showing in approval polling).

 

[superrific]

I think you can read Reich's comments as basically what Paine has been talking about. Well, maybe you can't read them but I'd put money on Paine being a fan of Reich and they are probably saying the same thing.

 

[Paine]

You’re asking the right questions, and I think part of the confusion comes from misunderstanding what Reich is actually critiquing.

Reich isn’t saying Democrats should die on the hill of pronouns or reparations. He’s not defending “wokeness” as a political strategy. What he’s criticizing is the hollowness of this so-called “Great Un-awokening.” It’s pure rebranding. Rahm, Pete, Newsom, etc., are shifting tone on a few symbolic cultural issues, but they’re still not offering any compelling vision for why people should vote for Democrats.

That’s the core of Reich’s argument: not that Democrats are abandoning the wrong things, but that they’re not replacing them with anything meaningful. The country’s in crisis: on housing, health care, wages, public trust, and Democrats are tinkering with messaging instead of delivering a bold, emotionally resonant plan to improve people’s lives.

So no, Reich isn’t saying pronouns should be the hill to die on. He’s saying: if your only strategy is to sound less “woke,” but you still don’t fight for working people, you’ve solved nothing. Voters will still feel abandoned. And they’re right to.

That, more than any “too far left” or “not alpha enough” problem, is why the party is tanking.

 

[Huh?]

Reich has never won an election for anything. The others have. Going back to the Clinton days, he has always been the living embodiment of the guy who throws 1,000 bad ideas out for every good one and then proclaims himself an innovative thinker.

 

[uncmba]

This week represents 10 years since Trump came down that escalator in NY to declare himself a candidate in 2015. The Democrats have basically run against Trump for that entire time, assuming that his negatives will give them victory.

But during that entire time their message became hijacked by the Progressive wing of their party. What do the Dems stand for other than opposing Trump? A porous border, trans women in sports, DEI? That's apparently what enough Americans thought about Dems to elect Trump again.

The Democratic candidate who can figure out what Americans want will helpfully lead us out of the huge mess Trump will create in the next 3.5 years.

 

[Paine]

Reich has never won an election for anything. The others have. Going back to the Clinton days, he has always been the living embodiment of the guy who throws 1,000 bad ideas out for every good one and then proclaims himself an innovative thinker.

Sure, Reich has never won an election, but that’s not really the point, is it? He’s not running campaigns, he’s critiquing the party’s messaging and strategic drift. And on that front, he’s raising a valid concern: Democrats aren’t losing ground because they added pronouns to their bios; they’re losing ground because they’ve failed to offer a clear, motivating message on the economic and material issues that define most people’s lives.

You don’t have to agree with all of Reich’s ideas to see that he’s right about this: tinkering with tone while avoiding big fights on housing, wages, healthcare, and inequality isn’t a strategy, it’s avoidance. No amount of resume-polishing from Rahm fucking Emanuel changes that reality.

 

[Paine]

This week represents 10 years since Trump came down that escalator in NY to declare himself a candidate in 2015. The Democrats have basically run against Trump for that entire time, assuming that his negatives will give them victory.

But during that entire time their message became hijacked by the Progressive wing of their party. What do the Dems stand for other than opposing Trump? A porous border, trans women in sports, DEI? That's apparently what enough Americans thought about Dems to elect Trump again.

The Democratic candidate who can figure out what Americans want will helpfully lead us out of the huge mess Trump will create in the next 3.5 years.

You’re not wrong that Democrats have leaned too heavily on running against Trump instead of offering a coherent, forward-looking message. But I think you’ve misdiagnosed what hijacked their brand.

It wasn’t the “progressive wing” that led to this drift. It was the party leadership’s refusal to embrace the economic populism that could actually unite voters across divides. Progressives like Sanders and others were pushing for universal programs: Medicare for All, jobs guarantees, housing investment, union rights. These are policies that poll well across party lines. That’s not niche culture war stuff. That’s bread-and-butter governance.

Instead, Democrats muddled their message by trying to appease donor-class centrists while signaling progressive values in symbolic ways. The result? A party that sounded “woke” to conservatives and felt corporate to working people. That is a lethal combination.

Most voters don’t obsess over DEI offices or trans athletes. They care about whether they can afford rent, get decent healthcare, and trust anyone in power. Democrats didn’t lose to Trump’s ideology. They lost to his ability to perform concern for people’s problems, even if he governed for the rich.

So yes, the next Democratic leader needs to stand for what Americans want. But it’s not a mystery that needs to be solved, they want: dignity, security, and someone who gives a damn.

 

[heelinhell]

As someone who ran for Congress in 2006 on a simple 3 part platform...

1) impeach GWB
2 ) establish national health insurance for all Americans
3 ) withdraw from Iraq and focus on diplomatic strategies to prevent the development of nuclear weapons in Iran

I did have other ideas but given the environment those were the most salient at the time

So with the understanding that I went down in flames in the Democratic primary, this would be my humble recommendation for those running in 2026...

1 ) advocating specific policies that will improve the lives of working and middle class families

2 ) Campaign on a theme that says "We are all Americans " to address broadly the various "woke " issues

3 ) Remind voters that we have been the shining city on a hill and an inspiration to those across the globe who hope to enjoy a democracy like we have enjoyed but is now under threat to go down the dark path of autocracy and join Russia and China.

I limit a political campaign to 3 themes, because I believe the average voter can only retain 3 themes throughout a campaign

now back to what I do best...day drinking

 

[p5mmr9]

I'm so fucking tired of hearing about "woke." Yougov has a 5 point difference between GOP and Democratic Party favorability...that's nearly the margin of error. The issue of Democratic Party favorability is overblown and would not be an issue had the Democratic Party had a real Presidential primary and nominated a strong candidate who could connect with voters. Harris ran an admirable campaign but she was the wrong candidate for this election in nearly every sense.

 

[superrific]

Most voters don’t obsess over DEI offices or trans athletes. They care about whether they can afford rent, get decent healthcare, and trust anyone in power.

What is the basis for this assumption? Is it that you think they surely care about those things most of all because that would be rational? Is it based on your experiences with voters?

What I've seen over the years is precisely the opposite. That doesn't make me an authority but it does call into question the blitheness with which you make these assertions.

If your assumption were true, how do you explain the vast partisan distinctions between, say, Alabama and Massachusetts? And why is the main divide in American politics between former Jim Crow states and non-Jim Crow states. Look at any electoral map of this century and what should stand out is the uniformity of the Solid South. If race isn't the driving factor, why do Alabama and Missouri vote for the same stuff and Washington and Oregon don't?

You noted yesterday that a message board isn't a peer review board. Point taken. But still I would like evidence. I don't want to latch onto an idea or a position without knowing whether it's true or based in reality.

 

[superrific]

2 ) Campaign on a theme that says "We are all Americans " to address broadly the various "woke " issues

This deserves its own thread, but my messaging would be the opposite. Democrats are for us, the hard-working people of the country who just want a decent life and opportunity for their children; Republicans are for them, the billionaires who crave tax cuts at the cost of health care for everyone and trillions in debt.

Democrats are for us. Republicans are for them.

 

[ZenMode]

Democrats are for they/them. Republicans are for us.

FIFY

 

[uncmba]

I think the Trans issue really resonates with old religious people. My Mother in Law talks non-stop about it. You can't ask her how much the Big Beautiful Bill will take healthcare away from her family members.

 

[superrific]

FIFY

No, you distorted it because you're an ignorant piece of shit who knows nothing about anything. I meant exactly what I said.

 

[StrangePackage]

No, you distorted it because you're an ignorant piece of shit who knows nothing about anything. I meant exactly what I said.

Actually, if your slogan can be easily undermined by ignorant pieces of shit, it's probably not a great slogan.

 

[superrific]

Actually, if your slogan can be easily undermined by ignorant pieces of shit, it's probably not a great slogan.

I'm not a sloganeer. But my slogan is obviously aimed at that stupid ad. It's basically saying: they promised to be for you, but they have always been for them: billionaires Musk, Sacks, Bessent, and the 13 billionaires in his cabinet. The GOP is for people who don't worry about medical care because they can buy hospitals; don't worry about putting food on their table; call your hometowns disaster areas; have no understanding of what is required to rebuild after a massive storm.

That's who the GOP is for. THEM [show a picture of Musk, Trump, maybe Rudy and the R candidate in that race]

 

[Paine]

What is the basis for this assumption? Is it that you think they surely care about those things most of all because that would be rational? Is it based on your experiences with voters?

What I've seen over the years is precisely the opposite. That doesn't make me an authority but it does call into question the blitheness with which you make these assertions.

If your assumption were true, how do you explain the vast partisan distinctions between, say, Alabama and Massachusetts? And why is the main divide in American politics between former Jim Crow states and non-Jim Crow states. Look at any electoral map of this century and what should stand out is the uniformity of the Solid South. If race isn't the driving factor, why do Alabama and Missouri vote for the same stuff and Washington and Oregon don't?

You noted yesterday that a message board isn't a peer review board. Point taken. But still I would like evidence. I don't want to latch onto an idea or a position without knowing whether it's true or based in reality.

You’re asking for evidence, so let’s start there. When Americans are polled about what issues matter most to them, across race, class, and party lines, the answers are consistent: the economy, healthcare, housing, inflation, political corruption. Cultural issues like DEI, trans sports, or campus speech don’t rank high for most people. That’s not an opinion, it’s standard across Pew, Gallup, AP-NORC, and others.

Now, I know what you’re likely to say. Even if voters say they care about the economy, their actual votes, especially for Republicans pushing racist or regressive policies, reveal a deeper commitment to cultural identity. That’s the classic revealed preference argument.

But that interpretation assumes a kind of ideological coherence that doesn’t reflect how most people engage with politics. Voters aren’t wonks. They respond to emotion, tone, and trust. When someone says they care about wages or healthcare but votes Republican, it doesn’t mean they’re lying about their priorities. It often means they don’t believe Democrats will actually deliver. Or worse, that Democrats look down on people like them.

Republicans win not because they offer better material outcomes, but because they perform alignment with people’s anger and disillusionment. Democrats lose because they too often speak a language that feels foreign, managerial, or moralizing, especially to voters who are economically precarious and culturally defensive. That emotional mismatch is where trust breaks.

As for the Solid South, yes, race is foundational to American politics. But Alabama and Missouri don’t vote the way they do just because of race. These are regions marked by deep economic hardship, social conservatism, and distrust of elite institutions. The right exploits this through racialized grievance. But the left has failed to compete on the terrain of class and belonging. That’s the missed opportunity. And it’s a strategic failure, not just a moral one.

So no, I’m not saying voters are perfectly rational economic actors. I’m saying that ignoring economic frustration, or treating it as a mask for bigotry, is a mistake. It writes off winnable voters, inflates the liberal self-image, and guarantees political isolation.

 

[ZenMode]

Nobody will give a shit but, IMO, the overarching issue, when it's all boiled down, is identity politics. Identity politics is the opposite of "We are all Americans, so let's do what's best for all of us". Identity politics is "YOU can't tell me shit because YOU aren't (insert superficial characteristic like black, brown, trans, non-binary, gay, etc)".

 

[Paine]

Nobody will give a shit but, IMO, the overarching issue, when it's all boiled down, is identity politics. Identity politics is the opposite of "We are all Americans, so let's do what's best for all of us". Identity politics is "YOU can't tell me shit because YOU aren't (insert superficial characteristic like black, brown, trans, non-binary, gay, etc)".

Based on my experiences, I think people feel this way because identity politics, at its worst, can come off as exclusionary or moralizing. When it becomes a language of gatekeeping: “you can’t speak because you’re not X,” it alienates people who might otherwise be open to solidarity or shared goals. That’s a real political liability.

But it’s also worth remembering that identity politics didn’t come out of nowhere. It emerged because certain groups were historically excluded, and demanding recognition wasn’t just about ego: it was about access to rights, protections, and representation.

The real problem is when the rhetoric of identity gets severed from any broader vision of economic justice or shared struggle. When that happens, it stops building coalitions and starts fragmenting them. That’s where the left, especially in institutional settings, has often gotten stuck.

A politics that says, “We are all Americans, and we lift everyone by lifting the most vulnerable” can include identity without being reduced to it. That’s what effective movements have always done, whether it was the New Deal coalition, the Civil Rights Movement, or labor struggles.

 

[superrific]

You’re asking for evidence, so let’s start there. When Americans are polled about what issues matter most to them, across race, class, and party lines, the answers are consistent: the economy, healthcare, housing, inflation, political corruption. Cultural issues like DEI, trans sports, or campus speech don’t rank high for most people. That’s not an opinion, it’s standard across Pew, Gallup, AP-NORC, and others.

Now, I know what you’re likely to say. Even if voters say they care about the economy, their actual votes, especially for Republicans pushing racist or regressive policies, reveal a deeper commitment to cultural identity. That’s the classic revealed preference argument.

But that interpretation assumes a kind of ideological coherence that doesn’t reflect how most people engage with politics. Voters aren’t wonks. They respond to emotion, tone, and trust. When someone says they care about wages or healthcare but votes Republican, it doesn’t mean they’re lying about their priorities. It often means they don’t believe Democrats will actually deliver. Or worse, that Democrats look down on people like them.

Republicans win not because they offer better material outcomes, but because they perform alignment with people’s anger and disillusionment. Democrats lose because they too often speak a language that feels foreign, managerial, or moralizing, especially to voters who are economically precarious and culturally defensive. That emotional mismatch is where trust breaks.

As for the Solid South, yes, race is foundational to American politics. But Alabama and Missouri don’t vote the way they do just because of race. These are regions marked by deep economic hardship, social conservatism, and distrust of elite institutions. The right exploits this through racialized grievance. But the left has failed to compete on the terrain of class and belonging. That’s the missed opportunity. And it’s a strategic failure, not just a moral one.

So no, I’m not saying voters are perfectly rational economic actors. I’m saying that ignoring economic frustration, or treating it as a mask for bigotry, is a mistake. It writes off winnable voters, inflates the liberal self-image, and guarantees political isolation.

1. You're right; I don't believe those polls. It's not only the revealed preference. It's that the GOP doesn't campaign all that much about those issues that are supposedly important. It campaigns almost entirely on the cultural issues. Sure, they mentioned inflation a few times but to me, it's hard to look at the 2024 campaign without seeing little more than animus. If Trump's voters didn't care about the stuff he ran on, the Trump campaign was criminally incompetent.

2. I grant -- indeed, I've made this point in different contexts -- that generalizations about any of this stuff are fraught because we're not talking about winning 100% of MAGA. You want to pull 5% of the people who voted for Trump -- people who might not actually be MAGA -- and restore their trust in Dems. That's fair. It's laudable. But it's also tricky.

3. I'm unsure what function the "what voters really care about" line is performing here. You say the GOP runs on emotional appeal. The Dems should also foster that sense of belonging. If that's the strategy, does it really matter what issues are the most important ones? Find ones that resonate, which aren't necessarily going to be the ones that are most important.

You're familiar with Richard Hofstatder, right? IIRC he wrote a book about how US presidential elections are rarely conducted over the most important issues of the day. They are fought over proxies or trivialities perceived to be pregnant with meaning. I'd say that's a great description of our contemporary politics. And it's been going on forever. It wasn't the neoliberal New Democrats that got Bush 41 to run on outlawing flag burning.

4. If you're proposing that Democrats find a visible, signature issue that will be viewed positively and sympathetically across the board, regardless of importance, I'm on board with that. The problem is that liberals tend not to be wired that way. Maybe that doesn't matter. Maybe we just need to find our own flag burning or trans athletes.

I don't take that to be what you're saying, but I think that's the implication of your logic here. And maybe at this point, it's just means-to-an-end.

5. Semi-serious suggestion: what if we tried investing in reality shows. Follow me here: it seems to me that practically every profession has gotten some sort of reality TV show glamorizing its less well-known aspects. But not construction workers, to my knowledge. Wouldn't it have been cool to have a show tracking how the bridge in Philly was rebuilt?

Or a reality show about first responders. Sort of like Cops, except with ambulances. Doctor shows are popular; why not first responders? I guess it doesn't even need to be reality TV. It could be scripted. The point is: we need to see ambulance drivers or EMTs as heroes. And then they will say things like, "the system really works better when everyone has insurance," or "the toughest one is when a person probably needs to go to the hospital, but it might be nothing and meanwhile their insurance company charges them $500 for every ER visit."

I'm obviously not a TV creative, so these specific ideas might suck but the general idea seems sound to me, without having thought about it too much.

It might not hurt to have a few shows or films like: a psychopath who joins ICE because it lets him invade houses and rape women, or a corrupt president who takes bribes and shafts the people.