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

[superrific]

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)".

The GOP has never ever adhered to the former message. It's always the latter, except they invert it ever so slightly: YOU can't tell me shit because YOU are [insert superficial characteristic here]

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

Both political parties are obsessed with identity. Liberals used to simply not want to talk about it. Treat everyone the same. When they became obsessed with landing the plane perfectly on every demographic split, they lost the upper hand. It’s not like people like the Republicans either.

 

[Paine]

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.

Appreciate the thoughtful response, there’s more agreement here than it might seem at first glance.

1. On the polls: I get the skepticism, but we’re not just talking about survey data. We’re talking about lived experience, including yours and mine. You know that voters talk about gas prices, medical bills, rent, job security, things that touch their everyday lives. You’re right that the GOP doesn’t run detailed policy campaigns on those fronts, but that’s the point. They don’t need to if they can channel the emotional energy people feel about decline, fear, and status anxiety through cultural proxies. And when Democrats don’t offer emotional or moral clarity on the real drivers of people’s stress, those proxies win by default.

2. Yes, we’re not trying to win 100% of MAGA. The goal is to chip away at the margins: working-class people who feel abandoned, people alienated by elite liberal tone, people who once voted for Obama. That’s not about pandering. It’s about showing up with moral seriousness and speaking in a register that resonates beyond college-educated circles.

3. You ask what function the “what voters really care about” argument serves. It’s a guide, not to the only issues we should talk about, but to what gives messaging depth and credibility. If we anchor our message in something emotionally true for people, like medical debt, job insecurity, or corrupt institutions, we earn the right to be heard on other things. That’s how you build trust. It’s also how you disarm cultural resentment. The left won’t win a proxy war over values if it doesn’t feel present in people’s material lives.

4. I’m absolutely not saying Dems should chase the right’s culture war frame or find our own flag-burning wedge issue. Quite the opposite. I’m saying we need emotionally resonant issues that speak to shared struggle. Think: rural hospital closures, railroad safety, drug pricing, union rights. Things that dramatize who’s profiting and who’s paying the price. Not technocratic white papers but stories with stakes, villains, and solidarity.

5. Your media idea is more serious than you let on. Storytelling shapes public morality. Cops, Top Gun, and Homeland did real political work. Why don’t we have shows that treat EMTs, nurses, or Amazon warehouse workers as the protagonists of American life? Culture doesn’t just reflect values, it produces them. That’s a frontier Democrats have largely ceded.

If we agree that people don’t vote on policy details but on affect, identity, and trust, then the left has two choices. Keep lamenting that fact and lose, or build a politics that meets people where they are and gives them a story they want to be part of.

There’s a great YouTube channel called More Perfect Union that is doing yeoman’s work on this front. Highlighting every day struggles of working people. Faiz Shakir wanted to scale this model up and have the DNC create this sort of content. Didn’t seem to be much of an appetite for that among the party though.

 

[ZenMode]

Both political parties are obsessed with identity. Liberals used to simply not want to talk about it. Treat everyone the same. When they became obsessed with landing the plane perfectly on every demographic split, they lost the upper hand. It’s not like people like the Republicans either.

Agree. I think, to some degree, the straight, white, cis, male identity politics, we see on the Right, was a defensive response to Dem identity politics that attacked anything/everything straight, cis, white and male.

 

[UNCatTech]

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).

I heard an interview with Wes Moore yesterday, he talked about vetting that bill. It wasn't because he is against reparations. He said the bill called for a two year study about reparations. He didn't see a need for a Ayurveda he wanted to, as he said it, "Get to work".

I believe most of these choices come from them being politicians and trying to adjust. This shows that they may not have the conviction in their proclaimed beliefs.

 

[Paine]

Both political parties are obsessed with identity. Liberals used to simply not want to talk about it. Treat everyone the same. When they became obsessed with landing the plane perfectly on every demographic split, they lost the upper hand. It’s not like people like the Republicans either.

Both parties absolutely engage in identity politics but in very different ways. Republicans do it through appeals to national identity, grievance, and traditional social roles; “real American” stuff. Democrats, over time, shifted from a universalist language of shared struggle to a fragmented, highly calibrated rhetoric that tries to name and manage every identity group. That shift felt alienating to a lot of people, even if the intent was inclusion.

The irony is, liberals used to own the moral high ground by emphasizing economic fairness, civil rights, and a basic sense of decency for everyone. Once that got replaced by what often sounds like institutional HR-speak, without the emotional power of class solidarity or patriotism, it left a vacuum. And Republicans filled it with their own version of identity: nostalgic, exclusionary, but coherent to their audience.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

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.

Reich never won an election for anything but he's a heck of a compelling speaker, and his message resonates at least for me. I'd love the Democrats to embrace his vision in a substantive way instead of focusing on some of the cultural issues.

I think there is absolutely a hunger for unions. Change the law to make them easier to form. I think if Harrison run on Joe's Union victories, she had a better chance.

The only exception I think is the implementation of an immigration policy. Trump wins when he talks about open borders but it's a absolute loser for him when he starts deporting people. It was a loser for him his first term and it's a loser for him now. Come up with an immigration plan that works, which admittedly is very hard, and the Democrats can own that issue. It's also the right thing to do.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

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.

I do think some of the open border stuff that Trump tapped into is xenophobia and racism but I honestly feel most of it is economic. People talk about Hispanics taking jobs that Americans don't want like picking produce or cleaning toilets but they are taking plenty of jobs in other industries that Americans do want like construction and meat packing.

I really think Democrats have continued to misidentify the real issue by telling everyone who will listen that the only reason someone could vote for Trump is racism when the issue is competition from immigrants for a large number of voters. Which is why you saw a lot of Hispanic men and to a lesser extent black men vote for Trump too. Those guys of all colors were citizens and had been here for a while and their wages are getting driven down on the construction site by people that showed up last month.

 

[Paine]

The only exception I think is the implementation of an immigration policy. Trump wins when he talks about open borders but it's a absolute loser for him when he starts deporting people. It was a loser for him his first term and it's a loser for him now. Come up with an immigration plan that works, which admittedly is very hard, and the Democrats can own that issue. It's also the right thing to do.

Totally agree with you on immigration. Democrats can’t just react to Trump’s framing, they need to offer a proactive, emotionally compelling vision that connects immigration to labor rights and economic dignity. Right now, the debate is stuck between cruelty and managerialism. One side demonizes immigrants to inflame the base, the other offers vague technocratic fixes that don’t speak to anyone’s real concerns. Or worse, they try to give the right everything they want on the border to prove that Dems are “tough.”

There’s a better way. Say clearly: no one should be exploited for their labor: citizen or immigrant. Everyone who works here should have the same rights, protections, and path to stability. That means legal status, yes, but also the right to organize, safe working conditions, and fair wages. Under the current system, undocumented labor is used to drive down wages and divide workers. That helps bosses, not working people.

The left shouldn’t be afraid to say that strong labor rights and humane immigration policy go hand in hand. That’s the kind of message that can cut through the noise, sidestep Trump’s scare tactics, and build solidarity across lines that are too often used to divide.

 

[UNCatTech]

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.

While I agree and understand that the party has to appeal to people with better ideas to make everyone's life better. I'm still surprised that running against a piece of shit like trump wasn't enough. He's such a bad person that is hard to believe that people could put aside so many failures and so much unacceptable behavior and elect him.

 

[heelinhell]

FIFY

I respectfully disagree with your FIFY nor do I agree with Super wanting to campaign on an explicit us/them theme.

History shows that Democrats have been the party that has improved the lives of working and middle class families. History has shown that Republicans have been the party that has eschewed improving the lives of working and middle class families in favor of improving the lives of upper middle class and upper class families.

Unfortunately for our country, republicans realized that they had been unable to capture working and middle class voters when it came to economic issues back in the day and decided to go after voters with manufactured racial/cultural issues.

I hate to admit it, but it has turned out to be a pretty good strategy over the last 60 years.


With respect to Super's dems for us/pubs for them campaign if explicit will be a loser

again issue #1 is to put forth how specifically Dems will improve the lives of working and middle class families

issue #2 capture and promote the historic memory of America

 

[ZenMode]

One the topic of trans issues and how Dems "lost" the country on that topic, the newest Ezra Klein show is a great deep-dive:

 

[Paine]

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.

Sounds like a lot of my family as well. This is exactly the kind of thing I’ve been trying to get at. When someone like your mother-in-law is more animated by the trans issue than by the fact that her healthcare might get gutted, it’s not because she doesn’t care about healthcare. It’s because the trans issue has become a symbolic stand-in for everything she feels is going wrong: moral decline, loss of cultural familiarity, fear that the world is changing too fast and without her consent.

That symbolic resonance gives it emotional weight in a way that Democrats haven’t matched when talking about economics. When we talk about healthcare, it’s often abstract: “lower premiums,” “ACA subsidies,” “bending the cost curve.” There’s no story, no emotional hook, no sense that someone is fighting for her or understands what she’s scared of.

That’s what the right exploits. Not facts, but feeling. And until Democrats show up with the same level of emotional clarity, especially around the basics like wages, housing, and medical care, they’ll keep losing ground to cultural proxies that fill the vacuum of meaning.

 

[superrific]

1. On the polls: I get the skepticism, but we’re not just talking about survey data. We’re talking about lived experience, including yours and mine. You know that voters talk about gas prices, medical bills, rent, job security, things that touch their everyday lives.

I try not to let my personal experience or that of my friends dictate my views of "voters." I'm not remotely typical. I have no idea what a construction worker and a PA couple talk about over the famed kitchen table

 

[Paine]

This is really the conversation I was trying to have back in the Newsom thread. With everything we’ve been talking about here: emotional trust, cultural tone, the failure of Democrats to connect beyond their base, I’m finding that my own preferences for the 2028 nomination are less about specific policies (though those obviously matter) and more about how a candidate lands emotionally with most Americans.

I’m looking for someone who can project warmth, steadiness, and a sense of moral seriousness without sounding like a technocrat or a brand manager. Someone who can speak to working people without sounding like they’re talking at them.

That’s why I’m not particularly interested in folks like:

• Gavin Newsom
• Pete Buttigieg
• Rahm Emanuel
• Josh Shapiro

To me, they represent a style of politics that’s fluent in elite cultural cues but disconnected from the emotional center of the country.

I’m more interested in candidates like:

• Andy Beshear
• Raphael Warnock
• Tim Walz
• Even Mark Kelly, who’s more reserved but doesn’t feel phony

Curious where others land on this. Not just who you agree with most on policy but who you think could actually connect with people in a way that builds trust, not just applause lines.

 

[superrific]

Well, you said candidates like, so I'm assuming you're excluding the actual Tim Walz who cannot be the candidate. Taking the VP candidate from a losing ticket is not the way to win. But yes, someone like Tim Walz.

I would love president Warnock but dude, we cannot run another black candidate. The white folks are going to think we're completely sold out to the minorities.

I doubt Mark Kelly has the energy for a presidential campaign, but again you said like.

 

[ZenMode]

The GOP has never ever adhered to the former message. It's always the latter, except they invert it ever so slightly: YOU can't tell me shit because YOU are [insert superficial characteristic here]

The GOP won. The question isn't about them.

 

[Centerpiece]

Sounds like a lot of my family as well. This is exactly the kind of thing I’ve been trying to get at. When someone like your mother-in-law is more animated by the trans issue than by the fact that her healthcare might get gutted, it’s not because she doesn’t care about healthcare. It’s because the trans issue has become a symbolic stand-in for everything she feels is going wrong: moral decline, loss of cultural familiarity, fear that the world is changing too fast and without her consent.

That symbolic resonance gives it emotional weight in a way that Democrats haven’t matched when talking about economics. When we talk about healthcare, it’s often abstract: “lower premiums,” “ACA subsidies,” “bending the cost curve.” There’s no story, no emotional hook, no sense that someone is fighting for her or understands what she’s scared of.

That’s what the right exploits. Not facts, but feeling. And until Democrats show up with the same level of emotional clarity, especially around the basics like wages, housing, and medical care, they’ll keep losing ground to cultural proxies that fill the vacuum of meaning.

So the meat and bones is the Dems went too far down the alphabet trail DEI, LGBTQ, + etc. and left out the real life issues which face most Americans. Let’s face it, the alphabet trail has a lot of letters, but it doesn’t encompass the majority of people.

Grandma won’t fight for her own healthcare but she’ll fight you tooth and nail about transgender. That is telling indeed.

Had the Dems left the alphabet trail on the periphery - instead of making it their centerpiece (pun intended) - and focused more on what Bernie was peddling… and had run better candidates… I’m sorry, all it took to beat a lousy candidate like Trump was a tired old white guy.

Hindsight is 20-20 but I said back in 2021 that Biden should have announced on day 101 (after his first 100 days of building back better) that he wouldn’t seek another term thereby allowing the jockeying for position of primary candidates.

When I said that in 2021 I was castigated on the old board because “doing that would automatically make Biden a “lame duck” too soon.

Now I say, the Dems need to ditch the alphabet trail and jump on the train of hard nosed issues.

 

[Paine]

Well, you said candidates like, so I'm assuming you're excluding the actual Tim Walz who cannot be the candidate. Taking the VP candidate from a losing ticket is not the way to win. But yes, someone like Tim Walz.

I would love president Warnock but dude, we cannot run another black candidate. The white folks are going to think we're completely sold out to the minorities.

I doubt Mark Kelly has the energy for a presidential campaign, but again you said like.

I’ve got to push back hard on your Warnock comment. Saying “we can’t run another Black candidate” because “white folks will think we’re sold out to minorities” is surrender. It assumes voters can’t hold two thoughts at once: that a Black pastor from Georgia might actually represent broad American values and appeal across racial lines.

We’ve already run a Black candidate, and he won twice. If the lesson you take from that is “never again,” you’re not really doing political analysis, you’re managing anxieties. Warnock’s strength isn’t just that he’s Black. It’s that he’s a damn good politician. He speaks with clarity and conviction about things that matter to working people. That’s what we need more of.

This is exactly why Democrats lose trust. Not because voters are all bigots, but because voters can sense when their leaders don’t believe in anything beyond navigating perceptions.

 

[Paine]

So the meat and bones is the Dems went too far down the alphabet trail DEI, LGBTQ, + etc. and left out the real life issues which face most Americans. Let’s face it, the alphabet trail has a lot of letters, but it doesn’t encompass the majority of people.

Grandma won’t fight for her own healthcare but she’ll fight you tooth and nail about transgender. That is telling indeed.

Had the Dems left the alphabet trail on the periphery - instead of making it their centerpiece (pun intended) - and focused more on what Bernie was peddling… and had run better candidates… I’m sorry, all it took to beat a lousy candidate like Trump was a tired old white guy.

Hindsight is 20-20 but I said back in 2021 that Biden should have announced on day 101 (after his first 100 days of building back better) that he wouldn’t seek another term thereby allowing the jockeying for position of primary candidates.

When I said that in 2021 I was castigated on the old board because “doing that would automatically make Biden a “lame duck” too soon.

Now I say, the Dems need to ditch the alphabet trail and jump on the train of hard nosed issues.

You’re getting close to what I’m saying, but I want to be precise here. It’s not that the “alphabet trail” topics should be banished to the periphery. It’s that Democrats let those topics become symbolic stand-ins for the whole of their moral identity without anchoring them in a bigger story about solidarity, dignity, and shared struggle.

The right exploits these issues to stoke fear. Too often, Democrats respond either defensively, or by treating symbolic representation as a substitute for actual transformation. That leaves everyone frustrated: both the people who feel culturally alienated and the marginalized communities who aren’t getting meaningful change either.

It’s not about dropping DEI or LGBTQ+ issues. It’s about connecting them to a politics that speaks to universal concerns: healthcare, wages, safety, fairness. When Bernie did that, it wasn’t because he ignored identity, it’s because he embedded it in a vision that felt collective, not siloed.

So yeah, grandma is angry about the trans issue. But that’s because the right gave her a story that felt urgent and moral. Democrats need to offer a better one; not just for her, but for everyone.