
I recently saw a thread by Lakshya Jain, a poll modeler and founder of Split-Ticket an election analysis website, and needless to say, I have many thoughts about it. However, before I delve into those, I want to show you the first two parts of the thread.
Okay. So I've wanted to articulate this for a while, but never really knew how. But I'm personally absolutely, completely disgusted with the Democratic Party — *my* party, in many ways — and not because of the party moving "too far left/right". Let me explain.
Everything I write here is in my personal capacity. And this is not a giant thread on "why I left the Democratic Party". I'm not doing that, because I agree with Democrats significantly more than I do with the GOP, and I vote for the side I agree with more. But I'm still angry.
Don’t worry; I will delve into other pieces and address them, but I have undergone somewhat of an evolution in how I see this thread over the past 48 hours. I admit that my first response to reading the words “disgusted with the Democratic Party” was one of revulsion, and after reading the rest of what he had to say, I only became more disgusted in my own right. It may be because Democrats are coming off a loss in the 2024 general election. Still, the sentiment I gathered from Jain was one I felt lacked substance and could be boiled down to reflexive overprescription and historical revisionism of the past 4 years. But, while I disagree with much of what Jain expresses here, he is not wrong.
The lessons I have drawn from this election I see expressed not only in Jain’s frustration but with people from the center-left to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. We need to go back to basic elementary math.
Addition is Key to Our Survival
Let’s start with two plus two, shall we? Take the following passage out of Jain’s contempt for modern-day Democrats.
It's the "process over results" attitude that I'm just sick and tired of. So many programs are created with immense goodwill and money to be put into good things. But when the time comes to build, *we just can't*, because paperwork and process is like crack cocaine to Democrats.
And we're told "it's fine". But it's really not. Government should exist to work for people, not work for itself. If you have a program that has poured $40M into rural broadband with no results, you can rationalize it in any way you want, but it's a massive failure at the end.
He is right and wrong about the programs and government in general when he discusses the “process over results” attitude and the reflexive establishment defense of procedure. I do not love the example he chose, BroadbandUSA, which has undergone numerous new programs since passing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act of 2022 and Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (and a few other laws), but I understand why he did.
The Broadband Programs, which have timelines outlined since the beginning of Biden’s Presidency for many projects to be completed by 2030 or earlier, have produced results! Take the Broadband Infrastructure Program (BIP), which has reached tens of thousands of Americans, businesses, and community centers, with particular success in Scott County, Kentucky. Remember, this is one of the smaller programs the Biden admin kicked off! Consider the more significant $42.45 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. As of November 2024, it has finalized approval for all applications and allocated all funding to connect the remaining 7 million Americans without high-speed internet access. You can track BEAD’s progress here. The Biden admin has also already awarded over 200 million dollars in funding to help connect minority communities and strengthen existing institutions like HBCUs.
In truth, there have been tangible results, like through the BIP program, and for other programs, the outlined timeline is running according to schedule. If one were frustrated with the speed of such programs, you would expect them to take issue with it at the announcement, not after an election loss when everything is running according to plan. Secondly, if funding allocation does not breed results in states, direct your fury to the correct culprit, at the very least: state and local governments!
My home state, New Jersey, is a perfect example of this, with excess nepotism and an undemocratic ballot system that has well overstayed its welcome. Building and progress are impeded by control from local and state officials who are more concerned about padding their bottom line than delivering for their residents. Just recently, in my town, we have delayed an enormous infrastructure project that would have brought in a new industry, residents, and a general economic boom, yet due to NIMBYism and needless procedure, we failed to get the project passed even the planning board!
While it looks like we haven’t run into this issue with broadband, this comes to the main point, which is addition. We need more people in blue states to survive the upcoming electoral reassignment in 2030, otherwise our Presidential and House maps will become even more dire than they are right now. Is the Electoral College highly flawed and in need of reform? Yes, it is, but without a Constitutional Amendment or the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) being agreed upon, we need to shore up our populations. Blue states provide a high quality of life, but it is costly to live here. The states that are hitting their building renaissance are all Red! While many cities might be blue in Republican-controlled states, the population transfer has not been enough to convert these states to Blue yet, and it won’t be so for the foreseeable future (Texas has been supposedly turning purple any day now!). The only way to do so is to bring down the cost of living, and one can easily do so by building more homes! This will provide access to our extraordinary states and superior education systems to people who desperately need it and help save our national government in the process.
In one sentence: WE NEED MORE PEOPLE!
Subtraction is a Necessary Evil
This might sound contradictory to the prior section, but let me clarify. Addition is related to the total population of blue states, whereas subtraction relates to ridding people in our coalition/leadership. When I use the word coalition, I do not mean all 76 million voters who voted for Harris this past election, but rather the different ideological and interest groups in the Democratic Party that represent people’s views writ large.
To me, there is merely one appropriate litmus test for a political party when analyzing who is welcome into a coalition (outside extremes). When it comes time for an election, will you be supportive and openly vocal about the candidate for x position? If the answer is anything outside of a “Yes,” these are people we ought not to waste resources on. If you ever wonder why Liz Cheney was welcome into our coalition but not the “Uncommitted Movement,” make no mistake: it is because Cheney was part of a group commonly referred to as “Republicans For Harris.” There is a key phrase in that name: FOR HARRIS.
What good are you to us as Democrats if you will not support the candidate when the time comes? We can debate the political investment into events with Cheney and potential positive and negative effects on Harris's campaign, but the other side of that coin is not doing more events with uncommitted members; rather, it will be with other FOR HARRIS groups. Using bargaining chips so that a candidate will get your support is nothing new to politics. Still, in the face of an authoritarian insurrectionist rapist, you would think the time to fight about one of the most divisive international conflicts would be put on the backend and focus on the immediate threat at hand. So, for Democrats, it is best optically in these times to completely and utterly ignore/disown these groups. This goes for any issue.
On the topic of leadership, many Democrats seemingly hold power until all four limbs are in the grave; this must change! As someone completely wrong about Biden and his campaign team, it is blatantly clear we need less kissing of the ring and more promotion of our youth. This is where I arrive at the wonderfully provocative (rhetorically) Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. It should come as no surprise I have major policy disagreements with AOC, particularly on foreign issues, but AOC has a quality I have the utmost respect for; she supports the damn party. She like me backed Biden when there was large public pressure to drop out, she hosted numerous social media lives to address her base and enthusiastically vote for Harris and demonized Trump, she is a fantastic communicator. This is not to say I want her to be the Presidential candidate, but there is a much different role for a surrogate and congress member that AOC can and should play, one of higher importance. I have nothing against George Connolly, but it did miff me quite a bit that one of Nancy Pelosi’s final acts as a Democratic Kingmaker was to block AOC’s rise to ranking member of the House Oversight Committee and whip against her. Should AOC disavow the DSA more? Probably! Should policy disagreements stand in the way of an enthusiastic, progressive voice that openly supports our candidates when the time calls for it? No! We are not making her the President!
In one sentence: Discard those who cannot meet the moment and replace those who have outlived their time.
Division Can Be a Tool
In the prior section, I discussed AOC as a person to elevate for higher communication but noted that I have, without a doubt, numerous policy disagreements. Given our mutual desire to fight authoritarianism and maintain societal progress, we can use these disagreements to our advantage. There is simply no party for the Democrats to have actual policy debates with currently. The Republican Party is one of yes men who will change their beliefs on a whim according to their dear leader. I am a proponent of larger populist discourse to attract the masses to our campaigns, but by no means do I wish this to affect the soul of the Democratic party in any way. For America to have good prospects, we must have factions to debate issues; there are rich ideas to discuss.
I believe the future of the Democrats relies on maintaining the following three factions.
New Dogs: I would classify these as fiscal conservatives and social liberals. However, they are distinct from Blue Dog Democrats of old like Joe Manchin and contemporaries like Josh Gottheimer. The difference is that these former Republicans are enthusiastically ready to fight and arm Democrats against MAGA. A perfect group of people to put in this category would be the excellent writers at The Bulwark. Tim Miller, Sarah Longwell, Jonathan V. Last, and Sam Stein are some of the most ardent Trump critics who have fully embraced the fight and would serve us well as a more significant faction within the Democratic Party. People like them can bring a genuine approach to dealing with issues that differ from the traditional Democratic manner. This is not to say we should listen to everything they say, but when it comes to approaching electoral strategies, among other issues, this faction could serve us exceptionally well. It will undoubtedly be the most minor faction, but hopefully larger than its predecessor in the Blue-Dog faction.
Liberals: Typical establishment Democrats like myself. They have long held the power in our faction and continue to do so. A breed of moderate fiscal policy and relatively solidly liberal social policy, I do not see much needing to change for this faction to continue existing. The main challenge it will likely run into is the ability to wield better rhetoric to appeal to the voter. Additionally, some of these members capitulate too quickly without fighting. Some trends of mainstream Democrats have disheartened me, but I hope in a few months, they will wake up to the monstrosity of the Trump administration.
Progressives: You could say Bernie Sanders had spawned the modern progressives. Gaining more and more influence over time and having direct policy impacts on Biden’s 2020 campaign are a growing house caucus. Being a former member of such a group, they have many aspects establishment Democrats wish to have. They appear populist but, unlike the Republicans, have not usurped control of Democrats. I find this is for two reasons. One, the progressive wing is fundamentally good with many flaws; I believe they seek some sort of harmony with the other wings but often have bad actors and legislatures win. Two, by branching out into numerous content creators that draw influence from them, they have also become somewhat self-sabotaging. A debate between three progressives, Kyle Kulinski, Krystal Ball, and Briahna Joy Grey, comes to mind. In it, Kyle expresses his admiration for how happily the Biden admin worked with aspects of their movement, yet BJG cannot express any gratitude to Biden. With people like BJG, some sects of the progressive movement become acceleration-obsessed obstructionists in the name of a “perfect” world. So, for the progressives, we should gladly use their media wing and reform it, with better content moderation on who we associate with as a party. However, with some message discipline and self-reflection, this wing can serve Democrats well in the future.
We can only arrive at the proper electoral strategies and best policies for America moving forward through harmonious disagreement. Is it a burden for Democrats to have to play the role of two political parties (beyond natural sects) while also dealing with degenerate Republican antics? Yes, it is, and unfortunately, that is the world we live in. It is unclear whether or not Democrats will rise to the challenge, or maybe the better question is when.
Conclusion
I planned on deep-diving into the above Twitter thread when I began writing this post. Instead, I used it as a springboard for the general issues and problems Democrats must address during our mini-reconstruction (beyond media). Lakshya echoes some of this with his continued support for Democrats and frustration with process over progress. While he expresses this as personal thoughts over advice, I think many reasonable complaints can be drawn from this thread.
Democrats enter an uneasy time where we have very little political power other than to say no to whatever bad things the Trump admin wants to do. We best work 24/7 up to and through election season each year to be prepared for 2026 and beyond.
I hope this gave you all some food for thought!
-Lex
P.S. SORRY FOR THE DELAY!