I have been working in the field of public opinion in Wisconsin for the long 15 plus year struggle to restore democracy here. Also an emeritus professor of journalism and mass communication. This post is one of the most concise and precise summaries of our new political communication environment that I have seen. The dynamics are complicated but as my colleague Lance Bennett demonstrated long ago public opinion is “indexed” to the actions of party opinion leaders. As Brian points out, in a world of three networks, this was a fairly predictable and powerful process. But it’s still true in the fragmented media environment, maybe more true, but in a different way.
I appreciate your well-argued article and I’m glad to hear people providing more good reasons why Democrats should get out from under the poll blankets that stymy their efforts. I do disagree, however, with your statement that “Americans spend their waking hours living in separate universes with separate facts, …” Separate universes, yes, but not separate “facts.” You then go on to point out that Republican audiences are getting news that is not based on the realities of what is happening in our world. So let’s call this what it really is. These are not facts, they are lies. Democrats, and anyone else with reason and integrity, needs to call out their lies as lies and disprove them by providing the actual facts to the same audience. How do you do that? I guess it means appearing on Fox News or posting on “Truth” Social, with links to indisputable, verifiable information such as videos of people actually saying things or verified reports of economic data. Part of the problem is that Republicans have been allowed to believe nonsense for too long and we need to speak up and burst their bubble at every opportunity.
Poll-watching Democrats - did they never hear of leadership? Our minds ARE populated by what we are told, especially what we are told over and over. Trump, at least, knows this.
Thank you. This has been on my mind quite a bit as I struggle to make and remake a news menu. I hope as a strategist you are able to lend weight to the Democratic Party. Senator Van Hollen held the press but the second group which went got lost. Even as Rep Maxine Dexter says she is not leaving El Salvador until Mr Garcia is released.
Thanks for this very thoughtful and thought provoking piece. As a lifelong Democrat, it is refreshing and hopeful to hear what Democrats have done, and must do to hold Trump and his cohort accountable to the American people.
The youth of this country is brainwashed by the YouTube/instagram influencers like Pool, Peterson, Rogan and Kirk. And while Rogan did bring up a great point that whether you think Garcia was wrongfully deported or not, the lack of due process is frightening. This shocked many (especially Pool) because it goes against the MAGA cult. It's a great wedge issue for the Dems to exploit. But I fear they will not. They'll let others lead and then co-opt it rather than get out front.
On a side note, I would love that IF Garcia is returned, he immediately sues these right-wing outlets for defamation as well as the US Government for the deportation. It's time to SandyHook survivor these grifting idiots out of their assets. Bankrupting them is too small a punishment.
I suggest the word "irregular" is better than "illegal" to describe Biden's immigration failure. A lot of it was not "illegal," since it comported with International Law regarding asylum.
Great analysis of our fragmented infoworld. But then let me ask this: where is the Dems war room and who is manning it on a daily/ hourly basis to identify and shape the information flow? I see no coordinated effort from the left.
"Public opinion can move rapidly in response to events."
Public opinion can also move rapidly in response to reframing a policy issue. For example, what if Democrats, when talking about illegal immigration, included the role that illegal employers - employers like Trump - play in encouraging undocumented workers to cross the southern border?
Matt Yglesias, Nate Silver and Ezra Klein are full of shit. They have been full of shit for a long time. Nate got one election spectacularly right 10 years ago now- a no-unexpected result over the long run (“1-in-a-million odds occur 7x a day in NYC”). Matt Yglesias counseled aspiring pundits to “brand” themselves as “outside the box” conservatives, exemplifying a complete lack of moral commitment and a craven desire for prestige and aggrandizement. These fucking overpaid pundits always want to carry on about the fucking “data,” when the fact of the matter is human beings simply are not neat and predictable data points, and their judgments, motivations and reactions are in no small part causally determined by the very narratives and information that they’re fed.
Fascinating and on point! I can so relate to the media bubble analogy- once my in-laws (who were fair minded, good people) were swallowed up by the Fox News rage-o-sphere in the early aughts, they never made it back out of that bubble to the ‘real world’. It’s been very distressing and disturbing, watching them turn into democrat-hating, liberal despising ‘bots’, parroting the latest outrage spewed by that evil propaganda network.
This analysis is persuasive but it still leaves me wondering what happens when a critical issue arises that forces all eyes on it. For example, the imposition of tariffs seems to have been an issue which forced almost every part of the media ecosystem to focus on it. And this occurred multiple times over the past 100 days. Yet, it still felt as if different parts of the ecosystem were getting ‘facts’ and ‘analysis’ about the issue which were radically different. Many seemingly continued to believe that tariffs were being paid by other countries and that there would be no inflation impact on ordinary citizens. So, often the complexity of an issue and the time it may take to have an impact create a real problem for anyone who might want to galvanize citizens to take action or to change their views. As well, while the ultimate impact on Americans (and the rest of the world) of these actions may be extremely severe, Democrats seem to have a hard time staying mono-focussed on the negative impacts. Their need to be the adults in the room and explain policies and actions such as these in balanced terms means they likely miss the opportunity to take advantage of such eyeball concentrating moments.
I think the genius of what Brian is saying is that only the moments of crisis count. Voters will tune out Ds commenting on the issues of the day because there's no crisis there: both sides are repeating talking points.
"And while she likely performed better than Joe Biden would have, the results speak for themselves. Harris’s warnings went unheeded."
It seems here that you're falling into the fallacy shared by so many in politics: that everything the winning candidate did was correct ("after all, they won") and everything the losing candidate did was wrong, wrongheaded, bad strategy, foolish, or some other negative ("after all, they lost").
That's bad logic. Every campaign is a series of decisions; some of these decisions gained voters, some of them lost voters, and some of them did neither one.
You can't draw the conclusion you did that Harris' strategy was a bad one. Her strategy might have been the best one available given the circumstances of her short race, and where the country was at the time. It's not like you can run the counterfactuals in a giant simulation, so all we have are guesses.
All we can say for sure is
1. that there were as many reasons for voting for Trump or for voting for Harris are there are voters in America, and
2. Her strategy resonated with many of us Democrats. Her warnings did not go unheeded by us.
Think this story in particular also breaks through because most of us have been taught that due process is fundamental to the country, and stripping it even from a non-citizen feels like crossing a line into something un-American
The talk about thermostatic public opinion backlash reminds me of the discussion of The Party Decides thesis back in the 2016 primaries. People have observed the regularity with which the electorate turns on the party in power or the establishment is able to nominate their preferred candidates and treat it as something that just happens, but ignore that it’s something that people have to make happen. That’s what the James Carville “sit back and wait for Trump to implode” people don’t get. Yes, generally there’s a backlash to the party in power, but that’s because when they get a chance to implement their agenda, the opposition party gets to highlight the real world downsides of their agenda that are just hypothetical when they’re being debated in elections.
Parties can and do fuck up policy and blow an advantage they have in an issue area, and the opposition has to be ready to pounce when they do. Republicans used to have an advantage on foreign policy, but George W. Bush fucked it up with Iraq and Democrats pounced. Democrats used to have an advantage on education, but we fucked it up with COVID closures and Republican pounced.
If you just assume the trend will continue without doing the things that made it happen in the past, the trend will stop continuing. That’s what the Republican establishment learned in 2016 when they just assumed Trump would flame out and they could nominate an establishment candidate without actually having to do anything. If we want to make sure Trump is unpopular in 2026, we need to take every opportunity we can get to rub their noses in their shit.
I have been working in the field of public opinion in Wisconsin for the long 15 plus year struggle to restore democracy here. Also an emeritus professor of journalism and mass communication. This post is one of the most concise and precise summaries of our new political communication environment that I have seen. The dynamics are complicated but as my colleague Lance Bennett demonstrated long ago public opinion is “indexed” to the actions of party opinion leaders. As Brian points out, in a world of three networks, this was a fairly predictable and powerful process. But it’s still true in the fragmented media environment, maybe more true, but in a different way.
I appreciate your well-argued article and I’m glad to hear people providing more good reasons why Democrats should get out from under the poll blankets that stymy their efforts. I do disagree, however, with your statement that “Americans spend their waking hours living in separate universes with separate facts, …” Separate universes, yes, but not separate “facts.” You then go on to point out that Republican audiences are getting news that is not based on the realities of what is happening in our world. So let’s call this what it really is. These are not facts, they are lies. Democrats, and anyone else with reason and integrity, needs to call out their lies as lies and disprove them by providing the actual facts to the same audience. How do you do that? I guess it means appearing on Fox News or posting on “Truth” Social, with links to indisputable, verifiable information such as videos of people actually saying things or verified reports of economic data. Part of the problem is that Republicans have been allowed to believe nonsense for too long and we need to speak up and burst their bubble at every opportunity.
Poll-watching Democrats - did they never hear of leadership? Our minds ARE populated by what we are told, especially what we are told over and over. Trump, at least, knows this.
Thank you. This has been on my mind quite a bit as I struggle to make and remake a news menu. I hope as a strategist you are able to lend weight to the Democratic Party. Senator Van Hollen held the press but the second group which went got lost. Even as Rep Maxine Dexter says she is not leaving El Salvador until Mr Garcia is released.
Thanks for this very thoughtful and thought provoking piece. As a lifelong Democrat, it is refreshing and hopeful to hear what Democrats have done, and must do to hold Trump and his cohort accountable to the American people.
The youth of this country is brainwashed by the YouTube/instagram influencers like Pool, Peterson, Rogan and Kirk. And while Rogan did bring up a great point that whether you think Garcia was wrongfully deported or not, the lack of due process is frightening. This shocked many (especially Pool) because it goes against the MAGA cult. It's a great wedge issue for the Dems to exploit. But I fear they will not. They'll let others lead and then co-opt it rather than get out front.
On a side note, I would love that IF Garcia is returned, he immediately sues these right-wing outlets for defamation as well as the US Government for the deportation. It's time to SandyHook survivor these grifting idiots out of their assets. Bankrupting them is too small a punishment.
I suggest the word "irregular" is better than "illegal" to describe Biden's immigration failure. A lot of it was not "illegal," since it comported with International Law regarding asylum.
Great analysis of our fragmented infoworld. But then let me ask this: where is the Dems war room and who is manning it on a daily/ hourly basis to identify and shape the information flow? I see no coordinated effort from the left.
"Public opinion can move rapidly in response to events."
Public opinion can also move rapidly in response to reframing a policy issue. For example, what if Democrats, when talking about illegal immigration, included the role that illegal employers - employers like Trump - play in encouraging undocumented workers to cross the southern border?
Matt Yglesias, Nate Silver and Ezra Klein are full of shit. They have been full of shit for a long time. Nate got one election spectacularly right 10 years ago now- a no-unexpected result over the long run (“1-in-a-million odds occur 7x a day in NYC”). Matt Yglesias counseled aspiring pundits to “brand” themselves as “outside the box” conservatives, exemplifying a complete lack of moral commitment and a craven desire for prestige and aggrandizement. These fucking overpaid pundits always want to carry on about the fucking “data,” when the fact of the matter is human beings simply are not neat and predictable data points, and their judgments, motivations and reactions are in no small part causally determined by the very narratives and information that they’re fed.
Thank you for making these important points.
Fascinating and on point! I can so relate to the media bubble analogy- once my in-laws (who were fair minded, good people) were swallowed up by the Fox News rage-o-sphere in the early aughts, they never made it back out of that bubble to the ‘real world’. It’s been very distressing and disturbing, watching them turn into democrat-hating, liberal despising ‘bots’, parroting the latest outrage spewed by that evil propaganda network.
This analysis is persuasive but it still leaves me wondering what happens when a critical issue arises that forces all eyes on it. For example, the imposition of tariffs seems to have been an issue which forced almost every part of the media ecosystem to focus on it. And this occurred multiple times over the past 100 days. Yet, it still felt as if different parts of the ecosystem were getting ‘facts’ and ‘analysis’ about the issue which were radically different. Many seemingly continued to believe that tariffs were being paid by other countries and that there would be no inflation impact on ordinary citizens. So, often the complexity of an issue and the time it may take to have an impact create a real problem for anyone who might want to galvanize citizens to take action or to change their views. As well, while the ultimate impact on Americans (and the rest of the world) of these actions may be extremely severe, Democrats seem to have a hard time staying mono-focussed on the negative impacts. Their need to be the adults in the room and explain policies and actions such as these in balanced terms means they likely miss the opportunity to take advantage of such eyeball concentrating moments.
I think the genius of what Brian is saying is that only the moments of crisis count. Voters will tune out Ds commenting on the issues of the day because there's no crisis there: both sides are repeating talking points.
"And while she likely performed better than Joe Biden would have, the results speak for themselves. Harris’s warnings went unheeded."
It seems here that you're falling into the fallacy shared by so many in politics: that everything the winning candidate did was correct ("after all, they won") and everything the losing candidate did was wrong, wrongheaded, bad strategy, foolish, or some other negative ("after all, they lost").
That's bad logic. Every campaign is a series of decisions; some of these decisions gained voters, some of them lost voters, and some of them did neither one.
You can't draw the conclusion you did that Harris' strategy was a bad one. Her strategy might have been the best one available given the circumstances of her short race, and where the country was at the time. It's not like you can run the counterfactuals in a giant simulation, so all we have are guesses.
All we can say for sure is
1. that there were as many reasons for voting for Trump or for voting for Harris are there are voters in America, and
2. Her strategy resonated with many of us Democrats. Her warnings did not go unheeded by us.
Think this story in particular also breaks through because most of us have been taught that due process is fundamental to the country, and stripping it even from a non-citizen feels like crossing a line into something un-American
The talk about thermostatic public opinion backlash reminds me of the discussion of The Party Decides thesis back in the 2016 primaries. People have observed the regularity with which the electorate turns on the party in power or the establishment is able to nominate their preferred candidates and treat it as something that just happens, but ignore that it’s something that people have to make happen. That’s what the James Carville “sit back and wait for Trump to implode” people don’t get. Yes, generally there’s a backlash to the party in power, but that’s because when they get a chance to implement their agenda, the opposition party gets to highlight the real world downsides of their agenda that are just hypothetical when they’re being debated in elections.
Parties can and do fuck up policy and blow an advantage they have in an issue area, and the opposition has to be ready to pounce when they do. Republicans used to have an advantage on foreign policy, but George W. Bush fucked it up with Iraq and Democrats pounced. Democrats used to have an advantage on education, but we fucked it up with COVID closures and Republican pounced.
If you just assume the trend will continue without doing the things that made it happen in the past, the trend will stop continuing. That’s what the Republican establishment learned in 2016 when they just assumed Trump would flame out and they could nominate an establishment candidate without actually having to do anything. If we want to make sure Trump is unpopular in 2026, we need to take every opportunity we can get to rub their noses in their shit.