Approval rating of Democrats in Congress signals major change is needed.

[lees1975]

https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2026/05/approval-rating-of-democrats-in.html

It's 19%.

The difference between the approval rating for Democrats in Congress, and the polling data which shows the formation of a blue tsunami on the way in November is sending a message to which Democrats must pay close attention if they are to continue winning elections, especially down the road toward 2028. We're going to win the mid-term elections, and in spite of media bias that includes the overanalysis and over-reporting of insignificant changes which mean nothing, will not only gain at least 25 seats in the House (I'm thinking 45 might not be overly optimistic) but we will also get the majority in the Senate. That's not overly optimistic, that's just looking at day to day polling data without the media spin. We're going to pick up two or three seats that will "shock" the clueless media.

But it's not because we laid out a great plan for doing so. Look at the difference between the approval rating and the generic ballot. We will win because voters, especially a huge percentage of independents, have finally realized that electing Trump as President twice was the most ignorant and stupid political move Americans have ever made in our history, and he has to be taken down before he completely destroys everything this country stands for.

It's pretty easy to look at those first two years of the Biden administration and consider them a success in terms of the legislation that got passed. We had the strongest economy in 60 years, with low unemployment, and steady growth of our gross national product, healthy and due completely to Biden's economic policy. He managed to fix the major damage that Trump had done to our COVID recovery, in fact, and as a party, the Democrats got some things done.

But, did we get done those things for which Democrats have been advocating and pushing for a decade or more? And did we enforce the law against the criminal acts of the Trump administration, bring him and his cronies to justice and save this country from the disaster we are now facing? Did we get big money out of politics? Did we get the health care reform that we have been pushing for more than a decade now, that single-payer health care system that will actually make medical care afforable and accessible to all Americans without robbing us blind by the profiteering that goes on?

The reality of the situation is that we need to win this midterm election in order to stop Trump and have anything close to a chance at repairing the damage he has done to everything American, including our reputation in the world, our economy, and to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American people. So we are going to support Democratic party candidates in the midterm elections.

But I think the indications about where the party needs to go after that are pretty clear. Graham Plattner is one good example of the kind of challenge new leadership is bringing to the table. It seems that candidates backed by David Hogg's Leaders We Deserve, especially in state legislative primaries, have been successful without having the kind of money behind them that some old liners have. Julianna Stratton, another progressive who was an underdog in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat being vacated by old school, old liner Dick Durbin, and who ran against big money, old line establishment Democrats and old school endorsements, won the nomination and will easily win that seat. So Durbin, a good ole boy, old school politician afraid of risk and bold action will be replaced by a new leadership progressive who is not afraid to kick some Republican ass.

[UpInArms]

1. the media allowed TFG to be the "Shadow President" throughout Biden's term

a microphone is shoved into the face of every MAGAt and only rightwing shit goes viral

I am sick of social media and Corporate media

When the government was shut down, the media blamed democrats instead of pointing out that the republicans were destroying the safety net and ice is gestapo goons

it was just "democrats fault"

[Redleg]

5. Most of the media seem to believe that only Democrats have agency

They insist that Democrats need to:
1. Speak to those who disagree with them,
2. Unite the nation,
3. Seek middle ground,
4. Moderate the tone of their messages,
5. ad naseam.

[Scrivener7]

29. Very true. It's been true for 40 years. So what's our plan?

[UpInArms]

30. bring back the Fairness Doctrine

it did not say "equal time," it said that other points of view must also be aired.

[SocialDemocrat61]

44. The Fairness Doctrine

would only apply to broadcast TV and Radio stations. It doesn't cover online news sites, podcasts or cable news channels.

[UpInArms]

45. Well, then maybe we should improve the fairness doctrine

to include those things

[SocialDemocrat61]

46. How so?

The Fairness Doctrine was administered and enforced by the FCC. The FCC has no authority over internet or cable.

[Joinfortmill]

52. Any ideas?

[SocialDemocrat61]

53. None

I don't see how it would be possible.

[creeksneakers2]

2. You aren't going to see your progressive dreams fulfilled while Trump is in the White House

Single payer is a losing issue. As soon as you bring it up the whole health care industry will flood the airwaves with ads about a government takeover of health care, which the public doesn't want. When we tried just Hillarycare we lost our majority and about 60 seats. After Obamacare we lost about 60 seats again. When single payer was on the ballot in liberal Oregon it lost 78 to 21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Oregon_Ballot_Measure_23 David Hogg is an asshole. I think he's working for Republicans. His basic pitch is that Democrats aren't fighting which is a lie and hurts turnout. He's also trying to divide the party by age. He pushes lethally unpopular stuff like defunding the police. Most of his candidates have lost. Those that won did so for other reasons. You can't get money out of politics as long as there is a First Amendment.
I'm glad you expect Progressives to stick with us this election. They've abandoned us before.

[lees1975]

3. Sounds like you've bought the big money argument.

Let's just give up on healthcare reform because big money will keep trying to defeat it.

Given the money that Hogg's organization has put behind candidates they've endorsed, they've been abot 70% successful. In some cases, they've won on a fraction of what the opponent spent. They've just started. And if that's your perception of what they're doing, you've got a bad source. Of course they are going to be attacked by the mainstream media. They are not big money establishment, which is the whole point here, that big money is buying off Democrats from giving support to issues their constituents think are important.

Apparently, they got their money's worth, at least from you.

[creeksneakers2]

8. Where do you get the 70% figure?

"Only four of the candidates the group featured on its website as 2024 endorsements won their campaigns, with eight losing in the primary or general election. Its biggest bet that cycle, more than $1.2 , went to Kristian Carranza, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for a seat in the Texas House of Representatives." https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/david-hogg-wants-to-change-the-democratic-party-he-s-off-to-a-slow-start/ar-AA1JgRLl I don't get fooled much, because I rely on facts, evidence and logic and I check things. What evidence do you have for single payer that is a winning issue? I've shown you plenty that its not. I use lots of sources. Its not a matter of Democrats being bought off. Its a matter of working on the possible and trying to accomplish something instead of dreaming and helping the GOP win.

[lees1975]

15. Nice, slanted media tripe.

And out of date. The media doesn't like David Hogg. I get it.

He still gets what I used to give to the DNC. It's helped eight candidates win.

[creeksneakers2]

23. I see no response about where you got the 70% claim

The link I gave was to the Washington Post, which is a respected news source. Don't know what 8 you claim but Hogg takes credit where he did little, like with Mandami.

[lees1975]

49. The Washington Post is no longer a respected news source as far as I am concerned.

You can track the candidates Leaders We Deserve has supported and won by looking at the list of those they have supported, and by support, I mean making an actual contribution to, like Julianna Stratton. They may not be the only, or major supporter but they've given some support.

[creeksneakers2]

58. Here's another look at it

"Beyond McBride’s high-profile win, candidates endorsed by Hogg’s PAC saw mixed results — with more defeats than victories. Of a dozen candidates offered campaign cash and boots-on-the-ground voter outreach by Leaders We Deserve, five won their races and seven lost."

https://arkansasadvocate.com/2024/11/18/how-david-hoggs-multimillion-dollar-bid-to-elect-young-dems-fared-at-the-polls/

[Cirsium]

4. There would be opposition? Say it isn't true!

Every progressive cause is a losing issue if we use your logic. As soon as you bring anything up that would benefit the public the whole industry - any industry that might be impacted by that - which is to say profits might be reduced, the super-wealthy might have to make small sacrifices - will flood the airwaves with negative ads and the right wing media will go into overdrive - of course. That is no reason to preemptively surrender.

[creeksneakers2]

9. There are fights that can be won

I'd like to see us concentrate on winning back the cuts from Obamacare and Medicaid. If you are going to forget about that and concentrate on things we can't possibly get now, like single payer, you'll lose both and you are showing you don't care about those millions of people we might have helped. Its important to be realistic.

[Cirsium]

14. Not how it works

Aiming lower - especially aiming lower than what the public already supports - does not make success more likely, it makes success less likely. Advocating for single payer now does not in any way prevent winning back the cuts from Obamacare and Medicaid.

That is an unfair personal attack to claim that I "don't care about those millions of people we might have helped."

[creeksneakers2]

35. It does if the party adopts a losing position.

Then we end up with nobody to advocate for either.

I've seen progressive reject moderate candidates because they aren't progressive enough. If you refuse to vote for the person who would have gone to bat to try to stop Medicaid and Obamacare cuts because you say single payer or nothing you obviously must not care about the people who need those things.

You can call it aiming lower but I call it trying to do what can be done instead of wasting time on things that aren't possible. And single payer, for example, at the present time is not possible.

[Cirsium]

36. OK

It's a good thing that the Abolitionists, the organized Labor leaders. the Women's Suffrage, the Freedom Riders and many other progressive activists did not take that advice.

You say that progressives reject candidates they don't agree with, yet here you are doing that very thing. There are far more conservative voters who switch from voting Democratic to voting Republicans than there are Progressives voting third party or staying home. Advocating for moderate - actually conservative - policies and positions causes the second phenomenon, whcih is much more damaging to the party than your dreaded Progressives will ever be.

If you disagree with progressive positions, the the positions and policies that 70 to 80% of the general public support, then you should do so openly and honestly instead of accusing progressives of sabotaging the party.

[creeksneakers2]

37. If one wins a primary I support them.

Those things you cite were obviously possible. Not many Republicans switch to Democratic over progressive ideas. Far more likely that they would find a moderate Democrat acceptable. And moderates don't harm the party. Most of our winners have been moderates. Moderate does not mean conservative.

Progressives cost us the presidency in 2000, 2016 , and contributed to our loss in 2024. They definitely do sabotage. They attack mainstream Democrats constantly and hang around trying to pick off Democratic voters.

70% to 80% of the general public do not support progressives. If that was true you could get your candidates elected. Its always some excuse about some conspiracy against progressives to explain away the losses.

[Cirsium]

38. Sure

That thinking comes from the dominant model that has been used for decades by the Democratic party consultants. They poll constantly in order to identify the median voter, and then we always hear the same recommendations from them - soften our positions, or triangulate. Look out! Be afraid! What will Fox news say? We must avoid alienating swing constituencies at all costs! So we prioritize “electability” above ideological clarity. This becomes self-defeating. It leads to exactly what we have now, an ascendant extreme right wing.

Turning politics into perpetual accommodation rather than persuasion means that even when we win, we lose. I know, I know. I have been hearing it for over 50 years. Once we get into office, once we have enough seats, once pubic opinion changes, once some miracle happens THEN we will start talking policy. Until then, any such talk is ridiculed as "purity" and dismissed.

Instead of asking “what do we believe, and how do we explain it compellingly?” the party begins by asking “what already polls safely?” That produces candidates and messaging that is managerial, condescending, ever cautious, and most importantly, emotionally unconvincing. That is particularly true with younger voters as well as for the progressive wing of the coalition. We should be articulating substantive convictions clearly, and advocate for them unapologetically. We should be trying to move public opinion, rather than merely mirror it.

The “electability” argument is itself circular and inherently conservative. Which candidates are deemed electable? The ones that fit existing assumptions. How can we ever expect change under those circumstances, when we operate only into existing assumptions and conceptual frameworks that are based on the status quo? It can only lead to a constant sickening drift to the right since we are ceding the change message to the right wingers. We narrow the range of possibilities by that process, and in turn that then prevents alternative political identities from fully developing, let alone being heard by the general public.

If we don't advocate for radical reform, the right wing steps in with their counterfeit version of reform. That is what we are suffering from right now. When we become overly reactive to polling and focus groups, we lose all coherence. The party is constantly calibrating rather than leading, and voters can sense that.

I think people try to destroy the progressive agenda not because it doesn't resonate with voters, but rather because of the fear that it will.

I think the party is in danger of making the same mistake that the Whigs made in the 1850s. The Whigs thought that the pro-slavery forces would go too far, the public would be disgusted, and that power would then just fall into their hands without them taking a strong stand on slavery. But the pro-slavery party did not collapse, the Whigs did.

[creeksneakers2]

43. You are welcome to pitch your ideas

And run your candidates in primaries. But support our nominees. And stop getting so angry when your ideas lose. And stop saying anybody who doesn't agree is corrupt.

How about a little strategy? Instead of trying to push a losing single payer idea push the public option. If the government can really do a better job of running health care than the private sector then people will freely choose the government plan and you'll get your wish. And you won't have alienated people by forcing them. Of course, that's not as much fun as playing revolutionary but it would work much better.

And meanwhile, we wouldn't have to sacrifice Obamacare and Medicaid.

[Cirsium]

47. Thank you so much

Glad I have your permission to express my opinion. As for the rest of your post, could you possibly be more insulting? "Playing revolutionary?" "Stop getting so angry?"

The idea that people will be unable to buy their own private health insurance is a right-wing talking point, as is this "forcing people" nonsense. I don't think people are advocating that - making private health insurance illegal. No, I'm advocating a public system and making healthcare available and affordable for everyone. And that's not about my personal wish, as you snidely characterize my position. That's about the needs of the majority of the public.

Of course "government" - the people's democratically elected representatives - can do a better job at almost everything. Public transportation, the weather service, environmental protections, education, weights and measures, health and and safety regulations, the Land Grant college system, the USDA, Cooperative Extension, public utilities, and on and on,. The right wingers wage all out war against all of them. Stop caving. Stop spreading their talking points. Leave the attacks on the "big bad government" to the Republicans.

The privatization schemes the right wingers promote are corrupt and I will continue to say that with or without your permission to do so.

No one is advocating the idea of "the government running health care." Again, that is a right wing talking point you are using. I say it is time to stop embracing the right wing framing of the issues and stop compromising our positions based on their talking points - their ever-changing and easily debunked talking points. When we accept their premises we are reinforcing their ideology and electoral prospects while harming our own.

People will always be able to opt for private insurance, just as they can opt for using private transportation and sending their kids to private schools. People can use FedEx rather than the Post Office. But we are all "enrolled" in the Postal system, we are all "enrolled' in the public school system, whether we opt to use those services or not. Republicans call that "forcing" and look for ways to sabotage any and all public programs, to loot public wealth, and to poison the public mind.

The entire public option versus Medicare for all debate is misleading and reactionary, like "school choice" is. It is another Republican stalking horse for privatization.

I have voted for every Democratic party candidate in every election for 50 years. Spare me your "support our nominees" lecturing. Sure I get angry when the Republicans win. Don't you?

[creeksneakers2]

48. It you support our nominees that's great

Many progressives don't. Most of them also get angry. The word "single" means one so if that's the case they would be the only option available. Perhaps you should call it Medicare available to all. But what would that cost?

[Cirsium]

50. Not true

The only way we can define who is and who is not a Democrat is by how people vote.People who don't vote for Democrats are not themselves Democrats.

You say "many progressives don't" vote for Democrats. That is far less true than conservative Democrats (people who previously voted Democratic) subsequently voting Republican. The classic example of this is the 2000 presidential election results in Florida, which is often used to bash progressives Far, far more people who had previously voted Democratic voted for Bush than all of those who voted for Nader.

The risk of voters drifting off to the right and being lost to us is far greater than the danger of people drifting off to the left and being lost to us. Bashing progressives helps the Republicans, because it reinforces right wing propaganda. It is a false idea that we need to meet the voters on the right in order to win when what we are actually doing is leading them to the right when we attack the left and repeat right wing framing of the issues.

Are you really asking what Medicare for all would cost? What a bizarre comment. What sort of country "can't afford" to provide health care for its own people? It would not cost anything beyond what is already being paid for health care in this country.

It is the right we need to worry about, not the left. Pushing or even just accepting right wing talking points such as "we can't afford healthcare" is the greatest danger to future electoral success.

[lees1975]

57. Taking the profit out of healthcare and healthcare finance would more than triple the amount of money available

to provide it. Even if the medical personnel received similar pay to what they get currently.

I don't get why this isn't a mainstream Democratic party platform issue. It benefits everyone.

[creeksneakers2]

59. Its impossible to consider and idea without looking at what it would cost

While we pay lots altogether for health care if you rearrange everything it won't be the same people paying the same amounts. If you propose it the people who oppose it will surely come up with a figure.

We do lose voters to the right but that mostly happens from us going too far left.

I'm not saying we need to be right wing. But we have to be careful what we propose. Free health care for illegal aliens would be an example of something we would get killed over.

The fact is that if Progressives had not left us for Nader we would have won Florida that year. Finger pointing doesn't change that.

[Cirsium]

62. Too far left????

lolololololololol

Do you have any arguments that are not right wing talking points?

The right wingers will attack Democrats as the radical left no matter what we do or say. Stop quivering in fear. Stand up. Fight back.

[creeksneakers2]

63. These are not right wing talking points

I'm not the one who supports the right wing. Progressive help them all the time. That's why they circulated Nader's nominating petition in PA in 2000. That's why they kiss David Hogg's ass.

I am the one fighting. I want to win and be effective.

[LearnedHand]

54. All this you said, plus

The number one criticism of democrats from polling is they don’t stand for anything. We got there exactly because of leaning in the consultant class and “triangulating.” If Dems don’t start standing for something, like the guy in Hungary did, we’ll never make any broad headway at all, especially with young people.

Note: Dems doing well now does not mean they have a strong message. It’s much more a reflection of how horrible the current situation is. We suddenly are very much the lesser of two evils. I want Dems to stand for something other than “we’re not them.”

[Cirsium]

55. Yes

The two complaints I hear are "what do Democrats stand for?" and "why aren't they fighting more aggressively against the Republicans?" Obama ran a very successful campaign in this rural conservative area. He didn't triangulate or equivocate. Democrats did better here than they had in decades. That advantage has mostly been squandered, unfortunately. He ran on holding the banks accountable, universal heath care, and building infrastructure. I was surprised by the support he got from blue collar whites.

[creeksneakers2]

60. This says the number one problem

is the belief the Dems aren't fighting enough. This falsehood comes from progressives. When asked what Dems should be doing but aren't progressives rarely have an answer or if they do its some lethally unpopular progressive idea. We'd get much more done if progressives would get on board.


https://www.usnews.com/news/u-s-news-decision-points/articles/2025-11-03/the-democrats-have-a-democrat-problem

[Cirsium]

61. The usual

So, as per usual, progressives are first told there's there's not enough of us to make a difference, nobody agrees with us, we're not worth worrying about, we're not to be listened to. But then when things go wrong ,somehow, it's all the fault of progressives. If only we would stop thinking and saying what we stand for.

[creeksneakers2]

64. They can't solve everything alone

But if we all worked together we could accomplish much more.

[Cirsium]

65. Agreed

No question.

[creeksneakers2]

66. :)

[Redleg]

6. The right is going to say it whether the Dems pursue progressive policies or not.

We are socialists/Marxists/communists whether we pursue certain progressive policies or not. The ACA, while meaningful legislation, was not a government take-over of healthcare or socialized medicine. Yet the right called it such.

[creeksneakers2]

11. They try but they often don't succeed.

We did get Obamacare done and the public came to like it. We should concentrate on trying to get it back. And if there's a next step the logical one is a public option.

[Redleg]

13. I think that is correct

It won't be easy and it will take majorities in both houses and public support.

[questionseverything]

27. You obviously don't know any poor people that are being forced from Medicaid to Obama care

Because they hate it , without the subsidies it’s very expensive

[creeksneakers2]

33. I'm not hanging out with any right now

But I think the best thing is to stop the Medicaid cuts so they don't have to. And nobody is forced to take Obamacare . But they choose to because its better than nothing.

[appmanga]

7. I don't know what David Hogg is saying...

...but if it's some flavor of how hard elected Democrats fight, and who they're fighting for, there's nothing wrong with that. No one and nothing should be above criticism and challenge. The fact he has issues with farted-out, corporatist "Happy Warriors" isn't a novel viewpoint, and is part of why Democrats poll as low as they do. And it's just in this last Congress that the leadership in the House has gotten younger, but Hogg is the person dividing the party by age? Believe me, I'll take an effective Nancy Pelosi over anyone 20 years or more younger who doesn't have the savvy, feistiness, and big brass balls she brought to her battles, but that hasn't been what we've gotten in most cases. And there's nothing wrong in calling that out.

[creeksneakers2]

12. He's saying replace older Dems with younger ones

He's dividing us when we need to stick together. Lots of people progressives call corporatists are just moderates. Democrats do poll less well because of progressive attacks on them which are baseless. Whether someone is effective or not can't be determined by age.

[lees1975]

16. You've missed the point.

He's not saying replace older Democrats with younger ones. He's saying replace Democrats with old school ideas with Democrats who have new ideas and a little bit of bold risk taking on top.

[creeksneakers2]

21. I disagree

He's was on Facebook all the time. He was talking about age. Get rid of older people in the party and replace them with younger ones. I Googled it and apparently he's been taking some heat over it and has backed off.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5307337-dnc-hogg-backlash-younger-progressives/

https://www.the-express.com/news/politics/169467/david-hogg-democratic-primary-challengers

[appmanga]

19. I agree with the need for new blood, and I don't find that divisive...

...especially when that message is being coupled with the new blood being the folks who'll find harder for the changes in health care policy, tax policy, and campaign finance reform that this country needs. Right-wingers haven't spent their time nibbling at the edges and trying appeal to voters who wouldn't give them the time of day, and trying to figure out "how to talk" to people who don't vote for them.

The way to talk to anybody is with honesty and facts. It's not a rejection of transgender people to say you understand the need for fairness in sports while also pointing out there may be less than a dozen transgender student-athletes in colleges and high schools in the whole country, and the right-wing demagogues the issue to avoid talking about how their policies are hurting middle and working class people. The people I see who do the best job articulating stances on the toughest issues are younger people like Pete Buttigieg, AOC, James Talarico, et al.

[creeksneakers2]

22. There should always be new blood coming in

But that doesn't mean smearing the older people or advocating getting rid of them.

[questionseverything]

26. We lost after Obama care was passed, at least in part because

We didn’t get the promised public option he ran on and it is too expensive

It became reasonable with the covid subsidies but that was years after it passed and of course those are gone now

[creeksneakers2]

34. Republicans convinced people that all kinds of terrible things were happening.

[everyonematters]

10. When we get control of Congress, we need to put up votes addressing the economic hardships

that people are facing, going beyond just reversing Trump's policies. Let the Republicans vote against it, and Trump veto it. If we do that, we will win in 28. If we substantially make a difference in people's lives, we will become the dominant party.

[LymphocyteLover]

18. Agree but the biggest problem we face is rightwing media, which kills public opinion of anything good Dems try

to do

[LymphocyteLover]

17. Rightwing media has killed the opinion of most Americans about Democrats but

the other thing is a lot of Dems aren't happy with how much opposition they've given to the orange mental patient in the White House -- that doesn't mean these Dems won't vote for Dems to get them back in power.

[lees1975]

20. The bottom line here is whether Democrats in leadership, including those in the House and Senate

really believe what they are telling us, that Trump is an existential threat to American Democracy. If they believe that, then their actions as members of Congress should reflect it. There are a few who have made it obvious that they don't believe this. So they need to be gone, because this is true, and if Democrats are not united in their opposition, the problem will not be resolved.

My fear is that the power of money can't be reversed at this point, and it is capable of buying Democrats to tamp down the opposition to Trump. If those people aren't called out and voted out, then we're going to be right back here again and we will never restore American Democracy.

[LymphocyteLover]

24. Who are the few Dems who have made it obvious that they don't believe Dump is an existential threat to our

Democracy? Besides Fetterman, of course. All the other high profile Dems seem to think he is, IMO.

[lees1975]

25. They say he is.

But they don't all act like it.

[LymphocyteLover]

41. I suppose, but politics is complicated

[questionseverything]

28. Last week 14 democrats joined the repubs to pass the farm bill

For the first time in my life the farm bill doesn’t worry about feeding Americans, food stamps are permanently slashed but don’t worry big ag still gets plenty of subsidies

[LymphocyteLover]

39. OMG. Was this House or Senate?

[LymphocyteLover]

42. I looked it up-- it was the House, so 14 Dems there is not totally shocking but some surprising names

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221212836

[lees1975]

67. Well you wanted a list---

Durbin, Schumer, Eric Martin at the DNC, and anyone else who still thinks that the Republicans can accept compromise and make deals.

[RockRaven]

31. It is pure copium to blame this on the media. That is a good way to fail to make changes and keep losing as a result.

Maybe some people in positions of influence are just fine with those losses because of what they are getting out of this situation, but I am not.

[Scrivener7]

32. Blame the media, or fail to come up with a plan to get around our decades-old media disadvantage.

[LymphocyteLover]

40. the media is a big problem but we also need a better way to deal with them

[Joinfortmill]

51. Spot on!

[legallyblondeNYC]

56. It has nothing to do with policy. It's about the narrative / myth.

What is the defining message?
MAGA - you may not like what it stands for, but from a narrative standpoint, it's worked powerfully. It's 4 words, yet everyone knows what it stands for.

What is our defining story / message? Our mythology?