Democrats have a media problem they still don't understand

Carefully managed interviews and over-scripted messaging may reduce risk in the short term, but they can also erode the very trust Democrats need to rebuild.

Democrats have a serious problem, and it is not just polling or fundraising.

It is a mindset problem.

More specifically, it is a misunderstanding about what political communication actually looks like in 2026 and what it is going to require by 2028. Because from where I sit, too many Democrats are still operating like it is 2008.

And I say that not as some abstract media critic, but based on what I am personally experiencing over and over again.

We are still getting requests from Democratic offices asking us to submit interview questions in advance. Not broad topic areas, which is perfectly normal. They want actual questions, or at least they heavily pressure us in that direction. That is not how we do interviews.

We are happy to give a general sense of what might come up. Maybe we mention five broad topics we could touch on. Nothing surprising: immigration, the economy, campaign messaging, media strategy, whatever it may be. And then during the interview, I might spend more time on one or two of those areas depending on where the conversation goes.

But we do not provide questions in advance, we do not guarantee coverage of specific topics, and we are not conducting scripted interviews.

Because that is the entire point. A real conversation requires room for follow-ups, reactions, unpredictability, and actual engagement in the moment. Otherwise, you are not really doing an interview. You are producing a controlled media exercise.

And yet we continue to encounter situations where staffers are unhappy after the fact because an interview did not unfold exactly the way they hoped.

And to be clear, this is not every Democrat we speak to. There are plenty of elected officials and offices that are excellent to work with, confident in their message, comfortable with real conversations, and not trying to choreograph every minute of an interview.

But this pattern shows up often enough that it points to something bigger than just a few isolated staff decisions.

I am not naming names because embarrassing individual offices is not the point.

The point is that this keeps happening.

And the bigger problem is what it reveals.

---

---

The politics of over-control

Political communication teams often believe their job is to eliminate risk.

No surprises. No awkward moments. No difficult follow-ups. No clips that could go viral for the wrong reason. And from a purely defensive perspective, that logic makes sense.

But politics is not just risk management. It is persuasion. And persuasion depends heavily on authenticity. The more tightly controlled something feels, the less authentic it becomes.

Short interviews. Formulaic talking points. Nervous staff hovering in the background. Conversations that feel less like discussions and more like approved messaging exercises.

Audiences can feel that immediately.

Even if they cannot articulate exactly why, they know when something feels sanitized.

And sanitized political communication increasingly just does not work.

Republicans understood this faster

During White House Correspondents’ Weekend, I spoke with producers, staffers, and political operatives across the spectrum. One consistent theme came up.

Republicans are generally not approaching media this way.

They are not obsessively pre-negotiating interviews. They are often not even demanding topic approval. They are certainly not routinely circling back afterward to complain that the conversation took an unexpected turn.

Now, let’s be clear about something.

This does not mean Republicans are better communicators in some principled sense. Trump routinely lies. Conservative media ecosystems often reward spectacle over substance. But from a purely tactical standpoint, they grasp something Democrats too often miss.

A loose, conversational appearance can feel far more persuasive than a tightly managed one.

Trump sitting with Joe Rogan or Theo Von and casually talking, however dishonest the content may be, creates the impression of authenticity.

Politics is perception. Perception matters.

The consultant-industrial complex problem

Back in late 2024, when I met with White House communications staff and even President Biden, I made this exact argument.

You cannot keep trying to control every word.

Because part of what damaged Democrats was this communications culture built around over-management.

An ecosystem of consultants, staffers, messaging professionals, and party infrastructure all operating under the assumption that communication is something to be engineered rather than lived.

That may have worked better in an earlier media era. It works much less well now.

Independent media does not function like cable news booking from fifteen years ago. Audiences expect spontaneity. They expect some friction. They expect moments that feel unscripted. If every appearance feels polished within an inch of its life, the audience stops trusting it.

And trust is already in short supply.

There are exceptions

Not every Democrat operates this way.

My recent interview with Gavin Newsom is a useful contrast. Newsom’s team simply set the time, trusted the process, and let the conversation happen.

The result?

A more dynamic interview. A more relaxed exchange. Something that actually felt like a conversation rather than a hostage negotiation with scheduling software. That is not accidental. Trust tends to produce better content.

And better content tends to produce better audience engagement.

This is not because every unscripted interview will go well. Some will absolutely go sideways. That is the tradeoff.

But politics has always involved tradeoffs.

This alone will not save Democrats

None of this means communications style is the only Democratic problem.

Far from it. Policy clarity matters. Messaging on crime, immigration, economic anxiety, institutional trust, and affordability all matter enormously. Structural electoral dynamics matter too.

But communication culture is part of the larger picture because it reflects something deeper.

Does the party trust actual messengers?

Or does it trust only systems designed to minimize uncertainty?

Because if the answer remains the latter, Democrats may continue losing a communications war they do not fully understand.

The internet is not waiting for a polished memo.

What do you think: are Democrats still trying to win a media environment that no longer exists, or is tighter message discipline actually the smarter play?

---

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.