[alephnerd]

The Guardian is owned by a British left leaning nonprofit.

As someone who actually worked with the DNC a decadish ago, the issue is the organization has been hemorrhaging talent for a decade, and hiring pipeline became horrid in the run-up of the 2020 primaries, because it became multiple internal turf wars, as state level Dems were stagnating in states like CA and IL, thus leading to dissent internally.

The moderate vs progressive culture war didn't help internally either (eg. asking whether "Latinx" might be alienating Latiné voters wouldn't end well if you wanted a career in the CA and TX Dems).

[jachee]

I'd hardly call the Guardian mainstream. I'm talking about the places the septuagenarians get their news. The three-letter places with shows. That is the mainstream media. Guardian's an underdog upstart in that landscape.

Even the AP, with their dedication to balance, truth and accountability is restricted in what they can cover because they didn't bend the knee. And even their headline is blaming the shutdown on the Dems.

[throwmeaway222]

Also everyone is leaving the party, I imagine party heads are seeing the data and wondering what to do.

[alephnerd]

Ehn, that isn't really a big deal.

As Eitan Hersh proved over a decade ago, most voters are already decided so a reduction in party membership didn't have much of an impact.

The biggest issue has been organizational. The best example is probably the GOP after Obama 1.

Ironically, lower civic engagement might actually help the Dems given the demographic shifts over the past decade.

[docdeek]

As I understand it as a foreigner, some/many Democratic primaries are decided by registered Democrats voting for their preferred candidate. While the vote at the general election might see most voters already decided, the candidates that get onto the general election ballot would be influenced by those that register with the party. Over time - and without forgetting the advantages of incumbency - this could skew the type of candidate that appears on the ballot with a D next to their name, and lead to candidates that even consistent Democrat voters might reject.

[alephnerd]

Hypothetically that is what is supposed to happen, but in action, politics has become so polarized, that swing electorates are almost non-existent.

At this point elections are won based on whether or not subsegments of the population can be rallied to show up or not show up to vote in elections.

This is becuase in most elections, most voters simply do not follow the news, and if they do it tends to be a quick video or a listicle.

Thus, the voters that can swing an election are those that are part of organized voting blocs (eg. A specific union or a local PTA), and cultivating those local groups and ties matters more.

[cudgy]

Mainstream news is boring, repetitive, uninformative, and mainly representative of the extremes of politics. This type of programming is not attractive to most people, only shallow political junkies consume it voraciously. Most people care about healthcare, housing, education, and community. The value proposition for most people to watch the news is not very attractive.

[johnnyanmac]

>most voters are already decided so a reduction in party membership didn't have much of an impact.

2024 clearly says otherwise. They won't vote for R's, but they may also just not vote at all. That's almost as dangerous. The DNC definiately needs to energize its base again, not just say "well we aren't Trump".