Building a Democratic Candidate
/By Don Varyu
Jul 2025
t’s starting again. The media—and Democrats-- simply cannot help themselves.
Trump does outrageous and/or criminal things every single day. Really, what new can be said?
Thus, it’s painfully predictable the chattering class would fall back into their same old (very bad) habits. So many wrong questions are spilling out…
“What’s the right message to counter Trump?”
“What do the polls really tell us?”
“Who’s the very best person to deliver our message?”
And, most maddingly, “who will come forward RIGHT NOW and announce a run for president?”—THREE AND A HALF YEARS FROM NOW!
All the pearl clutching…all of the slicing and dicing of the last election results…all the residual anger at Biden—all that doesn’t matter. It’s moving us further away from progress. Trump didn’t win on an issue or a deft campaign slogan or a bloated financial war chest (Kamala’s was bigger).
You can crystallize his victory by looking at one central fact: he won in a landslide among people who pay little or no attention to politics (and for that matter, to most of the news). What this sector hears is second hand—what someone at the bar or hairdressers mentioned. For Trump, ignorance truly was bliss.
But still, that leaves the hanging question: why did he win?
f Democrats ever want to win again—whether control of the either the White House or Congress—they’re going to have to swallow one hard truth.
To beat Trumpism, they need candidates who are much more like Trump.
(See…I told you it would be hard to swallow.)
ow, I don’t mean Dems need to be the same kind of greasy, lying, cheating grifter that Trump is. I mean they need candidates who project on a personal level the way Trump does; they need to project power.
Consider all the voters who didn’t know much about either candidate last time around. They didn’t know Trump so much as they felt him. He was earthy and visceral and not taking s**t from anyone.
Kamala’s subliminal message was, “I am a uniter.”
Trump’s was, “I am strong.”
You know which message won. But…in this context…what does “strong” really mean?
propose this acronym: “PAP”. It means a combination of Power…Authenticity…and Purpose.
Power. Trump’s primary goal, as both a candidate and a President, is the raw accumulation of power. He will lie, threaten, and cheat to get it. But no one can claim that he doesn’t have it. Potential internal critics, ranging from local GOP party chairmen to justices on the Supreme Court, bow to kiss the ring. Our richest plutocrats do the same thing. Democrats don’t need to mimic those tactics. But they have to be willing at least to step on some toes…offend some donors…and make interparty enemies when necessary. Few people like politicians whose only goal is to make everybody happy.
Authenticity. As important as what is said is how it’s said. Calm and carefully worded beliefs simply don’t cut it in the new media environment. Dems need to trade out reasoned logic for spitting anger. There’s a reason Bernie Sanders is so popular. He talks to people about how they’re being economically ripped off; but his audience already understands that. What’s moving is the way he says it. He yells and rants and rails against Trump and the rich, waving an elderly pointy finger all the while. There’s a reason Bernie was the runner up choice for Trump voters in 2016. It’s the singer, not the song. Dems…are you paying attention?
Purpose. This is the point where Dems can not only match Trump--but thrash him. Many of his voters realize his only purpose is himself. (See Trump’s Master Plan.) He doesn’t care about Americans because he doesn’t need them anymore. His traveling circus does not include plans of relief for the citizenry. He doesn’t talk anymore about health care or better schools or rebuilding the infrastructure or cutting prices.
His armor can be pierced…first and foremost…by repeatedly reminding his voters of his violations of every principle on which America was founded; things like honesty, integrity, and shared sacrifice. These are concepts he blasphemes endlessly.
To do this, Dems need to directly confront the MAGAs wherever they can be found—online or off. Simply and directly ask them one question: “you used to laugh at his lies. Are you still laughing now that you know he’s lying to you?”
realize this sounds vague. I don’t want to leave it at that. So let me close by proposing specifics, in the form of a couple questions.
First, are Dems willing to offend? Can they ever shed the curse of trying to please all of their followers all the time? For example, consider the following statements:
Transgendered females should not be competing in sports against people born female.
Police brutality should be punished by defunding.
African Americans should not be financially reparated with tax dollars for sins waged against their great-great grandparents.
No matter how you feel about these issues personally, could you vote for a candidate who disagrees with your position? The fact is that adamant stands by Democrats on these (and other) issues, they openly hand votes to the GOP. The GOP plays the left on these things EVERY time.
Secondly--and even more to the point--are Dems willing to call out members of their own key constituencies?
When Bill Clinton first ran for President, he stood on a stage and called out rapper Sista Soljah. She had been quoted in the Washington Post as saying, “…if black people can kill other black people every day, why not have a week killing white people?” And previously, “if there are any good white people, where are they? I haven’t met them.”
Nobody asked Clinton about this. He chose to attack proactively. He called those words “hatred”, and said they were a “mistake.” Reporters pounced. Some on the far left warned that this misstep would be lethal for his campaign.
The next day, Sista Soljah called a fiery news conference denouncing him and warned, “Bill Clinton can’t assume that black people will automatically vote for him.”
That year, Clinton won 82% of the black vote—two points more than Kamala did last fall.
here is one statistic from the last election that should be pasted on the foreheads of every Democratic candidate and pundit.
When voters were asked which candidate best had the “ability to lead”, Trump smashed Kamala exactly two-to-one: 66% to 33%.
You could write that off to a bias against either women or people of color, but the fact is that this is inarguably a projection of strength. Trump got 50% of the vote but won 66% on leadership ability. That’s more than just bias.
And that, folks, is what Democrats most need to fix. Figure out how to do this your way—and then start doing it.
Nice guys finish last.
