A "Constitutional Crisis" Doesn't Resonate For Many

One of the central Democratic talking points in fall 2024 was the Trump 2.0 would represent “the end of democracy,” and that messaging apparently did not resonate well with people. 2024 was a complex election emotionally and economically, and it is true that most people didn’t have a good chance to understand Kamala, and what chances they had, they didn’t seem to like. Biden also would have lost after that debate. Trump 2.0 was pretty much a foregone conclusion after the Crooks shooting, save for a week or two where it seemed like Kamala had a legit chance.

And now here we are, and democracy feels a little weird — democratic oligarchy? — but it’s not “over.” Then Obama made the whole thing worse by cracking jokes with Trump at Carter’s funeral, mere months after basically saying Trump was the biggest threat to the republic in 170 years. It makes the entire thing (politics, that is) seem like a game that doesn’t care about average people, and in reality, that’s probably what politics is.

But since Trump got back into the big chair, the Democrats have not been very good at “fighting” him. There have been a few lawsuits around things, and some judges blocked some things, but the Democrats are not sending coherent messages into the universe. Their new DNC guy said something about “good billionaires,” eh? Remember when Obama raised a lot of money off $5 donations and people felt “hope?” I guess those days are piped.

Anyway, the main point here is that these high-level ideas about the “demise” of certain things do not seem to resonate with voters. “The end of democracy” is not something you can fathom when you have real, day-to-day issues around kids, money, the availability of good work, etc. “It’s a constitutional crisis!” is not something that will broadly resonate either, considering an average person probably has no idea what’s even in the Constitution, much less which violations of those things would raise the “crisis” meter to red.

For better or worse, most Americans are in these camps:

1. They are concerned with appearances, and/or wanting to think they are doing better than their friends and neighbors. (Or be seen that way.)
2. Very rich and don’t give much of a shit.
3. Very rich and deeply-aggrieved.
4. Just trying to get by.
5. Already completely Mack Truck’ed by the system and checked out anyway.

Basically, (1), (2), and (3) vote, with (1) and (3) voting the most, and contributing the most to money and discourse. (3) wants protections so they don’t have to fall back to (1), and (1) wants some narrative that they could eventually become (3).

In different races, obviously the zeitgeist of the moment and certain personalities rise up. It’s worth remembering that if DeSantis was a better retail politician, we’d be in a totally different place right now. Musk’s money was initially headed that way. If Romney had a personality, or Clinton didn’t seem “icy,” we might be somewhere else entirely. So obviously that stuff plays in.

But the bulk of the electorate isn’t massively rich, so you’re dealing with a bucket that’s concerned about the perception of their lives, and concerned with being able to maintain some degree of convenience and comfort (and travel) amidst the chaos.

I don’t think these high-level sky is falling messages work in any of these brackets. I think you need to show people how their life will look and feel better. That’s much harder in an era of misinformation and counter-factuals, but it’s still the way.