Is MSNBC Good For Democrats?

The state of the Democratic party right now is clear. The best adjectives to describe the party’s current status would be unpopular, weak, whiny, unlikable, elitist, out of touch, self-righteous and so on. The Democratic party’s own worst enemy is itself. Their constant navel-gazing and introspection isn’t helpful. But what really kills the party is knowing how bad the underlying narrative is, knowing how much the narrative fits the unpopular stereotypes – and still not being able to do anything about it.

Why? Ultimately, it’s because (as always in politics) individual good triumphs over collective good. In this specific case, it’s because while leading Democrats know that things need to change, they are trapped inside an ecosystem that makes it virtually impossible. They are inculcated by an insider mentality obsessed with MSNBC, with influencers on BlueSky and Twitter, with what all of “the groups” on the left in DC think about everything. They are very scared of being criticized by anyone but even worse, because they keep repeating and confirming the same things to each other, they can never escape the narrative that dooms them with everyone but the left. 

So are those media organs actually good for Democrats? If MSNBC creates an impression of Democrats and progressives that plays into Trump’s hands, perhaps furthering that perception isn’t helpful. But if individual Democrats really value being on MSNBC (both for their own egos and because it reaches the base that votes in their primary) and they know that they have to act and speak a certain way to gain favor with the gods of MSNBC, they keep repeating the same pattern, over and over again. 

So they’re stuck. Even though the only issue that should matter right now is the economy, Democrats can’t stop screaming about separation of powers and rule of law and oligarchs — all issues that matter but also all issues that fall flat with most voters. Because whatever plays in the MSNBC ecosystem becomes what they have to talk about, regardless of what might resonate most with actual swing voters. 

It’s a little like if Major League Baseball said, “We just need to keep doubling down on white guys in their 60s and everything will be fine.” Instead, MLB did the opposite. They figured out why younger people find the game boring and took major steps to change the game to speed things up and make it more exciting (and they keep coming up with new ideas). And it worked. The length of the average game dropped to two hours and thirty six minutes, the shortest in 40 years. TV ratings increased across the board but more importantly, by double digits with viewers aged 18-34. Streaming jumped by 15%. Attendance increased by almost 10%. Revenue increased by 12%. And yes, doing things differently did upset some of the core fans (my dad still can’t get over having a guy automatically start on second base in extra innings) but it was essential for the overall good of the game.

And here’s the kicker: MSNBC isn’t even growing. The average viewer is 70 years old. People under 40 don’t watch it. People under 30 probably don’t even know where to stream it. In the key 25-54 demographic — MSNBC is averaging just 90,000 viewers in primetime. That’s a rounding error compared to where it needs to be, and it trails behind its competitors. It’s a network built to comfort the already-converted, not pull anyone new in. Which is fine if MSNBC wants to just keep fading quietly into irrelevance — but if it actually wants to matter beyond the Beltway and a few affluent zip codes, it needs to seriously rethink what it’s doing. You can’t build the future of political discourse on a platform that younger voters have already tuned out of. This isn’t about booking a couple younger guests or slapping a few TikToks together. It’s about blowing up the format, changing the tone, and maybe — just maybe — not making every segment feel like a scolding from your most exhausting friend.

Democrats need to do the same thing. And if platforms like MSNBC or BlueSky inadvertently do more harm than good — if they just perpetuate stereotypes that cost Democrats votes in general elections — maybe Democrats need to stop engaging in it. Doing this is risky. If Chuck Schumer, for example, said “we have to break out of this cycle” and stopped appearing, he’s ceding the platform to a potential primary opponent in AOC. Politicians are usually very reluctant to take political risk so they’ll likely say their hands are tied and keep going on the same shows and platforms and podcasts and keep preaching to the choir. At the expense of everyone else. At the expense of even their own long-term benefit. 

Yes, I know Democrats believe they need their own FOX News. But their own FOX News just helped elect Donald Trump. Twice! The status quo clearly isn’t working. Isn’t it time to try something new?