There’s a new Democratic presidential frontrunner, according to the Kalshi prediction markets at least. Over the weekend, Jon Ossoff claimed first place (whatever exactly that means on Kalshi), at 18 percent, followed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at 17 percent and then Gavin Newsom at 15 percent (here’s the link, but remember that the figures change constantly; from the time I started writing this to the time I finished it, AOC nudged back into the lead).
Whether he’s first or second, what’s undeniable is that the Georgia senator has caught fire in a way few politicians manage to do. His dig at “Natalie” is still reverberating, more than a week later. In his reelection race, he’s up seven or eight points over Republican Congressman Mike Collins, and for those for whom a Senate race in mid-summer is a little too under the radar for you, you’d be interested to know that he just roasts Collins on a regular basis. He constantly refers to Collins as a corrupt antisemite racist (“a crumbling little bigot,” as he colorfully put it at a recent rally). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution calls it Ossoff’s “no mercy strategy.”
What’s also true is that, at least in my anecdotal experience, Ossoff has both progressives and moderates interested in him, curious to learn more. That’s something to pull off, in this year when the left-center divide in the Democratic Party is probably the greatest it’s been since the early 1970s, when the party was bitterly split into two camps over the Vietnam War. So, what’s Ossoff got that a lot of the other haven’t got?
In a word: conflict. He understands that in today’s media environment, you have to create conflict to generate attention and buzz, and you have to do it in a way that stands a chance of going viral. What was brilliant about the Natalie Harp mention was the way he used only her first name. Saying her full name would have been normal. But saying just her first name was genius. Ossoff clearly intended to suggest that there is something weird about that relationship, as indeed there is. And the whole sentence—“He doesn’t want to do the job; he wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar”—got at the corrupt creepiness and the ever-present ineptitude of the entire Trump enterprise.
So, it was with his earlier invocation of “the Epstein class.” Such a simple phrase, but its simplicity is at the heart of its brilliance. And again, let’s recall the fuller quote: “Now, you remember we were told that MAGA was for working-class Americans. Do you remember that? But this is a government of, by, and for the ultra-rich. It is the wealthiest Cabinet ever. This is the Epstein class, ruling our country. They are the elites they pretend to hate.” He just knows how to bring the sauce.
It’s not enough in this era to simply take positions. With a couple of exceptions, such as being aggressively critical of Israel, even controversial ones don’t typically generate a lot of attention. It’s also not enough just to attack your opponent’s positions. Every politician in history has done that. What a politician needs to do today to break through the constant noise of social media and cable news and the rest is a more nuanced two-step process.
Step one is developing in your mind a critique of the essential characteristics of your foe. For Ossoff, it’s that Trump and MAGA are uniquely corrupt, hateful, hypocritical, and brazen. Then step two is the hard part: thinking up ways to press that critique and call out those characteristics in words that are memorable and that cut right to the heart of matters. That’s exactly what “the Epstein class” and “Natalie” did, and it’s why they went viral.
Why can’t more Democrats do this? Well, let’s be fair, it’s harder than it looks. That kind of critique and attack just doesn’t come naturally to everybody. A lot of Democrats just wouldn’t know how to do this. But second, I think too many Democrats are still afraid of putting themselves out there in this fashion. They’re a little afraid of Republicans. They’ve been told a thousand times by their consultants that they must not offend the median voter; that it’s “divisive.” They think on some level that politics is supposed to be more noble than that.
Most of all, they don’t understand how profoundly social media has changed the way people communicate and hear things. You have to think and talk today in a way that will get attention. And more often than not, that means you have to create conflict.
Donald Trump gets it. He’s out there every day creating conflict. Naturally, he creates far too much conflict, and his “all-stick-no-carrot” brand of authoritarianism means even his ostensible allies catch strays. But the fights he picks drive the agenda, every day. I hope the next Democratic president understands this and gets out there nearly every day taking questions and throwing punches at Republicans and oligarchs and monopolists. That’s how you get people to pay attention and persuade them you’re on their side. In politics, you’re defined by the enemies you’re willing to make.
David Axelrod’s criticism of Ossoff’s mention of Harp as “gratuitous and unnecessary” just comes from a bygone era. He contended that mentioning her “distracted and detracted from the power of the message.” Well, no: About 10 or 20 times more people heard the message than probably would have if he hadn’t mentioned her. How exactly is reaching millions more people distracting and detracting? Well, it was distracting and detracting in one way: It hit a major nerve in MAGA-land, putting the president’s allies in tilt for over a week as they impotently gnashed their teeth online. That’s the kind of distraction and detration Democrats need to create more of.
We have a lot to learn about Ossoff before 2028 if he wins reelection and decides to seek the presidency (he says he’s not interested, but they all say that). He hasn’t exactly been much of an economic populist as a legislator. He’s voted in favor of military aid to Israel on all but three occasions (and is getting attacked from the right for those). The website standwithcrypto.org judges that he “strongly supports” crypto, based on five Senate votes. His vote on the Laken-Riley Act was a bad one, full stop.
At the same time, he’s in first term. And he’s not from Vermont or Massachusetts, so he has to be careful about some things that senators from more liberal states don’t. People grow and change. There wasn’t much in Franklin Roosevelt’s gubernatorial record to suggest that he was going to orchestrate an economic revolution.
But Roosevelt responded to his times. The Jon Ossoff of these last few months is responding in a big way to his, at least rhetorically. And think about this: One thing that Ossoff has proven that he doesn’t need to be careful about in a purple state like Georgia is making a full-throated attack on Trump. He has the green light to fight. That’s what rank-and-file Democrats are desperate for, and it’s why more and more people are, figuratively and literally, betting on him to lead the party into the future.
