Skip to main content

How Democratic Hyperbole is Costing Them Power and Donors

 

The Democratic Party has spent the better part of the last decade perfecting the art of outrage. Every election cycle, every Supreme Court ruling, every conservative policy has been met with the same hysteria: democracy is on the verge of collapse, Trump is a dictator, and America is teetering on the edge of fascism.

But after years of breathless hyperbole, something is hap
pening that Democrats didn’t see coming—people are tuning them out. Worse, their biggest donors are walking away.

A recent New York Times article, “Venting at Democrats and Fearing Trump, Liberal Donors Pull Back Cash” (Feb. 16, 2025), lays out in devastating detail how Democratic fearmongering and dysfunction have led to a mass exodus of donor support. The small-dollar donors who poured millions into resisting Trump in 2017? They’ve checked out. The billionaire donors who have propped up progressive institutions for years? They’re either backing off or hedging their bets with Trump.

A Party in Financial Freefall

Just look at the numbers. The Center for American Progress, one of the Democratic Party’s flagship policy think tanks, just cut 8% of its staff. The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy group, laid off 20% of its workforce. End Citizens United? Their entire senior staff was let go. Even GLSEN, an organization focused on LGBTQ+ student rights, had to slash its workforce.

This is what happens when a party alienates its own base with constant hysteria and zero strategy.

Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn and one of the Democratic Party’s biggest financial backers, has paused political giving and is warning others about the consequences of challenging Trump. “There’s a greater than 50 percent chance that there will be repercussions from a misdirection and corruption of the institutions of state to respond to my having tried to help Harris get elected,” Hoffman admitted.

Translation: Trump hasn’t even lifted a finger against them yet, but the mere idea of retaliation has some of the biggest liberal donors running for cover.

Fear and Weakness: The Democrats’ New Brand

Nothing screams “strong leadership” like donors actively fleeing your movement because they’re afraid of the opponent.

Jeff Skoll, a Silicon Valley billionaire and longtime Democratic donor, admitted, “There are people who were absolutely against Trump, never Trumpers, who fear that they’ll be retaliated against and they’ll have to leave the country.”

Read that again. We have some of the richest and most powerful liberals in America so afraid of Trump that they are considering skipping town rather than standing their ground. How do you think that looks to voters who are struggling to afford groceries or gas?

Meanwhile, some donors have completely lost faith in Democratic leadership altogether. John Morgan, a wealthy Florida donor who backed Biden, has had enough. “For me, it’s going to be giving to people, not party,” Morgan said. “The DNC learned nothing from the last election.”

That quote right there should send shivers down the spine of every Democrat still clinging to the idea that outrage politics is a winning strategy.

The Strategy That Backfired

In 2017, Democrats flooded the airwaves with "Trump is a fascist" messaging, and it worked—for a while. The fear of Trump’s first term sent money pouring in. But fast-forward to today, and the same playbook is falling flat.

Alexandra Acker-Lyons, a Democratic political consultant, admitted to the NYT, “No one is giving until they see a plan for how we are going to better navigate this unprecedented situation and stop acting like this is a normal administration.”

And that’s the key problem: Democrats aren’t acting like an opposition party with a coherent plan. They’re acting like a panicked resistance movement, trapped in an endless feedback loop of outrage, paranoia, and failure.

When Trump actually was in power, their hysterics could be excused. But now, with him back in the White House, they have no new strategy, no vision, and no answers. Just more of the same breathless fearmongering, which is doing nothing but turning off voters and scaring away their own financial backers.

Conclusion: The Democrats Need a Reality Check

For years, Democrats have relied on the same tired formula: scream about the “end of democracy,” watch as donors panic, and rake in the cash. But now, people—especially the ones writing the checks—have caught on. They’ve realized that the Democratic Party has no plan, no discipline, and no serious leadership.

The New York Times article confirms what many of us have been saying for years: when a party relies on hysteria instead of strategy, it eventually collapses under its own weight. That’s exactly what’s happening to the Democrats now. Their biggest donors have stopped listening. Their fundraising machine is breaking down.

And unless they wake up, this is just the beginning.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Danger of Echo Chambers: Why We Need to Break Free

  It’s easy to surround yourself with voices that tell you exactly what you want to hear. Whether you’re watching Fox News and scrolling Truth Social or flipping to MSNBC while scrolling Bluesky , you’re in an echo chamber. And while it feels good to have your beliefs reinforced, it’s also a trap—one that narrows your thinking, deepens divisions, and makes real conversation almost impossible. What’s an Echo Chamber, Anyway? An echo chamber is when you’re only exposed to opinions that match your own. Social media and news networks thrive on this—they keep you engaged by feeding you more of what you already agree with. Over time, you start believing your perspective is the only reasonable one, and anyone who disagrees must be clueless, brainwashed, or just plain wrong. Why That’s a Problem It Locks in Your Biases – If you never challenge your own thinking, you stop growing. It Fuels Division – The less you hear from “the other side,” the easier it is to see them as the enemy. It...

The Problem with Negotiated Peace: How the Camp David Accords Did More Harm Than Good

The Camp David Accords are often held up as a shining example of diplomacy—proof that enemies can sit down, talk it out, and walk away with a deal that keeps everyone happy. But here’s the thing: real peace doesn’t come from compromise. It comes from victory. Had the war between Israel and Egypt run its course, had there been a clear winner and loser, the Middle East might look very different today. Instead, we got a “peace” agreement that did little more than hit pause on a fight that was bound to continue. And it has, in many different ways. And let’s be honest—this wasn’t about long-term peace. It was about President Jimmy Carter chasing a legacy. He wanted to be the great peacemaker, the man who ended war in the Middle East. He wanted that Nobel Peace Prize. But in doing so, he ignored the reality of the conflict, and in the end, his prize cost both Israeli and Arab lives. The Accords Didn’t End the Conflict—They Just Changed the Rules On the surface, the Camp David Accords looked ...