Democrats Confront a Fundamental Dilemma on X
Discussions with a dozen insiders reveal a party that is uncertain about its direction, contemplating whether to depart from or engage with the growing MAGA platform.
TroibNews 
Two days following the recent election, Patrick Dillon, a seasoned Democratic strategist now serving in the Biden administration, announced his departure from X via a post.
“If you *really* want the ‘why I’m leaving twitter,’ I guess there’s the whole Elon of it,” Dillon wrote, elaborating on other reasons such as the platform's pointlessness, its diminished enjoyment factor, and his belief that “I’m just not sure that this is going to be the most constructive or even healthy vehicle to deal with that,” especially in light of Trump's reelection.
Dillon, who is currently an adviser to Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, is not alone in this sentiment. Social media feeds reflect a rising trend of Democrats and those with left-leaning views announcing their exit from the platform. Among the notable figures who have left since the election are former CNN anchor Don Lemon, basketball superstar LeBron James, author Stephen King, actress Jamie Lee Curtis, and MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace.
However, the dilemma is more complex for Democratic lawmakers and strategists who, despite their discontent with X, rely on it to influence public opinion and secure electoral victories. This trend has ignited broader discussions within the liberal community about whether to isolate MAGA supporters or strive to engage and understand them.
The reasons behind these departures are varied and numerous.
“There’s no pretend at this point,” Dillon told me during a conversation about his choice to leave X. “This is a vehicle to support [Musk’s] political views and his candidates.” He expressed concerns about a decline in the quality of the platform, highlighting “trash ads and scammy replies and porn bots.” He also noted that a key function of the site, reaching out to journalists, has come under scrutiny due to potential privacy violations involving direct messages.
At the heart of Dillon's departure is Musk’s appropriation of the platform for his own political agenda.
Among a range of left-leaning insiders I spoke with, Dillon's views echoed many sentiments. Concerns regarding Musk's rollback of content moderation that once helped mitigate misinformation and bullying were common, with some researchers asserting that the platform is now favoring Trump.
Conversely, some believe that the decline in Democratic users over time is alarming and that the self-deplatforming of progressives could ultimately backfire.
“If we leave X, it will help Elon with his goal of making the platform void of any progressive ideology or the way we think about the world,” said Maxwell Frost, a young congressional representative from Florida, cautioning against allowing opponents to dominate the narrative.
Despite their motivations, many find the decision to quit X challenging. Dillon himself has posted several times since stepping away.
“Look, the posting habit dies hard,” he admitted. “One day at a time.”
For many, the primary motivation lies in the toxicity of the platform. Critiques of increased hate and hostility since Musk's acquisition in 2022 are prevalent. Those focused on vital discussions that could sway elections express frustration, arguing that it's become unmanageable — if not outright unpleasant — to engage meaningfully on X, leading them to forego significant audiences that many in their fields envy.
Bill McKibben, an environmentalist and co-founder of the advocacy group 350.org, announced his exit after 15 years on the platform, where he had amassed over 380,000 followers to promote climate action and support Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. “I mistrust the owner and his role in our public life, and things have grown sad and harsh,” he stated, sharing an example of a negative interaction that followed his post recommending John Coltrane.
In the days afterward, journalist James Fallows, a left-of-center writer for The Atlantic, also departed the platform. With over 179,000 followers, he documented what he saw as injustices during Trump’s first term. “I’m leaving what Musk hath wrought,” he stated, with New Republic staff writer Timothy Noah adding, “If you’re still on Elon Musk’s site you’re part of the problem,” citing Musk's influence in degrading public discourse.
The left-leaning news outlet The Guardian made a similar departure, labeling X as “toxic.”
For some, leaving X symbolizes an active step against Musk and his MAGA supporters, rather than just a rejection of negativity. Musk, with a net worth around $330 billion, wields significant influence across multiple industries, making the decision to abandon the platform a potential way to minimize his impact.
“Moving to Bluesky,” wrote Mark Green, former public advocate of New York City, in a note announcing his shift to a competing social network, closing with a comment regarding the upcoming “Trump-Musk Oligarchy.”
Tim Karr, senior director of strategy and communications for Free Press, a non-profit organization advocating for a diverse media landscape, highlighted an internal debate about remaining on X. He remarked that the trend of journalists migrating to Bluesky and the organization’s ethos, which champions a healthy media ecosystem, led to the decision to distance themselves from Musk’s platform. “The mere fact of posting means that you’re helping them make case for the return of advertisers,” Karr pointed out. Free Press announced its withdrawal from the platform on November 14, stating, “we refuse to give X any legitimacy.”
However, some Democratic staffers are skeptical of the impact of such a strategy. One staffer, who spoke anonymously, dismissed the idea of leaving X as pointless given its established role in the Washington landscape. “There’s really nothing to be gained,” the staffer said, questioning the efficacy of disengaging from a platform that, paradoxically, still struggles to profit.
In contrast, X views its changing demographics as a positive development, showcasing Pew Research Center data that indicates a near-equal partisan split among news consumers on the platform. CEO Linda Yaccarino emphasized, “More than any other platform, we represent the ENTIRE country!”
The platform's shift toward political balance drives some Democrats — especially those tasked with electoral success — to argue that the left must remain engaged, despite feeling increasingly uncomfortable. This perspective has gained traction following an election that left many party insiders pondering their disconnect with a substantial portion of the American electorate.
A former Biden administration official, speaking off the record due to their current role in tech, criticized those abandoning the platform, saying, “they’re replicating the same mistake we made. ... Too much of the Biden administration was talking to itself and not the broader country.” This source likened quitting X to a temporary relief that ultimately leads to detrimental consequences: “You can’t disengage,” they stated, “if you’re losing the popular vote.”
Though frustrations with Musk's leadership are prevalent, the primary argument remains that staying on X is essential for Democrats to remain relevant. Adam Kovacevich, a lobbying group CEO focused on garnering Democratic support within the tech sector, shared his distaste for recent changes but emphasized the necessity of communicating with broader audiences: “We have to recognize that if we’re only talking to ourselves, as Democrats we’re consigning ourselves to minority party status.”
Others note the importance of challenging conservative narratives directly within their space. Kurt Bardella, a former Republican staffer turned Democratic consultant, asserted the left needs to engage in these discussions to provide counter-narratives. He explained, “‘I don’t always agree with that guy, but he’s making some sense’ … that’s a win.”
Still, some on the left express conflicting sentiments. While giving up might seem politically shortsighted, others argue that X contributed significantly to the Democrats' disconnection from ordinary Americans in the first place.
“Leaving X because you don’t like Elon is the kind of purity politics that landed Democrats in this mess to begin with,” remarked one anonymous Democratic communications professional. They cautioned against a scenario where the party becomes more focused on ideological purity than on the working class issues they aim to advocate for.
This argument is further complicated by the diminishing presence of liberal voices on X, making it uncertain if those remaining can effectively leverage the platform amid changing user demographics.
As one source put it, reflecting on the complex relationship many have with X, “I love Twitter and also hate it. Kinda like how Gollum feels about the ring.”
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
“If you *really* want the ‘why I’m leaving twitter,’ I guess there’s the whole Elon of it,” Dillon wrote, elaborating on other reasons such as the platform's pointlessness, its diminished enjoyment factor, and his belief that “I’m just not sure that this is going to be the most constructive or even healthy vehicle to deal with that,” especially in light of Trump's reelection.
Dillon, who is currently an adviser to Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, is not alone in this sentiment. Social media feeds reflect a rising trend of Democrats and those with left-leaning views announcing their exit from the platform. Among the notable figures who have left since the election are former CNN anchor Don Lemon, basketball superstar LeBron James, author Stephen King, actress Jamie Lee Curtis, and MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace.
However, the dilemma is more complex for Democratic lawmakers and strategists who, despite their discontent with X, rely on it to influence public opinion and secure electoral victories. This trend has ignited broader discussions within the liberal community about whether to isolate MAGA supporters or strive to engage and understand them.
The reasons behind these departures are varied and numerous.
“There’s no pretend at this point,” Dillon told me during a conversation about his choice to leave X. “This is a vehicle to support [Musk’s] political views and his candidates.” He expressed concerns about a decline in the quality of the platform, highlighting “trash ads and scammy replies and porn bots.” He also noted that a key function of the site, reaching out to journalists, has come under scrutiny due to potential privacy violations involving direct messages.
At the heart of Dillon's departure is Musk’s appropriation of the platform for his own political agenda.
Among a range of left-leaning insiders I spoke with, Dillon's views echoed many sentiments. Concerns regarding Musk's rollback of content moderation that once helped mitigate misinformation and bullying were common, with some researchers asserting that the platform is now favoring Trump.
Conversely, some believe that the decline in Democratic users over time is alarming and that the self-deplatforming of progressives could ultimately backfire.
“If we leave X, it will help Elon with his goal of making the platform void of any progressive ideology or the way we think about the world,” said Maxwell Frost, a young congressional representative from Florida, cautioning against allowing opponents to dominate the narrative.
Despite their motivations, many find the decision to quit X challenging. Dillon himself has posted several times since stepping away.
“Look, the posting habit dies hard,” he admitted. “One day at a time.”
For many, the primary motivation lies in the toxicity of the platform. Critiques of increased hate and hostility since Musk's acquisition in 2022 are prevalent. Those focused on vital discussions that could sway elections express frustration, arguing that it's become unmanageable — if not outright unpleasant — to engage meaningfully on X, leading them to forego significant audiences that many in their fields envy.
Bill McKibben, an environmentalist and co-founder of the advocacy group 350.org, announced his exit after 15 years on the platform, where he had amassed over 380,000 followers to promote climate action and support Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. “I mistrust the owner and his role in our public life, and things have grown sad and harsh,” he stated, sharing an example of a negative interaction that followed his post recommending John Coltrane.
In the days afterward, journalist James Fallows, a left-of-center writer for The Atlantic, also departed the platform. With over 179,000 followers, he documented what he saw as injustices during Trump’s first term. “I’m leaving what Musk hath wrought,” he stated, with New Republic staff writer Timothy Noah adding, “If you’re still on Elon Musk’s site you’re part of the problem,” citing Musk's influence in degrading public discourse.
The left-leaning news outlet The Guardian made a similar departure, labeling X as “toxic.”
For some, leaving X symbolizes an active step against Musk and his MAGA supporters, rather than just a rejection of negativity. Musk, with a net worth around $330 billion, wields significant influence across multiple industries, making the decision to abandon the platform a potential way to minimize his impact.
“Moving to Bluesky,” wrote Mark Green, former public advocate of New York City, in a note announcing his shift to a competing social network, closing with a comment regarding the upcoming “Trump-Musk Oligarchy.”
Tim Karr, senior director of strategy and communications for Free Press, a non-profit organization advocating for a diverse media landscape, highlighted an internal debate about remaining on X. He remarked that the trend of journalists migrating to Bluesky and the organization’s ethos, which champions a healthy media ecosystem, led to the decision to distance themselves from Musk’s platform. “The mere fact of posting means that you’re helping them make case for the return of advertisers,” Karr pointed out. Free Press announced its withdrawal from the platform on November 14, stating, “we refuse to give X any legitimacy.”
However, some Democratic staffers are skeptical of the impact of such a strategy. One staffer, who spoke anonymously, dismissed the idea of leaving X as pointless given its established role in the Washington landscape. “There’s really nothing to be gained,” the staffer said, questioning the efficacy of disengaging from a platform that, paradoxically, still struggles to profit.
In contrast, X views its changing demographics as a positive development, showcasing Pew Research Center data that indicates a near-equal partisan split among news consumers on the platform. CEO Linda Yaccarino emphasized, “More than any other platform, we represent the ENTIRE country!”
The platform's shift toward political balance drives some Democrats — especially those tasked with electoral success — to argue that the left must remain engaged, despite feeling increasingly uncomfortable. This perspective has gained traction following an election that left many party insiders pondering their disconnect with a substantial portion of the American electorate.
A former Biden administration official, speaking off the record due to their current role in tech, criticized those abandoning the platform, saying, “they’re replicating the same mistake we made. ... Too much of the Biden administration was talking to itself and not the broader country.” This source likened quitting X to a temporary relief that ultimately leads to detrimental consequences: “You can’t disengage,” they stated, “if you’re losing the popular vote.”
Though frustrations with Musk's leadership are prevalent, the primary argument remains that staying on X is essential for Democrats to remain relevant. Adam Kovacevich, a lobbying group CEO focused on garnering Democratic support within the tech sector, shared his distaste for recent changes but emphasized the necessity of communicating with broader audiences: “We have to recognize that if we’re only talking to ourselves, as Democrats we’re consigning ourselves to minority party status.”
Others note the importance of challenging conservative narratives directly within their space. Kurt Bardella, a former Republican staffer turned Democratic consultant, asserted the left needs to engage in these discussions to provide counter-narratives. He explained, “‘I don’t always agree with that guy, but he’s making some sense’ … that’s a win.”
Still, some on the left express conflicting sentiments. While giving up might seem politically shortsighted, others argue that X contributed significantly to the Democrats' disconnection from ordinary Americans in the first place.
“Leaving X because you don’t like Elon is the kind of purity politics that landed Democrats in this mess to begin with,” remarked one anonymous Democratic communications professional. They cautioned against a scenario where the party becomes more focused on ideological purity than on the working class issues they aim to advocate for.
This argument is further complicated by the diminishing presence of liberal voices on X, making it uncertain if those remaining can effectively leverage the platform amid changing user demographics.
As one source put it, reflecting on the complex relationship many have with X, “I love Twitter and also hate it. Kinda like how Gollum feels about the ring.”
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
